http://universalfreepress.com/the-r...m-wage-hike-deserve-a-big-fat-we-told-you-so/
lol "you run out of other peoples money"
The Results of a Seattle Suburb’s Minimum Wage Hike
- Thread starter morfeeis
- Start date
http://universalfreepress.com/the-r...m-wage-hike-deserve-a-big-fat-we-told-you-so/
lol "you run out of other peoples money"
None of this is surprising. Notice how it was always the lowly-paid employees who always protested for higher minimum wage when they know nothing of the economics of it. Business owners were just lying because they are greedy. Such is the perspective of people who pretend to know of s*** above their pay grade.
There was that other thread which brought up $15/hr. But no surprise at what's happening. Many people in that thread thought the same thing. You can't just hike up min wage from let's say $8 or 10/hr to $15 just like that and expect everything to be the same as before. Can guys like Walmart and McDonald's afford it? Probably. Can small company X afford it? Maybe.
And that's the reason why so many people got swept up in it. They are targeting the big cheeses at the top of the pyramid which is a bad comparison because 99% of businesses are not billion dollar WM and McD. Two places which also have a bad image, so people got on their case.
Notice how none of these $15 protests ever bring up that small local company run by a family? Guess what? If law takes effect, they get lumped into the wage hike like WM and McD. But whether they can afford it is sketchy.
Too many narrow focused people with zero business sense got caught up in it with the big winners probably lawyers and whomever runs the global protests. There's got to be some money in there somewhere.
Heck, I want part of the action and we'll see how things go if I protest to management at work that all office workers should get an extra $10,000 no strings attached. And we'll see how that flies.
On paper, it sounds all hunky dory to give some people on the low end of the pay scale a boost, but things are rarely in a vaccuum. It's a domino effect.
From the article above, there are numerous other links in it...
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articl...ashing-benefits-overtime-in-wake-of-wage-hike
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/seattle’s-15-minimum-wage-not-effect-already-killing-jobs
http://kuow.org/post/minimum-wage-limbo-keeps-small-business-owners-night
And that's the reason why so many people got swept up in it. They are targeting the big cheeses at the top of the pyramid which is a bad comparison because 99% of businesses are not billion dollar WM and McD. Two places which also have a bad image, so people got on their case.
Notice how none of these $15 protests ever bring up that small local company run by a family? Guess what? If law takes effect, they get lumped into the wage hike like WM and McD. But whether they can afford it is sketchy.
Too many narrow focused people with zero business sense got caught up in it with the big winners probably lawyers and whomever runs the global protests. There's got to be some money in there somewhere.
Heck, I want part of the action and we'll see how things go if I protest to management at work that all office workers should get an extra $10,000 no strings attached. And we'll see how that flies.
On paper, it sounds all hunky dory to give some people on the low end of the pay scale a boost, but things are rarely in a vaccuum. It's a domino effect.
From the article above, there are numerous other links in it...
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articl...ashing-benefits-overtime-in-wake-of-wage-hike
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/seattle’s-15-minimum-wage-not-effect-already-killing-jobs
http://kuow.org/post/minimum-wage-limbo-keeps-small-business-owners-night
Last edited:
For all the poor performing min wage workers hoping to get a free ride to Station $15, the conductor just said get out now.
You don't think business owners are greedy? Don't get me wrong the requested minimum wage hike is quite high but to think that CEO's and the like don't make too much money I find hilarious.
The people advocating $15/hr have zero clue of economics. I remember some articles saying that if McDonald's got hit with it, they'd have to raise the price of burgers 60 cents or something.
Again, McDonald's is probably the last place (along with Walmart) to be justifying wage hikes. They are the biggest and richest corporations in their retailer and fast food industries. They have billion dollar profits and balance sheets. They can absorb it somehow.
Yet none of the advocates ever bothered trying to justify it against small normal businesses that aren't in the billion dollar tier.
So for greediness, the $15/hr protesters can be blamed just as much for pushing a wage hike, yet only focusing on the biggest businesses. Talk about being narrow focused.
