clt says people should be paid what they are able to earn.
It really should be what the job demands. It is hard for McDonaldâs to raise their wages when the get applications daily who will work for $7.50. My job takes skill, knowledge, and experience. Therefore, the company must pay an increased wage to attract people for that job. Otherwise that talent goes elsewhere.
It really should be what the job demands. It is hard for McDonaldâs to raise their wages when the get applications daily who will work for $7.50. My job takes skill, knowledge, and experience. Therefore, the company must pay an increased wage to attract people for that job. Otherwise that talent goes elsewhere.[/quote]
Very good point. In 2005 I went to Oregon with Wachovia to open a new contact center. They were prepared to pay around 21k for customer service folks. They got there and the people were putting 18 and 19k as their min acceptable level - so guess what the bank did?
[quote=âninerID, post:60, topic:29556â]$15 an hour is about the pay of a pharmacy tech or brick mason. $15 an hour over a 40 hour work week at 52 weeks is about the salary of a school teacher with a 4 year degree in the south with some experience.
Itâs laughable that the bare minimum skilled employee is worth the same.[/quote]
I think what is laughable is that teachers are making the equivalent to $15 an hour.
Minimum wage hikes is the next thing that sounds good on paper, but will suck for most if not all of us.[/quote]
Iâd like to point out that the belief that a raise in the minimum wage actually harms economic growth and middle class families has been largely debunked by most peered reviewed journals the past 15 years. Much like trickle down economics, this is a vestige of a particular economic theory of the 80âs. It just doesnt bear out in the reality of local municipalities that have taken it upon themselves to raise the minimum wage.[/quote]
I think the question is though what is the impact if you double it nationwide. When it is being raised locally and the impact is muted that is one thing. So this one area may pay their servers 2 dollars more an hour, but their suppliers are still paying the lower wage. The local owner can either higher one less person or simply take less money themselves or a national owner can deal with it because it is a small portion of their business. If however everyone accross the nation was suddenly paying $15 an hour what is the impact of that? Will every company simply take a loss? Will they raise prices to offset their increased costs - since at most companies labor is the highest cost associate with the business? The fact is if you increase your costs the money has to come from somewhere. You say it wonât have an impact - so what is your story on where the money comes from?
Also important to note we already have lost many low pay manufacturing jobs over seas. Those jobs are finally starting to return because it is evening out over seas with a growing middle class and expecations in those countries. 20 years of US manufacturing over seas has elevated social classes there. Would increasing the minimum wage here stop the reshoring that is happening? Might not be a big deal since the stats say over half of the min wage earners are in service industries, but still important to consider.
Lastly - and I mention this before. At $15 an hour those with out a HS diploma are now close to a first year teacher. In fact by hours worked they would make more than a teacher since a typical teacher puts in more than 40 hours. I have a serious problem with this and I donât trust the government to take any increased revenue to pay a teacher more. Not to mention that at $15 an hour you start hitting a pay grade of many entry level jobs where a college degree is expected. I am not even going to go into if I have worked at a resteraunt for 2 years and worked myself to be rewarded with making $2 more an hour and then the new guys comes in and we are both making the same amount? So the business owner now has to increase the starter to $15 and me to $17?
Like many things I think it sounds great until you start thinking about impact. I do think it needs to be raised and I think it needs to be raised every 2 years so that it stays with inflation and companies can plan for it. I donât think raising minumum wage to $15 dollars makes any sense.[/quote]
The real issue is that the debate is really peanuts. All the money tied to the top and the money from the printing press that doesnât trickle down will never reach the folks fighting over the peanuts. Until the top takes a cut, the lower and middle classes will continue to struggle.
Also we really need to understand that our strong middle class established post WWII was more of a function of no overseas competition because the other developed economies were in shambles.
