Posted on 01/22/2002 3:18:18 PM PST by parsifal
Recently I have been involved in several threads dealing with minimum wages, fair wages, and taxes on the wealthy. Somehow, even though I am pretty "conservative", I manage to be on the opposite side of most freepers on these issues.
So, for fun, and for a view of the "other" side, I present some links to the AFLCIO website.
Calculate your pay if your were a CEO
There are other fun things on the site. Browse around here and play the "Greed" game:
And if you are interested in "living wages" and have some questions:
And this is because in the 1920s businessmen were mean and greedy and today businessmen are _______&________, no doubt. parsy.
PS: I am not a "disruptor" merely because I do not believe the same things you do. I see "conservatism" as "common sense." If it ain't common sense that you ought to pay someone at least enough to survive, then I don't know what is.
I figured as much.
This just shows that you are a social conservative and an economic socialist. Which means that you are still a socialist.
You seem to have a real problem with "the rich", most of which stems from a mistaken idea as to who, exactly, are the rich.
Here is a excerpt from the book "The Millionaire Next Door", a very well done book about exactly how "rich" people get that way.
Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?
* About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants.
* Many of the types of businesses we are in could be classified as dull/normal. We are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.
* About half of our wives do not work outside the home. The number-one occupation for those wives who do work is teacher.
* Our household's total annual realized (taxable) income is $131,000 (median, or 50th percentile), while our average income is $247,000. Note that those of us who have incomes in the $500,000 to $999,999 category (8 percent) and the $1 million or more category (5 percent) skew the average upward.
* We have an average household net worth of $3.7 million. Of course, some of our cohorts have accumulated much more. Nearly 6 percent have a net worth of over $10 million. Again, these people skew our average upward. The typical (median, or 50th percentile) millionaire household has a net worth of $1.6 million.
* On average, our total annual realized income is less than 7 percent of our wealth. In other words, we live on less than 7 percent of our wealth.
* Most of us (97 percent) are homeowners. We live in homes currently valued at an average of $320,000. About half of us have occupied the same home for more than twenty years. Thus, we have enjoyed significant increases in the value of our homes.
* Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.
* We live well below our means. We wear inexpensive suits and drive American-made cars. Only a minority of us drive the current-model-year automobile. Only a minority ever lease our motor vehicles.
* Most of our wives are planners and meticulous budgeters. In fact, only 18 percent of us disagreed with the statement "Charity begins at home." Most of us will tell you that our wives are a lot more conservative with money than we are.
* We have a "go-to-hell fund." In other words, we have accumulated enough wealth to live without working for ten or more years. Thus, those of us with a net worth of $1.6 million could live comfortably for more than twelve years. Actually, we could live longer than that, since we save at least 15 percent of our earned income.
* We have more than six and one-half times the level of wealth of our nonmillionaire neighbors, but, in our neighborhood, these nonmillionaires outnumber us better than three to one. Could it be that they have chosen to trade wealth for acquiring high-status material possessions?
* As a group, we are fairly well educated. Only about one in five are not college graduates. Many of us hold advanced degrees. Eighteen percent have master's degrees, 8 percent law degrees, 6 percent medical degrees, and 6 percent Ph.D.s.
* Only 17 percent of us or our spouses ever attended a private elementary or private high school. But 55 percent of our children are currently attending or have attended private schools.
* As a group, we believe that education is extremely important for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. We spend heavily for the educations of our offspring.
* About two-thirds of us work between forty-five and fifty-five hours per week.
* We are fastidious investors. On average, we invest nearly 20 percent of our household realized income each year. Most of us invest at least 15 percent. Seventy-nine percent of us have at least one account with a brokerage company. But we make our own investment decisions.
* We hold nearly 20 percent of our household's wealth in transaction securities such as publicly traded stocks and mutual funds. But we rarely sell our equity investments. We hold even more in our pension plans. On average, 21 percent of our household's wealth is in our private businesses.
* As a group, we feel that our daughters are financially handicapped in comparison to our sons. Men seem to make much more money even within the same occupational categories. That is why most of us would not hesitate to share some of our wealth with our daughters. Our sons, and men in general, have the deck of economic cards stacked in their favor. They should not need subsidies from their parents.