My first real job was being a bag boy at Winn-Dixie, my starting pay was $3.40 an hour, after 3 months I got a raise to $3.80 an hour, that was 24 years ago. So in 24 years minimum wage has only increased $3.45, that's freaking straight up robbery. $15 per hour might be a little much, but I certainly believe the minimum wage should be enough for a full time employee to live on without having to have 2-3 jobs just to survive. Then you have companies that require their entry level employees to atleast have a high school diploma or G.E.D. Ive had several factory jobs like this, and the work I was required to do could probably be done by a monkey, but they want that diploma for God knows why. It pisses me off hearing these rich f**ks complain because they cant pay their employees slave wages. Too f**king scared that they might have to give up some of their luxery so their poverty level employees don't have to work 80 hours a week just to provide for their families.
The only thing this means is these rich a******s would rather make their employees work harder, take away their employees benefits, and charge their customers more instead of taking a hit on their own income. The economy prospers when money is being spent, it doesn't matter wether its the rich spending, middle class spending, or the poor spending.
Doing some math, if the min wage increased $3.45 from your latest pay back then of $3.80 to $7.25, that's an increase of 90% over 24 years.
Compounded, that's an annual increase of 2.7% a year which is in the ballpark of US inflation over the past 24 years. Actually, using this tool, the current value of something $3.80 in 1990 converted to now is actually $6.92 which is close to the min wage change. $7.25 is actually a tad more.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
No doubt trying to live on min wage is basically impossible, but what also hurts low wage people is the temptation for perks like cell phones, fancy tvs and low and behold video games. And branding has never been stronger. It's never been worse than endless brands selling high priced clothes, shoes, cable tv packages etc.... It was never this bad in the 80s and 90s.
Also, the urge to spend since it seems credit cards are rampant and every big store, small store and sketchy gas station has loyalty cards enticing people to buy more and more. Points cards, loyalty cards, store cards you name it. Again, this stuff really picked up probably in the late 90s. Again, it was never this bad decades ago.
Add that all up and unfortunately, you're going to have a segment of the population (low or high wage earners) blowing their dough and spending way more than they should. Just because Mastercard gives you a $25,000 credit card in the mail doesn't mean you can afford to spend $25,000. A poor person should maybe only spend $200 on credit each month, but some will spend $2,000.
Bad ethics by companies? Or dumb spend-a-holic consumers? Probably both. But it's up to the consumer to use their noggin and not do it. I got something like $50,000 or $70,000 (I forget) line of credit sitting there at prime +2%. I don't need it, but have it for emergencies. 99% of people in my shoes won't touch it. But then you'll have that 1% maxing it out and buying a Lexus because it's there and they are living pay cheque to pay cheque.
Last edited:
That's probably true. Most businesses will try to conserve profits by cutting costs as opposed to pissing off customers by rising prices in hopes the same number of people buy stuff from them as before..... not likely unless every place magically raises prices at the same time..... which they won't. Big businesses can hold pat longer than smaller businesses and play the waiting game.
Most businesses lose money, especially those small time businesses. I wouldn't surprised one bit if Walmart, McDonald's and Domino's Pizza could afford it. But what about all those small businesses?
If prices do go up, and/or less quality service is delivered, then I would think that's ample opportunity for any kind of business to make money and try and carve themselves a niche. I'm not saying $15 for mininum wage is the answer, but the economy won't exactly flourish from it's current state either. There has to be some kind of give and most likely the country will survive as a result. The apocalyptic scenario has always been the biggest excuse for something like this in the past, but each time we survive, prosper, and move forward.
Everyone is going to make adjustments with a minimum wage increase. Larger corporations like McDonalds and Dominos Pizza would be able to afford a wage increase for their current owned stores, but they would probably end up losing a number of their franchised locations as the franchise owner will have a more difficult time dealing with the huge licensing fees the corporation charges AND a (up to double) labor increase. Less franchised locations means less revenue coming to the corporate sector. That could mean less money to invest in other expenditures, less expansion, simpler menus, etc. Remember that large corporations still have stockholders to pay dividends to, and the investment needs to keep going to ensure their survival.
Small businesses will survive. Historically, minimum wage laws only apply to businesses that gross more than $XXX,XXX. The rules normally wouldn't apply to them if they are under. With that being said, they'll likely make needed changes in order to survive, less staff, new business models, yadda yadda.
You just said the magic word. Less Stuff. Whats the unemployment rate in USA?
Double edge sword. In one end, some people on Min Wage get better wage, others lose jobs, or cannot find job.
In any case, a jump from $8-10 to $15, which is like 50% hike or more is ridiculous. AT the minimum, have the wages increased at more manageable pace until it reaches $15 in some years time.