Minimum wage hikes is the next thing that sounds good on paper, but will suck for most if not all of us.[/quote]
Iâd like to point out that the belief that a raise in the minimum wage actually harms economic growth and middle class families has been largely debunked by most peered reviewed journals the past 15 years. Much like trickle down economics, this is a vestige of a particular economic theory of the 80âs. It just doesnt bear out in the reality of local municipalities that have taken it upon themselves to raise the minimum wage.[/quote]
I think the question is though what is the impact if you double it nationwide. When it is being raised locally and the impact is muted that is one thing. So this one area may pay their servers 2 dollars more an hour, but their suppliers are still paying the lower wage. The local owner can either higher one less person or simply take less money themselves or a national owner can deal with it because it is a small portion of their business. If however everyone accross the nation was suddenly paying $15 an hour what is the impact of that? Will every company simply take a loss? Will they raise prices to offset their increased costs - since at most companies labor is the highest cost associate with the business? The fact is if you increase your costs the money has to come from somewhere. You say it wonât have an impact - so what is your story on where the money comes from?
Also important to note we already have lost many low pay manufacturing jobs over seas. Those jobs are finally starting to return because it is evening out over seas with a growing middle class and expecations in those countries. 20 years of US manufacturing over seas has elevated social classes there. Would increasing the minimum wage here stop the reshoring that is happening? Might not be a big deal since the stats say over half of the min wage earners are in service industries, but still important to consider.
Lastly - and I mention this before. At $15 an hour those with out a HS diploma are now close to a first year teacher. In fact by hours worked they would make more than a teacher since a typical teacher puts in more than 40 hours. I have a serious problem with this and I donât trust the government to take any increased revenue to pay a teacher more. Not to mention that at $15 an hour you start hitting a pay grade of many entry level jobs where a college degree is expected. I am not even going to go into if I have worked at a resteraunt for 2 years and worked myself to be rewarded with making $2 more an hour and then the new guys comes in and we are both making the same amount? So the business owner now has to increase the starter to $15 and me to $17?
Like many things I think it sounds great until you start thinking about impact. I do think it needs to be raised and I think it needs to be raised every 2 years so that it stays with inflation and companies can plan for it. I donât think raising minumum wage to $15 dollars makes any sense.[/quote]
The real issue is that the debate is really peanuts. All the money tied to the top and the money from the printing press that doesnât trickle down will never reach the folks fighting over the peanuts. Until the top takes a cut, the lower and middle classes will continue to struggle.
Also we really need to understand that our strong middle class established post WWII was more of a function of no overseas competition because the other developed economies were in shambles.[/quote]
Agree on the income disparity. Id like to see us stop treating income differently based on source. Income is income. I donât care where it comes from. If they would make that change the effective rates of the top earners would fall in line. I would also wipe our nearly all deductions - except maybe children and possible primary mortgage. Those really help the middle class. That is why when everyone gets caught up in tax rates it doesnt make sense. The effective rates are far more important to solving this issue and that only happens when you start changing the system. That isnt something republicans or democrats are interested in doing.
It really should be what the job demands. It is hard for McDonaldâs to raise their wages when the get applications daily who will work for $7.50. My job takes skill, knowledge, and experience. Therefore, the company must pay an increased wage to attract people for that job. Otherwise that talent goes elsewhere.[/quote]
This has gotten way awy from the division of employee compensation. Unless you are implying that the 300x executive compensation ratio is ânecessaryâ, without any support, other than compensation committees, which have already been debunked.
None of my original post dealt with minimum wage. Thatâs a red herring.
I havenât read all of this thread because it looked boring, but it seems to me that minimum wage workers today think they are competing against high-level workers for pay. They are not. They are competing against third-world nations, third-world workers here, and automation. Raising their wages by a substantial amount is only going to give these other options a bigger competitive advantage. This is not just an economic theoryâask textile workers, ask furniture workers. Nobody should have to try and raise a family on a minimum wage income, but the answer is climbing the ladder, not knocking the bottom rungs off.
Minimum wage hikes is the next thing that sounds good on paper, but will suck for most if not all of us.[/quote]
Iâd like to point out that the belief that a raise in the minimum wage actually harms economic growth and middle class families has been largely debunked by most peered reviewed journals the past 15 years. Much like trickle down economics, this is a vestige of a particular economic theory of the 80âs. It just doesnt bear out in the reality of local municipalities that have taken it upon themselves to raise the minimum wage.[/quote]
If the minimum wage jumped to $15/hour you are not jumping it for just those making minimum wage. You are jumping it for those making minimum wage up to $15/hour. This will affect every consumer good on the market, including those manufactured abroad. Yes they are made there, but those goods come to a US port, then to a US train, ship, or truck. It is warehoused in a Distribution Center where it is moved and managed by fork truck drivers and possibly case pick staff. It is then moved again by truck to the store where workers off load it and place it on shelves.
