It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is It Time To Restructure Our Minimum Wage Laws?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
3) Do you think that what Bill Gates has done is only woth 40 times more than what the janitor at Microsoft did in the same time period? Sometimes, people produce things which are worth a lot more than what other people produce. Isn't it right to compensate them accordingly? After all, they're the ones who did it, and people willingly paid for it. Who is anyone else to step in and say it was undeserved?

How do you come up with 40 as the number? I ask because arbitrary limits don't work very well economically. If there's no reason to set something at 40, then it probably shouldn't be set at 40. What's not arbitrary is market value. For example, Bill made his money from the value of Microsoft stock. That value is set by a free market. It's worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it, of their own free will. Bill owns the stock, and the market(the people) are willing to pay billions for it. According to the OP, should we tell Bill and the market that his stock can't be worth that much because we say so? Or should we tell Bill that he has to give the janitor a billion, just to make it fair?

Ultimately, I do think that minimum wage in the US is a good thing. However, it is a matter of fact that it is bad for jobs here. We have to balance the benefits and the costs, and if we get carried away on a crusade to pay the lowest earners more money in order to do the exact same job, we're going to find ourselves in trouble.


Excellent post. I hope people don't overlook this, because in my opinion it's right on the mark.


I don't know if you mentioned this already, but it's also important to keep minimum wage because it gives people the motivation to work harder. If you can make a living wage as a janitor (which, apparently, you can in some parts of this country... I recently saw a janitorial job advertised for $19.00 an hour!!!!!!!!) then what's my motivation to go to College and get educated when all I need to do to live comfortable is graduate high school?

Without the incentive of earning a good living we wouldn't have a lot of people striving to be better. It's what happened during Communism in some countries. People who worked hard didn't earn much more than people who didn't work hard, because everyone was supposed to be "equal". Next thing you know the good doctors, physicists and all those people who felt their schooling and stress on the job was worth more money, defected to the West. So, eventually the Commies were left with lots of mediocre professionals who worked just hard enough not to get fired, and didn't do their best on the job. They were comfortable, so why work harder?

The struggle for survival forces us to become better, to become more efficient, to work harder, to be more innovative. As much as I hate to say it and hate to live it, struggle is good for us. When you give people handouts they didn't earn, you create complacency, and when enough people become complacent, that's bad for the entire country.




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


As I sit here and contemplate my response to your post, the term "lost cause" keeps coming to mind but I don't believe in lost causes so here I go.

I guess I would like to begin by clarifying a couple of things about the thread. First, no one said anything about changing the system so that everyone would have the same income or converting to communism, only that maybe employee payroll should be correlated with CEO payroll to insure that "everyone" who has contributed to the success of the company, from the chief R&D scientist to the "night janitor" gets to experience some little part of that success.

IMO, I can't think of a better way of instilling team spirit throughout the company's workforce where it is in the best interest of everyone employed to do everything in their power to insure the success of the company.

By the way, what exactly is so wrong with a janitor earning $19.00 per hr.? Are you saying that because this individual is willing to put aside his/her pride and perform a needed service, that at times is somewhat repulsive to say the least, that he/she is undeserving of a living wage? I personally, know several professionals who earn well over $400.00 per hr. and I live here in deep S. Texas, nowhere near the big money markets for the type of professionals I'm talking about.

IMO, many people who work hard to attain a "higher education," do so in order that they can work in a field that they love like teachers, doctors, nurses, etc... If you're a doctor who is only in it for the money, you're not the doctor for me. I would bet that air traffic controllers work just as hard and experience a much higher level of stress than most highly educated professionals ever will yet their pay does not reflect it. Kinda of a hollow argument, isn't it?

Secondly, when it comes to fundamental human rights like respect and dignity, I would argue that "equality" is not such a bad thing. On the other hand, an ego that necessitates the need to look downs one's nose at others in less fortunate situations is not only "bad," it's quite unhealthy.

The only issue that I was attempting to address in the thread was the fact that 30 yrs. ago, the payroll ratio between CEOs and the employees of their companies was around 40 to 1. Today that ratio has grown to over 300 to 1 with no apparent end in sight. I believe that the message to be learned from this could not be clearer, "greed and self interest has taken over corporate America at the expense of the middle class."

When is enough, enough and how do we stop corporate America from walking away with all the bread while leaving everyone else fighting over the crumbs? I think it's a process known as "Trickle Down Economics."