If business did not think of replacing workers with machine or computer, or stuff more work for existing stuff, or worst, shifted to a cheaper place, like China, Vietnam, mexico etc, they will now.
Double edge sword. In one end, some people on Min Wage get better wage, others lose jobs, or cannot find job.
In any case, a jump from $8-10 to $15, which is like 50% hike or more is ridiculous. AT the minimum, have the wages increased at more manageable pace until it reaches $15 in some years time.
If business did not think of replacing workers with machine or computer, or stuff more work for existing stuff, or worst, shifted to a cheaper place, like China, Vietnam, mexico etc, they will now.
Last edited:
I believe our unemployment rate is hovering around 6 percent.
The increase will happen over time, let us not be silly here. A sudden spike in labor wages would likely create a local recession. I believe the minimum wage is supposed to rise gradually until it reaches $15.
Many minimum wage jobs are service industry jobs. You cannot really outsource them without alienating your most important stakeholder (your customer). Automation would be the next step, but it also can only go so far.
Jobs like Walmart and Target aren't going anywhere. They already keep skeleton crews and only keep a handful of full timers on payroll for each of their stores already. A wage increase wouldn't change much with their staffing models. Corporations like McDonalds, Subway, and Domino's might have to rethink their franchising strategy though.
The increase will happen over time, let us not be silly here. A sudden spike in labor wages would likely create a local recession. I believe the minimum wage is supposed to rise gradually until it reaches $15.
Many minimum wage jobs are service industry jobs. You cannot really outsource them without alienating your most important stakeholder (your customer). Automation would be the next step, but it also can only go so far.
Jobs like Walmart and Target aren't going anywhere. They already keep skeleton crews and only keep a handful of full timers on payroll for each of their stores already. A wage increase wouldn't change much with their staffing models. Corporations like McDonalds, Subway, and Domino's might have to rethink their franchising strategy though.
thanks for this putting this into perspective. the minimum wage rate has not moved for well over 10 years while the rate of inflation has. It easy to say the immediate results of a wage hike is devastating to all businesses (of course the 1%rs; and their conservative lap dogs will say that this will lead to outsourcing) but over time all min. wage hikes were greeted with the same hyperbole and nothing significant happened economically devastating. the middle class is dissolving faster than a Icelandic tundra these days and proactive measures are needed..
So, we should continue with trickle down retardation conservatives believe in while all the money is "trickled down" into india and china. gotcha.
While this experiment may end in failure, something needs to be done. This trickle down bulls*** needs to die. It's killing the country.
Here is a fantastic article to read.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ng-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U7jwVpUg_IX
Last edited:
I think distribution of income is an issue in USA.
Some of the top people, like the CEO (some with private jets travels, etc paid by the company) are getting way too much money compare to the bottom people.
I am not saying people should start becoming like communist countries (of the old days), but its something that can help the bottom line alot.
There is not significant impact on lifestyle of a CEO from 2 million a year to 1,5 million, but that 500,000 million distributed to the say 1000 workers, each getting an extra $500, can make a difference to 1000 people!
On a side note, The Northern European countries (Like Denmark, Finland) have been voted best places to live & people are most happy etc, & I think the distribution of wealth have something to do with it. Even the 'low wages' people can have a decent living, education, healthcare.
Some of the top people, like the CEO (some with private jets travels, etc paid by the company) are getting way too much money compare to the bottom people.
I am not saying people should start becoming like communist countries (of the old days), but its something that can help the bottom line alot.
There is not significant impact on lifestyle of a CEO from 2 million a year to 1,5 million, but that 500,000 million distributed to the say 1000 workers, each getting an extra $500, can make a difference to 1000 people!
On a side note, The Northern European countries (Like Denmark, Finland) have been voted best places to live & people are most happy etc, & I think the distribution of wealth have something to do with it. Even the 'low wages' people can have a decent living, education, healthcare.
Last edited:
Scrutinizing CEO pay is way too easy, especially during and just after an economic downturn. CEOs for the most part make around the appropriate amount for what their job entails.
Let me play devil's advocate here: CEO's are contract workers empowered to be the primary decision maker in an organization. They are the face of the organization. When a company succeeds, they are praised. When the company is not so successful, they are criticized. When they leave their company (or forced out), it is worked in their contracts that they have bigger severance packages as they probably won't get another position on equal footing. They deal with much more pressure than anyone in that company. With all that you have to face, would you take a pay cut? We aren't talking about bonuses here (that is another issue).
