Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[Ray From Cleveland]

A fifteen dollar minimum wage will end pay inequity?

It will reduce pay inequality to that extent.

Social services pays out about fourteen dollars an hour by comparison.

There is no reason to subsidize the rich through underpayment of minimum wages.

We are not subsidizing the rich, we are subsidizing the poor. So we increase minimum wage, and instead of the lowlifes working 30 hours a week, they drop down to 20 hours a week to keep their benefits. What was accomplished except allowing the lowlife to work less hours?

Is the worker choosing to cut hours or the employer? Lots of companies use part time and temporary workers to avoid full time pay.

I think we need to get back to full time workers making significantly more than part time and welfare. That creates more pride and incentive to work.

It would have to be a hell of a lot more to make up for the government goodies loss.

So let's say you work in one of those liberal areas that took a huge minimum wage increase. Your new hourly wage is $7.50 more an hour than you used to make. But you are also getting $300.00 a month in food stamps.

Running the numbers, that means you would have to work 40 hours for free to break even on your food stamp loss. So not only do you lose your food stamps, but you work the first week of every month for nothing. Are you going to do that?

I think if the job climate improves it would be wise to cut back on welfare for those able to work.

I think it would be wise to do that anytime.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are some but they have a bigger obligation to the stockholders.

Most stock holders aren't paying they much attention to CEO pay. They would only notice if the stock really tanks.

Most board members have a vested interest in the companies that they sit. I'm not going to keep a CEO that is going to hurt the stocks. That's my money I'll lose.

But most board members are also CEO's and have a vested interest in CEO pay increasing. Things really have to go bad for a CEO to get a pay cut or be fired.

One recent study of C.E.O. tenure found that the percentage of forced turnover tripled between 1970 and 2006, and another study concluded that boards of directors now “aggressively fire C.E.O.s for poor industry-adjusted performance.” In addition, the average duration of a C.E.O.’s tenure has fallen. In 1984, thirty-five per cent of C.E.O.s had been in the job for ten years or more; in 2000, only fifteen per cent had. By 2009, according to one study, average tenure at the world’s biggest companies had fallen to around six years. (It has rebounded some since, because C.E.O.s are, naturally, less likely to be fired when corporate profits are healthy.)

Why C.E.O.s Are Getting Fired More

6 years at that pay is a fortune.

Remember now that is the average. That means there are CEO's who lose their job after a few years to CEO's that spend over a decade at their job. Those are probably the CEO's who are performing well. The CEO's who only last a few years are probably not performing so well.

The point is that this is not a cabal like your one source claims it is. CEO's get fired or pressured out of jobs all the time by (yes) the Board of Directors.

 

[Brain357]

It will reduce pay inequality to that extent.

Social services pays out about fourteen dollars an hour by comparison.

There is no reason to subsidize the rich through underpayment of minimum wages.

We are not subsidizing the rich, we are subsidizing the poor. So we increase minimum wage, and instead of the lowlifes working 30 hours a week, they drop down to 20 hours a week to keep their benefits. What was accomplished except allowing the lowlife to work less hours?

Is the worker choosing to cut hours or the employer? Lots of companies use part time and temporary workers to avoid full time pay.

I think we need to get back to full time workers making significantly more than part time and welfare. That creates more pride and incentive to work.

It would have to be a hell of a lot more to make up for the government goodies loss.

So let's say you work in one of those liberal areas that took a huge minimum wage increase. Your new hourly wage is $7.50 more an hour than you used to make. But you are also getting $300.00 a month in food stamps.

Running the numbers, that means you would have to work 40 hours for free to break even on your food stamp loss. So not only do you lose your food stamps, but you work the first week of every month for nothing. Are you going to do that?

I think if the job climate improves it would be wise to cut back on welfare for those able to work.

I think it would be wise to do that anytime.

That could certainly be its own thread. Last time I checked it appeared to leave you still quite poor, but I'd have to look at it. But if there are lots of jobs available with a good starting pay cuts to move people to jobs would be fine with me. I think the number of people who are ok with working little and collecting welfare goes down as more good jobs are available. If your neighbor has a job and has more stuff than you, you want a job too. If your neighbor is working hard and doesn't seem to go anywhere you remain content to work little and collect welfare.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is lots of evidence that too much inequality slows an economy:
Reducing income inequality would boost economic growth, according to new OECD analysis. This work finds that countries where income inequality is decreasing grow faster than those with rising inequality.

Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD

Well how does one reduce pay inequity?