When raising minimum wage on the national level, just think about the supply chain for the products made abroad. Now go even deeper in the supply chain for manufactured goods down to the raw material level. Inflation is calculated by looking at the cost of goods for particular products and averaging out the increase rate. I donât see how any of those products wouldnât see a substantial jump with doubling the minimum wage. A slower, stepped approach balancing the economic impact would be preferred by me.
This thread is not about minimum wage. Its about a CEO who reduced his pay so that middle salary workers ($48k) would be able to enjoy more financial security($70k). It has nothing to do with minimum wage laws. Nothing.
No but it is about the top levels of leadership taking less and sharing with the rest - which is at least partially about minimum wage. I dont see how you can have a talk about CEO pay and not include those at the very bottom of the chain. Unless we want to only talk about this CEO at this company - in which case the thread would have ended page ago.
It really should be what the job demands. It is hard for McDonaldâs to raise their wages when the get applications daily who will work for $7.50. My job takes skill, knowledge, and experience. Therefore, the company must pay an increased wage to attract people for that job. Otherwise that talent goes elsewhere.[/quote]
This has gotten way awy from the division of employee compensation. Unless you are implying that the 300x executive compensation ratio is ânecessaryâ, without any support, other than compensation committees, which have already been debunked.
None of my original post dealt with minimum wage. Thatâs a red herring.[/quote]
The executive compensation is driven on competition. One day many years ago company A decided to steal an executive from company B by paying the executive a higher salary. It just escalated from there. Look at NFL salaries and how the compensation is factored. It is no difference.
The same thing happens with giving companies money to move to city A versus city B. Companies look at how much money they can save through incentives like lower taxes and money for hiring X number of employees.
It all boils down to supply and demand. The supply of high quality proven executives is low whereas the supply of someone who can take your order at McDonaldâs is high.
Financial security does not come solely out of giving someone more money. Go ask the Ferrari dealer who pays for a $250,000 car with cash. It is the lottery winners. Wealthy people know that they can pay 4% interest to the bank while investing their money and earning 12%. They get the extra 8% plus the car. You must teach a man to fish versus giving him the fish.
Minimum wage hikes is the next thing that sounds good on paper, but will suck for most if not all of us.[/quote][/quote]
Iâd like to point out that the belief that a raise in the minimum wage actually harms economic growth and middle class families has been largely debunked by most peered reviewed journals the past 15 years. Much like trickle down economics, this is a vestige of a particular economic theory of the 80âs. It just doesnt bear out in the reality of local municipalities that have taken it upon themselves to raise the minimum wage.[/quote]
If the minimum wage jumped to $15/hour you are not jumping it for just those making minimum wage. You are jumping it for those making minimum wage up to $15/hour. This will affect every consumer good on the market, including those manufactured abroad. Yes they are made there, but those goods come to a US port, then to a US train, ship, or truck. It is warehoused in a Distribution Center where it is moved and managed by fork truck drivers and possibly case pick staff. It is then moved again by truck to the store where workers off load it and place it on shelves.
When raising minimum wage on the national level, just think about the supply chain for the products made abroad. Now go even deeper in the supply chain for manufactured goods down to the raw material level. Inflation is calculated by looking at the cost of goods for particular products and averaging out the increase rate. I donât see how any of those products wouldnât see a substantial jump with doubling the minimum wage. A slower, stepped approach balancing the economic impact would be preferred by me.
Yeah, I think the concept is that someone making $7.50/hr doubles their salary. This creates a 100% increase in the labor portion of cost of good sold. Same thing for someone making $10 an hour, they go to $15 and it is a 50% increase in the labor portion of cost of goods sold. Somewhere is the aggregate increase in the price of cost of goods sold, letâs say 35% for a made up number. In order to maintain profit margins, the price of all the goods affected by the labor cost increase has to go up as well. Now, that pair of jeans you bought at Belk are 35% more expensive.