* What would be the ideal occupations for our sons and daughters? There are about 3.5 millionaire households like ours. Our numbers are growing much faster than the general population. Our kids should consider providing affluent people with some valuable service. Overall, our most trusted financial advisors are our accountants. Our attorneys are also very important. So we recommend accounting and law to our children. Tax advisors and estate-planning experts will be in big demand over the next fifteen years.
* I am a tightwad. That's one of the main reasons I completed a long questionnaire for a crispy $1 bill. Why else would I spend two or three hours being personally interviewed by these authors? They paid me $100, $200, or $250. Oh, they made me another offer--to donate in my name the money I earned for my interview to my favorite charity. But I told them, "I am my favorite charity."
So far, with the rate I've increased my skills and received corresoponding responsibilities, I'm right on track!!!
Methinks you haven't kissed Kundry yet.
Communism is Dumb and Free Market is Smart.
I've never tried to paint you as a Marxist, I've only pointed out the Marxist origins of many of your arguments. And, I find it interesting that you would attempt to claim that it is fair to establish a wage so high it would force employers and employees out of the market which even you have admitted your "fair living wage" would do. But, what I find truely amusing is your attempt to claim the moral high ground by portraying some as wanting workers to starve and live on the street while also implying that more than one child is some kind of luxury. No, my dear friend, you have not come close to winning me over. Nor do you have me on the run.
You're almost there. You just have to remember that the cost must be less than the value.
"Dear Dug, we're having to pay them WELFARE now because these looters aren't paing livable WAGES."
Every time you refer to employer as looters you betray the Marxist roots of your proposals. One of the reasons we have so many on welfare is the fact that our welfare benefits are so high they exceed the price employers are willing to pay for certain employees. I believe the WSJ had some interesting numbers about five years ago showing that welfare benefits in Washington DC exceeded the starting wage of new teachers.
"(You should love my proposals. Why are you being so recalcitrant? Oh, I forgot you are still addicted to certain conservative theories and not yet able to wean yourself from them. Oh well, I'll soon fix that by cracky!"
Your proposals do no one a favor. If one cannot get a job, then they have no hope of ever moving up the economic ladder.
"Oh this is kaa-kaa. The impact of higher minimal wages on prices has been discussed before. It has no merit."
So the cost of wages don't affect prices?
"These underfunded businesses might be the source of jobs for many. . ." Actually, the only thing Hillary (barf, hack) ever said that I agreed with. If the cheap SOB's can't manage their businesses well enough to pay fair minimum wages, then "Exit, Stage Left" , "Gong,Gong" , "Good riddance to bad rubbish." It's called evolution, Duke. It improves the species. Some people ain't really meant to be in business for themselves. Let us end their suffering, and the suffering of their employees."
Once more demonstrating total indifference to the problems of real employers in the real world. You should remember where all those "golden eggs" come from.
"DDuke - Wonderfull, an employer can't determine the value of an employee but, somehow, the government can? Parsey. -"Guess not or they would pay them enough to survive without welfare."
No here comes that "third way" thinking again. Make employers responsible for carrying out government mandates.
"Geeeesh. They go broke anyway. Nine out of ten small businesses fail. You know why? Most of 'em are idiots. That's why. If we made the idiots pay a fair livable wage, less idiots would go into business. The smart folks would not have to contend with a pack of underfunded idiots constantly screwing up pricing structures."
I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that government intervention in the form of mandates and excess taxation just might have something to do with it?
Yes, you can go work for another company, sorry sports analogies to business do not work and I won't accept them as equivalents. Most people how try to equate sports with business know very little about business.
However yes, an employee may change employers... I am not arguing that, I am saying treating workers as objects and set costs and replacable is very very very narrowminded and quite frankly stupid. Even in a lower position and loyal and happy employee is worth more to a company than a string of turnovers of mediocre ones.
Translation: Some employers don't pay their employees enough to live. Now I am beginning to worry about you DDuke. This isn't rocket science. If you don't pay your employee the minimal fair price price to eat and live indoors, then you have a DEAD EMPLOYEE. Unless the gov't comes along and buys food for him. The BASICS are the minimum COST of the employee.