Well we should put a stop to CEOs giving themselves constant raises I suppose. I'd also like to see corporate taxes used as an incentive to give raises.

So in other words, have government run everything. And you called me a Communist?

And how would a CEO making less help the little guy?

No, the government would run nothing. Because we have corporate taxes now, the government is running those companies? Seriously?

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone.

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone

How does giving the broom pusher a raise increase economic growth?

 

[regent]

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

I'm amused by your fixation with the pay of a CEO. General Electric has 333,000 employees...ONE CEO. Exxon/Mobil 73,500 employees...ONE CEO, formerly Rex Tillerson.

Is this all you have? Quit you're belly-achin'.

And the CEOs should be increasing worker pay with their own. That isn't happening however.

Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners

Sounds like you may be expecting life to be fair, and life is anything but fair.

its a fantasy ingrained in the liberal mind. That the government can make life fair.

Well government can sure make life more fair or less fair depending on the ideology of those running the government. Our government was formed with the idea of making life more fair than it was under kings, dictators and so forth. Our founders spent a summer working on a set of rules they hoped would fit into the age of enlightenment, and make a happier life for its citizens. But you're right it is ingrained in the liberal mind, and they keep working on the pursuit of happiness, and for all citizens.

 

[Brain357]

There is lots of evidence that too much inequality slows an economy:
Reducing income inequality would boost economic growth, according to new OECD analysis. This work finds that countries where income inequality is decreasing grow faster than those with rising inequality.

Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD

Well how does one reduce pay inequity?

Well we should put a stop to CEOs giving themselves constant raises I suppose. I'd also like to see corporate taxes used as an incentive to give raises.

So in other words, have government run everything. And you called me a Communist?

And how would a CEO making less help the little guy?

No, the government would run nothing. Because we have corporate taxes now, the government is running those companies? Seriously?

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone.

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone

How does giving the broom pusher a raise increase economic growth?

He now has more to spend.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well how does one reduce pay inequity?

Well we should put a stop to CEOs giving themselves constant raises I suppose. I'd also like to see corporate taxes used as an incentive to give raises.

So in other words, have government run everything. And you called me a Communist?

And how would a CEO making less help the little guy?

No, the government would run nothing. Because we have corporate taxes now, the government is running those companies? Seriously?

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone.

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone

How does giving the broom pusher a raise increase economic growth?

He now has more to spend.

And the company has less to spend.

 

[Brain357]

Well we should put a stop to CEOs giving themselves constant raises I suppose. I'd also like to see corporate taxes used as an incentive to give raises.

So in other words, have government run everything. And you called me a Communist?

And how would a CEO making less help the little guy?

No, the government would run nothing. Because we have corporate taxes now, the government is running those companies? Seriously?

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone.

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone

How does giving the broom pusher a raise increase economic growth?

He now has more to spend.

And the company has less to spend.

The company is spending on the worker. The worker can then spend more on other things.

 

[regent]

No one breaks the cycle of poverty because of government handouts. That's a concept liberals don't get.

Millions of people broke the cycle from the Great Depression to WWII, and it was Government programs that sustained them during that period.

 

[Rocko]

No one breaks the cycle of poverty because of government handouts. That's a concept liberals don't get.

Millions of people broke the cycle from the Great Depression to WWII, and it was Government programs that sustained them during that period.

So the plan is to sustain black people until when?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So in other words, have government run everything. And you called me a Communist?

And how would a CEO making less help the little guy?

No, the government would run nothing. Because we have corporate taxes now, the government is running those companies? Seriously?

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone.

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone

How does giving the broom pusher a raise increase economic growth?

He now has more to spend.

And the company has less to spend.

The company is spending on the worker. The worker can then spend more on other things.

Right. So how does that increase economic growth?

 

[Brain357]

No, the government would run nothing. Because we have corporate taxes now, the government is running those companies? Seriously?

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone.

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone

How does giving the broom pusher a raise increase economic growth?

He now has more to spend.

And the company has less to spend.

The company is spending on the worker. The worker can then spend more on other things.

Right. So how does that increase economic growth?

How Consumer Spending And Economic Growth Is Linked

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone

How does giving the broom pusher a raise increase economic growth?

He now has more to spend.

And the company has less to spend.

The company is spending on the worker. The worker can then spend more on other things.

Right. So how does that increase economic growth?

How Consumer Spending And Economic Growth Is Linked

Thanks!