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


Janitor job at $19 an hour while a professional, with experience, school and education is getting, on par or just slightly higher than the janitor?

Why is that so, have you ever thought to ask?

Its because of simple free market laws - supply and demand.

Nothiing demeaning to the sucker with the degree piece of paper. Too many of them nowadays expecting a free ride on the gravy train- to become a dictator to others, seeking for pinnacle positions that can only be held by only a meagre few.

To put it simply so that more may understand, allow me to illustrate with this simple to comprehend example:-

If EVERY CITIZEN achieves becoming doctors, as is possible with nuturing and full opportunities with education provided by societies, then who will become nurses, or even the clerks?

Some of them will HAVE TO give up being doctor to fill a need in society, and as all is educated and of about the same intelligence level, it is only fair to compensated at least fairly if not equally for them to work at lower positions. To call for illegal immigration is a cop out and a breaking of the social contract between members of society - to hire slaves instead of paying fair wages for FELLOW CITIZENS.

This is only 'free market and capitalism' at work. Either you seek for free market with at least a modicum of responsible societal regulations to keep it honest and a level fair playing field within a society or you let it be DICTATED how the market should be, as the Corporations had for decades seeking international cheap and demeaning slave slabour, and the result is clear for all to see - massively lopsided wages, illegal immigration issues, economic collapse, etc, etc.

Face the truth, confront it and attempt to work out rationalised systems is the only way to go from here. To continue the current status qou is to doom ourselves eventually, for not waking up to facts, our illusions and delusions.

PS: Education and the slogging for exams is not the purpose for comfortable life later on. It is meant to ILLUMINATE our minds to find better solutions and ways to perform specific operations, as directed by our course of studies which DOES NOT cover every espect of knowledge, only specific fields and expertise to gain further expericence. That piece of paper does not make you a genius of EVERY FIELD IN HUMAN ENDEAVOUR, but only as a human to perform a specific task on a higher level.


edit on 22-9-2010 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Actually it's time to remove all these bogus restrictions and minimum wages and let the market do what it does.

Sounds callous but it's actually the only thing that lifts everybody up in the long term. Americans like to forget that we are wealthy because of our market system, not because of our top-down policies. The policies can only consume wealth or at best slow its production by rendering the market inefficient. In the long run everybody is poorer for it.

Almost everybody in this thread seems to fail to realize that money != wealth. Wealth, that is tangible goods and services, is produced by business. The more the hands of business are tied, the less wealth gets produced, and the poorer the civilization as a whole is. In a true free market (to contrast with the corporate/government oligarchy we have today), businesses are not thieves but producers. They are expanding the pie for everybody.

What people don't realize is that a market economy is not about the wage earner but the consumer. It is the consumer who must be satisfied. The standard of living has been steadily rising (until recently) not because of minimum wages or other state tinkering, but because for people to stay in business they must continue to satisfy the consumer (which all wage earners are, incidentally).

"The captain is the consumer…the consumers determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities…They are merciless egoistic bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction…In their capacity as buyers and consumers they are hard-hearted and callous, without consideration for other people…Capitalists…can only preserve and increase their wealth by filling best the orders of the consumers… In the conduct of their business affairs they must be unfeeling and stony-hearted because the consumers, their bosses, are themselves unfeeling and stony-hearted." -Mises

If I bake cupcakes, I bake them for the consumer. I might hire some help if there are a lot of customers, and we'll negotiate on wages. But I'm not running a business for the worker. It is the consumer whom I must make happy.

And when the consumer wins, we all win, because with a larger pool of goods and services everbody's real wages go up (even if nominal wages stay the same). We're all consumers.

None of this of course applies to the modern system where instead of getting wealthy by satisfying the consumer (thereby increasing the total wealth of the society), business leaders get wealthy through government contracts and protectionistic policies. Rather than wealth being produced, more and more it is simply transferred from one person to another. Which is exactly as productive as gambling.

Good Reading



edit on 22-9-2010 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
@ skl-

I had a conversation over this with the diehards from both sides.

Liberal-
Free market would lead to complete domination by corporations.

The free market garbage would only result in slavery...

Conservative-
This country was founded on these principals. A free market economy is one of these pillars and you cant take money from those who organized these corporation just because they made money.