Let me play devil's advocate here: CEO's are contract workers empowered to be the primary decision maker in an organization. They are the face of the organization. When a company succeeds, they are praised. When the company is not so successful, they are criticized. When they leave their company (or forced out), it is worked in their contracts that they have bigger severance packages as they probably won't get another position on equal footing. They deal with much more pressure than anyone in that company. With all that you have to face, would you take a pay cut? We aren't talking about bonuses here (that is another issue).
It's all about supply and demand. If CEOs are getting absurd pay, nobody to blame except the people at the company hiring them. It's like sports. It seems dumb that a mediocre athlete gets $10M a year, but if that's what's being offered he, you and I will take it. Very few people will say, I'll take only $5M, but let the company keep the other $5M for itself.I think distribution of income is an issue in USA.
Some of the top people, like the CEO (some with private jets travels, etc paid by the company) are getting way too much money compare to the bottom people.
I am not saying people should start becoming like communist countries (of the old days), but its something that can help the bottom line alot.
There is not significant impact on lifestyle of a CEO from 2 million a year to 1,5 million, but that 500,000 million distributed to the say 1000 workers, each getting an extra $500, can make a difference to 1000 people!
On a side note, The Northern European countries (Like Denmark, Finland) have been voted best places to live & people are most happy etc, & I think the distribution of wealth have something to do with it. Even the 'low wages' people can have a decent living, education, healthcare.
Distribution of income is also heavily skewed to the longlasting CEOs and lucky people who got rich working for companies that struck gold with stock prices. Most CEOs salaries aren't that much. It's the stock packages and behind the scene bonuses that are sky high. Steve Jobs got paid $1 a year, but got tons of stock and a private jet.
Among the 20% of people who are the richest, guess what? Many people on this very board would be on that list. I'll be on it, but I'm no millionaire. It's not hard to be among the top 1/5 people as long as you have a decent job and don't blow your money. My parents (bless their heart as they're still alive) and my brothers would also be on that chart too. We're not CEOs making $10M a year, but I'm pretty sure our salaries and assets are high enough to beat out 80% of people.
Also, are the people in the survey "all people". If so, of course the people who are working and earning money will have more than people who don't work, are students and basically anyone under the age of 20.
As for happiness, I don't think skewed asset worth does much. It's more about the overall environment, health care, no civil wars, corporate culture (some places are easier to work than other places) and stuff like that. I'd expect Norwegian folks to be happy. Rich countries, friendly, never an ounce of wars or conflict, tons of holidays and vacation (I think Sweden is mandatory minimum of 5 weeks vacation for all workers), great government services and stuff like that.
Here's a site showing happiest and unhappiest places. Singapore and USA are on there, while Japan is not despite being the the least skewed. I'd assume that Japan is not on there due to the stereotype of it being a pressure heavy place to do well in school, work and long hours, so people get burned out. I'm pretty sure Japan is always one of those countries that has high suicide rates due to this too.
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mef45jgim/1-norway/
Exactly.
CEOs might get compensated a ton, but not all of them do. We just here about the big corporations. There's lots of smaller businesses where the top cheese (likely the owner) makes little money or the business goes belly up. But you never here about them. If it's a non-corporation, the guy now may have a big debt to pay off, which none of the employees get stuck with. They'll move on to another job.
But you're right about CEO responsibilities. They are the ones who deal with all kinds of stuff nobody except his fellow VPs know about. Complicated stuff which few people want to understand or could understand. Most people would rather sit at their job and not get bothered by people. But CEOs and their fellow high ranking execs have to make the call.
Who in this forum has the guts to decide who and how many people to fire if the company isn't doing well? Not many.
Who wants the task of talking and schmoozing with industry leads about business? Who has the courage to use their smarts and negotiate high level costs that involve millions of dollars? Not many.
Every company I've worked at has had it's office moved at one time (always to a bigger place). I've never been in the middle of it, but always worked at the most recent location. It's the CEO and fellow Finance execs who negotiates with real estate companies about lease rates, and for sake of saving costs has to decide or not whether to move locations which he/she knows will impact some employees and some will quit due to not wanting to commute double the distance. Tough call, but he/she has to make it.