You make $50,000 a year, but the price of your jeans, and everything else has gone up by 35% (again, made up number for sake of illustration). Do you believe that because wages have increased at the bottom, that you will receive a 35% increase? Unless middle and upper middle income earners receive increases to offest the higher price of goods and services, while you are doing a benefit at least initially to the low earners, you are causing long-term harm because the market is way too slow to adjust everyone else because minimum wage went up.
Also, just food for though, what about the technician whoâs been at a company for 15 years and just got to $18/hr. Minimum wage goes to $15, so new jack down the corridor who was making minimum wage is now making $15. Do you think that senior technician is going to get a 100% raise to make his pay, relative to the new guy, the same as it was before? If he doesnât get a corresponding raise, does he feel cheated?
Also, if you assume that it will trickle up, and everyone gets raises proportional with the increased cost of goods and services on the market due to the increase from the bottom, are the minimum wage workers who got the increase now in any better position? You have increased the dollars, but essentially you just moved the whole scale, leaving them with the same respective buying power they had before.
Iâll add that whatever newer data or studies have come out, how could they possibly be more than hypothesis? We havenât seen systematic, nationwide, high percentage increases in the minimum wage, so how could we know the actual effect?
Minimum wage hikes is the next thing that sounds good on paper, but will suck for most if not all of us.[/quote][/quote]
Iâd like to point out that the belief that a raise in the minimum wage actually harms economic growth and middle class families has been largely debunked by most peered reviewed journals the past 15 years. Much like trickle down economics, this is a vestige of a particular economic theory of the 80âs. It just doesnt bear out in the reality of local municipalities that have taken it upon themselves to raise the minimum wage.[/quote]
If the minimum wage jumped to $15/hour you are not jumping it for just those making minimum wage. You are jumping it for those making minimum wage up to $15/hour. This will affect every consumer good on the market, including those manufactured abroad. Yes they are made there, but those goods come to a US port, then to a US train, ship, or truck. It is warehoused in a Distribution Center where it is moved and managed by fork truck drivers and possibly case pick staff. It is then moved again by truck to the store where workers off load it and place it on shelves.
When raising minimum wage on the national level, just think about the supply chain for the products made abroad. Now go even deeper in the supply chain for manufactured goods down to the raw material level. Inflation is calculated by looking at the cost of goods for particular products and averaging out the increase rate. I donât see how any of those products wouldnât see a substantial jump with doubling the minimum wage. A slower, stepped approach balancing the economic impact would be preferred by me.
Yeah, I think the concept is that someone making $7.50/hr doubles their salary. This creates a 100% increase in the labor portion of cost of good sold. Same thing for someone making $10 an hour, they go to $15 and it is a 50% increase in the labor portion of cost of goods sold. Somewhere is the aggregate increase in the price of cost of goods sold, letâs say 35% for a made up number. In order to maintain profit margins, the price of all the goods affected by the labor cost increase has to go up as well. Now, that pair of jeans you bought at Belk are 35% more expensive.
You make $50,000 a year, but the price of your jeans, and everything else has gone up by 35% (again, made up number for sake of illustration). Do you believe that because wages have increased at the bottom, that you will receive a 35% increase? Unless middle and upper middle income earners receive increases to offest the higher price of goods and services, while you are doing a benefit at least initially to the low earners, you are causing long-term harm because the market is way too slow to adjust everyone else because minimum wage went up.
Also, just food for though, what about the technician whoâs been at a company for 15 years and just got to $18/hr. Minimum wage goes to $15, so new jack down the corridor who was making minimum wage is now making $15. Do you think that senior technician is going to get a 100% raise to make his pay, relative to the new guy, the same as it was before? If he doesnât get a corresponding raise, does he feel cheated?
Also, if you assume that it will trickle up, and everyone gets raises proportional with the increased cost of goods and services on the market due to the increase from the bottom, are the minimum wage workers who got the increase now in any better position? You have increased the dollars, but essentially you just moved the whole scale, leaving them with the same respective buying power they had before.