Me-
We have never been a free market economy. We have been a mixed economy since our inception. That my liberal friends is why you are right in point that. The mixture has enabled the abuses we are all familiar with.

As for the socialist trends being done to this country, my conservative friends you are right. We can not take money from the wealthy just because they are rich. They have plotted and planned, and in the end made sacrifices so these various corporations can employees people.

Yes your both right. Allow me a further moment and I will explain. Your causes share a common enemy. Your being divided along artificial means, while your livelihoods are being sucked dried. The issue is the ability of those pushing the agendas to convince you that you are different.

Allow me to point out where you are the same. We are all americans. We all want to be able to feed and cloth our children. We have a legacy as the most powerful country in the world. We are born free and have the right given us by the almighty to think for ourselves. We are sick of being ignored by those who hold the whip in DC.

No everything I am hearing is a tactic of division enabling those in power to split us to rule us.

What needs to be done is this. Behind there backs take the power from them or neuter them. I am against taking money from any american because the government needs it to do x. We need to recognize at the same time that none of the markets are free markets. This requires intelligent policy to ensure that american workers have the chance to do what we do best. That is compete.

PS at the end of this conversation someone asked if I was running for office. One of my liberal friends spoke up. "He intends to cheat and rig the election in twenty twelve."

Silence then from the republican side. "So all you need to do is be on the ballot right."

Net result 14 more votes in my pocket if I do it.


The conversation illustrates I hope the competing needs of what is being discussed here. You can not increase the minimum wage and expect everybody to be able to live. All those with money will do is funnel the cost to the consumer.

The only solution I see is to protect the worker from unfair competition. All products sold in the US should be subject to all our laws in production and distribution.

SKl I hope I explained what I was thinking clearly if not I will try again.

@OP
Sorry unions are worthless from my own experience. I was paying my dues at kroogers. I considered it an insurance policy against corruption.

The shop steward thought working with company was more important then one workers complaint. The paid me for two weeks at 11.25, the the corporate office cut my pay down to six twenty five an hour. The union was doing nothing for over four months. I still paid my dues but realised that they where not going to do a thing. It was not in there interest to do anything.

Yes the unions made an enemy that day. They will sacrifice people so they can maintain that relationship and power.

Unions I see as part of the problem in america, not the solution.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


As I sit here and contemplate my response to your post, the term "lost cause" keeps coming to mind but I don't believe in lost causes so here I go.


No need to be rude. I politely added to your thread. Just because I disagree with your point of view on minimum wage doesn't mean you need to start implying that I'm a "lost cause".



I guess I would like to begin by clarifying a couple of things about the thread. First, no one said anything about changing the system so that everyone would have the same income or converting to communism, only that maybe employee payroll should be correlated with CEO payroll to insure that "everyone" who has contributed to the success of the company, from the chief R&D scientist to the "night janitor" gets to experience some little part of that success.


You're assuming that the janitor works just as hard as the CEO. Some janitors (no doubt) work very hard, and some don't. Not everyone is going to put out the same amount of energy within a company to make it successful. The reason a CEO (or anyone running a successful company) makes hundreds of thousands (to millions) of dollars a year is because there are only a few people who CAN make a company a success. There are more people on this planet with qualifications to become janitors than there are people who have qualifications and experience to become good CEOs. For you to suggest that we start creating income of one person based on someone else's achievements is (I'm sorry to tell you) a Communist-like idea. Basically you want to put a cap on the amount of profit a company makes. If they are required to increase the pay of their janitors based on how much profit they've made, it takes a cut from their profit and puts them back where they were before they made that profit. This kind of salary regulation would keep companies at a plateau, which would most likely motivate them to stop giving pay raises to their CEOs, who then would move on to other countries where salaries are not regulated. Once all the best CEOs are off to other countries, company profits will go down the drain along with the jobs they were once able to provide. You HAVE to reward people for the work they do, if they do a good job. If the motivation isn't there, people won't do their best.



IMO, I can't think of a better way of instilling team spirit throughout the company's workforce where it is in the best interest of everyone employed to do everything in their power to insure the success of the company.


Absolutely! I agree! But you have to reward the individuals who have proven themselves to be the best at what they do! You can't base everyone's salary on one individual who is successful at the top. Is it fair to have everyone ride the coat tails of one guy at the top, no matter how much Tom in accounting slacked off that year? If you do good work, you get a raise and you get promoted. Isn't that how it works nowadays?