GDP = C + I + G + NX

C = Consumer spending

I = Business investments

G = Government spending

NX = Net exports

So the broom pusher has an extra $3000 to add to consumer spending.
The company has $3000 less which subtracts from business investments.

How has your plan increased economic growth?

 

[Brain357]

He now has more to spend.

And the company has less to spend.

The company is spending on the worker. The worker can then spend more on other things.

Right. So how does that increase economic growth?

How Consumer Spending And Economic Growth Is Linked

Thanks!

GDP = C + I + G + NX

C = Consumer spending

I = Business investments

G = Government spending

NX = Net exports

So the broom pusher has an extra $3000 to add to consumer spending.
The company has $3000 less which subtracts from business investments.

How has your plan increased economic growth?

If paying little so that the business keeps more was going to grow the economy, we would already have huge growth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the company has less to spend.

The company is spending on the worker. The worker can then spend more on other things.

Right. So how does that increase economic growth?

How Consumer Spending And Economic Growth Is Linked

Thanks!

GDP = C + I + G + NX

C = Consumer spending

I = Business investments

G = Government spending

NX = Net exports

So the broom pusher has an extra $3000 to add to consumer spending.
The company has $3000 less which subtracts from business investments.

How has your plan increased economic growth?

If paying little so that the business keeps more was going to grow the economy, we would already have huge growth.

So your plan doesn't increase economic growth?
Thanks for admitting your error.

 

[danielpalos]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.

What happens to all other wages increase an equal percentage above the $15.00? What happens to the worker, now being given $15.00 per hour, in two or five years when they are back on the bottom of the pay schedule and everything that was unaffordable before, is unaffordable again and they need food stamps, etc.?

Inflation happens; in the mean time, there is less "pay inequality" and our minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.

What happens to all other wages increase an equal percentage above the $15.00? What happens to the worker, now being given $15.00 per hour, in two or five years when they are back on the bottom of the pay schedule and everything that was unaffordable before, is unaffordable again and they need food stamps, etc.?

Inflation happens; in the mean time, there is less "pay inequality" and our minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.

That "mean time" could be months, could be days.

does it matter? inflation happens, regardless.

Point being, you would end up back where you started. Then you'd be asking for $20/hour, then $30/hour. If you don't want to improve your skills you don't move up the ladder.

That happens already; any thing else, or do you only have diversion?

 

[Brain357]

The company is spending on the worker. The worker can then spend more on other things.

Right. So how does that increase economic growth?

How Consumer Spending And Economic Growth Is Linked

Thanks!

GDP = C + I + G + NX

C = Consumer spending

I = Business investments

G = Government spending

NX = Net exports

So the broom pusher has an extra $3000 to add to consumer spending.
The company has $3000 less which subtracts from business investments.

How has your plan increased economic growth?

If paying little so that the business keeps more was going to grow the economy, we would already have huge growth.

So your plan doesn't increase economic growth?
Thanks for admitting your error.

The wage increases are pretty much guaranteed to increase consumer spending in the US. The business investment may be international which will help another countries economy far more than ours.

 

[danielpalos]

Inflation happens; in the mean time, there is less "pay inequality" and our minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.

As you hopefully know, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with inflation.

You're dodging the question. Why?

why not? some Persons on the right wing, soothsay and hearsay, fantastical forms of price inflation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right. So how does that increase economic growth?

How Consumer Spending And Economic Growth Is Linked

Thanks!

GDP = C + I + G + NX

C = Consumer spending

I = Business investments

G = Government spending

NX = Net exports

So the broom pusher has an extra $3000 to add to consumer spending.
The company has $3000 less which subtracts from business investments.

How has your plan increased economic growth?

If paying little so that the business keeps more was going to grow the economy, we would already have huge growth.

So your plan doesn't increase economic growth?
Thanks for admitting your error.

The wage increases are pretty much guaranteed to increase consumer spending in the US. The business investment may be international which will help another countries economy far more than ours.

The wage increases are pretty much guaranteed to increase consumer spending in the US.

And decrease business investment.

The business investment may be international

Especially if we mandate much higher wages for unskilled labor.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't know what socialism is. The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I do know what socialism is. Why do you think I don't?

Nothing but diversion, because you have such knowledge?

The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I never said differently, you are obviously unable to comprehend the English language, I hope you one day master it.

lol. nothing but diversion? A mixed-market economy is part socialism and part capitalism.

Again, did I say differently? You seem to have comprehension issues claiming diversion when there is none as I agreed with you, yet my agreeing with you is considered a diversion.

we have a general welfare clause, to solve all of our problems.