Iâll add that whatever newer data or studies have come out, how could they possibly be more than hypothesis? We havenât seen systematic, nationwide, high percentage increases in the minimum wage, so how could we know the actual effect?[/quote]
This - what I was saying but better articulated.
It really should be what the job demands. It is hard for McDonaldâs to raise their wages when the get applications daily who will work for $7.50. My job takes skill, knowledge, and experience. Therefore, the company must pay an increased wage to attract people for that job. Otherwise that talent goes elsewhere.[/quote]
This has gotten way awy from the division of employee compensation. Unless you are implying that the 300x executive compensation ratio is ânecessaryâ, without any support, other than compensation committees, which have already been debunked.
None of my original post dealt with minimum wage. Thatâs a red herring.[/quote]
The executive compensation is driven on competition. One day many years ago company A decided to steal an executive from company B by paying the executive a higher salary. It just escalated from there. Look at NFL salaries and how the compensation is factored. It is no difference.
The same thing happens with giving companies money to move to city A versus city B. Companies look at how much money they can save through incentives like lower taxes and money for hiring X number of employees.
It all boils down to supply and demand. The supply of high quality proven executives is low whereas the supply of someone who can take your order at McDonaldâs is high. [/quote]But the supply of those who can get your order right is tiny.
It really should be what the job demands. It is hard for McDonaldâs to raise their wages when the get applications daily who will work for $7.50. My job takes skill, knowledge, and experience. Therefore, the company must pay an increased wage to attract people for that job. Otherwise that talent goes elsewhere.[/quote]
This has gotten way awy from the division of employee compensation. Unless you are implying that the 300x executive compensation ratio is ânecessaryâ, without any support, other than compensation committees, which have already been debunked.
None of my original post dealt with minimum wage. Thatâs a red herring.[/quote]
The executive compensation is driven on competition. One day many years ago company A decided to steal an executive from company B by paying the executive a higher salary. It just escalated from there. Look at NFL salaries and how the compensation is factored. It is no difference.
The same thing happens with giving companies money to move to city A versus city B. Companies look at how much money they can save through incentives like lower taxes and money for hiring X number of employees.
It all boils down to supply and demand. The supply of high quality proven executives is low whereas the supply of someone who can take your order at McDonaldâs is high. [/quote]But the supply of those who can get your order right is tiny.[/quote]
Donât think I wasnât thinking that when I wrote it. lol.
Financial security does not come solely out of giving someone more money. Go ask the Ferrari dealer who pays for a $250,000 car with cash. It is the lottery winners. Wealthy people know that they can pay 4% interest to the bank while investing their money and earning 12%. They get the extra 8% plus the car. You must teach a man to fish versus giving him the fish.[/quote]
We have already covered this aspect. Money management is important. So is career training. Youâre covering ground thatâs already been plowed in an attempt to give a sermon.
Again, I salute this guyâs altruism, and his desire to live to his conscience and act on a small scale to affect the larger scale.
Let me just say, that I do not believe in redistribution of wealth generally.
That said, we have very unfair tax rules for the wealthiest Americans as well as rules designed to keep wealth within families, such that people who did nothing to earn it have a significant leg up on hard working Americans.
Truthfully, I think the answer is not raising minimum wage and watching trickle effects. I think the answer has to be re-evaluating our business models and ethics, ensuring that employees are compensated fairly, re-examining how we compensate top level executives (not just CEOs), and probably most importantly, the concept that everything should be done for the short term benefit of the shareholders.
Our system emphatically rewards risky behavior with huge bonuses and other incentives when it creates short term gains, but does nothing to punish those who ultimately bring economic havoc upon our companies and this country. Up until the 1980s, I think most companies at least had some idea that they had a duty to their employees and the american people. This is no longer the case. Special interests have infiltrated US economics, and that combined with Citizens United has created a government under the heavy, heavy influence of a handful of super rich. Until we can figure out how to break the holds of an aristocracy / oligopoly, we will continue to trend in the direction we are headed.
Yep