By the way, what exactly is so wrong with a janitor earning $19.00 per hr.? Are you saying that because this individual is willing to put aside his/her pride and perform a needed service, that at times is somewhat repulsive to say the least, that he/she is undeserving of a living wage? I personally, know several professionals who earn well over $400.00 per hr. and I live here in deep S. Texas, nowhere near the big money markets for the type of professionals I'm talking about.


What's so wrong with a janitor earning $19 an hour? I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, it was more surprise than anything else, and here's why; How long does it take to train to be a janitor, and what kind of skills do you need to become one? How many people within a population do you think are capable of performing a janitorial job with a couple of weeks of training? How about a car mechanic? How long does it take to train to learn how to work on cars? How much does it cost to go to school to learn to become a mechanic, or engineer, or doctor? I'm not saying that janitors don't deserve a living wage. I think they do. My point is that a wage (in my opinion) should be based on what percentage of people can perform that particular task. If a company wants to pay a janitor $19 or $50 an hour, they can! They have the freedom to do so. My outrage is at the fact that jobs which require far more skill and schooling are being advertised for less pay than a janitorial position. So then, what motivation does somebody have to learn to perform a task which is more dangerous or more emotionally demanding if that person can get paid $19-25 an hour to clean buildings and live somewhat comfortably? Soon we'll have 30 million janitors and 2,000 accountants (for example). Of course it balances itself out. When there's an influx of janitors, the pay goes down. When there's a lack of accountants, the demand and pay for them goes up.



IMO, many people who work hard to attain a "higher education," do so in order that they can work in a field that they love like teachers, doctors, nurses, etc... If you're a doctor who is only in it for the money, you're not the doctor for me. I would bet that air traffic controllers work just as hard and experience a much higher level of stress than most highly educated professionals ever will yet their pay does not reflect it. Kinda of a hollow argument, isn't it?


I'll give you an example why even people who love doing what they do want to earn more money. I'm an illustrator. I love to draw. I've always loved to draw and paint, and always knew I wanted to make a career out of it. When I started drawing for people, it made me happy to make them happy. Of course soon I discovered that even though I love to draw, to draw all day and all night long to get projects done takes a toll on my hand, arm, eyes, mind and body in general. I felt I needed to start charging more so that I wouldn't have do so much work in one day, to sacrifice my mind and body in order to earn a living where I could pay my bills and still manage to have some money and time left over for recreation. People like yourself (with your logic), however, will tell me that I shouldn't charge as much as I do for my services, because I'm doing what I love, so I don't really deserve to get paid the money I get paid. My point is that doctors have spent years learning the trade and becoming the best. They've lost sleep, relationships, they encounter stress every day, they may lose patients, they may feel psychologically fatigued, and there's only VERY few people who can get the job done and do it right. They deserve every penny they get paid for the work they do. They save lives every day! Their job is highly demanding and must be rewarded justly. If you were risking your life every day, making $25.00 an hour and your friend was taking only half the risk for $22.00 would you be happy about your salary?
As for your air traffic controller example,.... yeah, it's a stressful job, but they're not cutting people open and risking their deaths, being on call nearly 24/7, and I bet it doesn't take 10 years of very expensive schooling to become one. They make over a hundred grand a year, so that's pretty nice in my opinion. Based on this website:Air Traffic Controllers "

The educational path for air traffic controllers requires a bachelor's degree or related experience, plus an FAA-approved training program, and completion of an 8-hour certification exam. Training for new controllers with only initial controller training, ranges between 2 and 4 years.
Sounds like a lot less than medical school. Regardless, salaries for skilled jobs are still based on demand.



Secondly, when it comes to fundamental human rights like respect and dignity, I would argue that "equality" is not such a bad thing. On the other hand, an ego that necessitates the need to look downs one's nose at others in less fortunate situations is not only "bad," it's quite unhealthy.


Whether you like it or not some people work harder than others. Some people have a positive impact on society while others just slide by unnoticed. It's not snubbing one's nose at somebody, it's rewarding positive behavior! You work hard? You do your part? You're rewarded. If you decide to live a life of mediocrity, then your success reflects what you worked for. I'm not looking down on anyone, I just think we shouldn't be so quick to declare everyone a winner, creating a society who feels like they deserve everything the other guy is getting, even if they didn't do anything to deserve it. Just because you're human doesn't make you entitled to everything the other guy is getting. You have to fight for it and you have to earn respect through the work you do. Give me a good reason to respect you, and I will.