Suppose you have a chicken farmer. Let's call him Chuck. Suppose it costs $1.25 MINIMUM in food to raise the chicken to the point where Tyson's illegal Mexican chicken transport guy picks up the bird. But Chuck doesn't like that. He only wants to pay 67cents to raise the bird. (Other chicken farmers don't have any problem paying $1.25)Now common sense tells you that any of Chuck's arguments about value and productivity are kinda moot because if Chuck gets his way, his Chickens will not come home to roost. (Darn, is that poetic? Am I on a roll here or what?) Chuck's Chick's will die.
But wait! What Ho! What do we see on the horizon? It is Senator Ted Kennedy. He proposes a Great Flock program for underfed chickens! Chuck's Chick's immediately apply for Scratch Stamps. They don't die after all. They live. The gov't has picked up the cost of maintaining life for the poor hapless birds (adding another "layer" of gov't in the process.)
Now Chuck can compete with the smart and not so greedy chicken farmers. As a matter of fact, he undercuts the price of chicks to Tysons. Tyson goes to the other farmers and lowers the price. Soon these nice farmers, feed their chickens less also and the Great Flock comes to their aid.
Now along comes this philosopher. He looks at the situation and says "Wait just a chicken-plucking minute! Chuck ought to have to feed his own durn chickens. What this country needs is fair livable chicken feeding standards!"
Well immediately this poor philosopher starts getting pounded by folks. "Hang him! He's a Marxist" they cry. He wants gov't to tell farmers how much they have to spend on their chickens! "Life isn't fair" holler others.
Now by this time the poor, innocent philosopher (who happens to be from Arkansas, BTW) is confused. He shakes his head. He can't believe this. "I ain't no Marxist!" he says. "I believe in capitalism. But heck, any durn fool knows you got to feed your chickens or they die. "
It is to no avail. One particular fellow just peppers the poor hapless philosopher. "How can you impose "fair" chicken feeding standards" Not all chickens eat the same amount. Well, gosh. Some chickens is Yeller Leghorns, and others is little Banties. There's even some Guineas out there. I guess this so-called philosopher wants to feed 'em all according to their needs. I bet he's one of them Rhode Island "Reds" come here to stir stuff up. Who is he to try to tell Chuck how much them chickens is worth to him? Well every man has to figure that out for hisself! It's America, after all. And if them chickens don't like it, well they can just fly away! And if this philosopher gits his way, purty soon the gov't will be telling us we have to raise chickens. And telling us how much to feed 'em! "
"And if this philosopher gits his way, well theres gonna be poor farmers like Chuck who has to go out of business. Poor liitle pullets will be out of work and starve to death."
But the long-suffering and patient philosopher just keeps trying to explain that the base cost of chicken is at least what it takes to keep the chicken alive.
I don't doubt that this is true, however, if it is true, the companies that treat employees poorly will eventually pay the price....
The key word in your statement is EVENTUALLY and the question we as a people must address is how much will we tolerate as a nation, people and society until that eventuality comes to pass? Will we idly sit by and watch and tolerate behaviors that should not be, knowing that eventually it will end in failure? Communism lasted for less than 100 years, but in that time murdered over 50 Million or their own citizenry... it eventually did collapse, but the damage was inexcusable.
Human life was a cost to business, look at coal mining for example up to the early part of this century, before society refused to accept it, and legally enforced rules and standards to make work places safer. It blows my mind how in such a short period of time people have forgotten how poorly things really were for the lower classes just a few generations ago. Blind faith in the market alone to regulate and prevent abuse and ills is a fools game. Businesses just like people are subject to the same deadly sins, and corruptions, and as such have to be checked just like any other endeavor. Overregulation is just as abohrant, but no regulation is foolish.
The prime effect of a minimum wage is to establish the minimum skill level of people entering the labor market. People, like it or not, can only be paid commensurate with the perceived value that they provide to the organization. A wage first requires that the employee provide at least that much value. Raising that amount merely widens the definition of who is 'unemployable' because they don't have a skill set to bring to the employer.
What about the people that are only worth five bucks an hour? You're telling them that they are out of luck. Move along. That's compassion? I think not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.