The only issue that I was attempting to address in the thread was the fact that 30 yrs. ago, the payroll ratio between CEOs and the employees of their companies was around 40 to 1. Today that ratio has grown to over 300 to 1 with no apparent end in sight. I believe that the message to be learned from this could not be clearer, "greed and self interest has taken over corporate America at the expense of the middle class."


I don't know what the statistics are. There is something wrong with the ratio if what you say is true, but your plan doesn't solve the problem, it just creates a new one. One reason for the ration being where it is could be that the demand for workforce is not as great as it used to be. Today companies move around the world freely and receive incentives from other countries to move their operations. Cheaper labor is just around the corner. If they can pay some guy in China $2.00 an hour, why would they pay you $20.00 an hour??? Think about it. If you want to punish companies for paying low salaries, you can, but then you can also say goodbye to that company. They'll just move overseas, and now instead of having a low-paying job, you have no job at all. What can we do about this? We must compete with the other countries by offering companies incentives to come back. Give them a reason to come back and hire you. Show them you're smarter, harder-working, and you'll give them a break on taxes/certain existing regulations. It's survival of the fittest. You can't FORCE somebody to take a profit cut so that you can prosper, unless you give them a good reason why they'd want to do that. A company doesn't owe you anything. It doesn't need you to survive, so unless you show them why they need you, they'll just move on to greener pastures.

If you feel you deserve more money, start up your own company, hire your own people and prosper. There's opportunities out there, and if you've got a good head on your shoulders you'll figure out a way to make a buck. Figure out what society could use, and start selling it. Of course when you do start that business, you'll soon figure out why other companies move overseas.




When is enough, enough and how do we stop corporate America from walking away with all the bread while leaving everyone else fighting over the crumbs? I think it's a process known as "Trickle Down Economics."


My answer is in the paragraph above. Give them a good reason to stay, and they will. If you help them become more successful, they'll feel they need you and they'll reward you. It's a dog eat dog world out there, but that's what survival of the fittest is all about.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


Janitor job at $19 an hour while a professional, with experience, school and education is getting, on par or just slightly higher than the janitor?

Why is that so, have you ever thought to ask?

Its because of simple free market laws - supply and demand.



I understand supply and demand, and that's why I was shocked to see a janitorial job going for $19.00 an hour in this current economy. You'd think there would be hundreds of people (stemming from a variety of professions) applying for it, some willing to take a lot less pay than that, since most jobs advertised....even the skilled labor jobs... go for around $10-12.00 an hour. It's hard for me to believe that there are more cabinet makers than there are janitors,.. but then again who knows. I thought janitorial jobs were going for something closer to minimum wage, unless they're Unionized.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


In example #1 that pretty much sounds like what goes on right now with unions? And that would be why alot of jobs are sent packing overseas, or companies go bankrupt because the people are making more money than they are producing.


Oh noes! What will we do without our rich?



Seriously, though. First of all, under capitalism (which is what we have in the U.S.) workers NEVER cost more than the value of what they are producing. Not even union workers. That's not the way capitalism works.

If you work in a factory you will likely always be poor. If you OWN the factory chances are you are very rich. Not because your brain is so huge, or because you make such a valuable contribution to society, but because you have the $ to finance the purchase of the means of production. It is because you reap the profits from what your workers are producing, without actually performing the labor yourself. That's why the upper echelons of a company are called "white collar" workers, in large part because they do not sweat enough to even make a stain on their clean white shirts.

We generally think of people who sweat for a living as less valuable than the managerial classes. We hear that they are unskilled and therefore a dime a dozen. No matter that they are giving the best years of their lives to producing what creates the profits off of which the upper levels, from pencil pushers (who do not create profits directly) to CEOs live.

In truth, workers are a dime a dozen because there are a lot of people who will work for practically nothing rather than be destitute or accept charity. Contrary to the denigration of them by segments of our society, there is a strong work ethic in this country, that prides itself on individual achievement. Producers hire people as cheaply as they possibly can and still get workers who can do the job. That is in large part how they make their profits. Thus the emergence of labor unions in the 20th century. Without them many people would still work six and a half day weeks for less than they can afford to live on, as they did during the beginning of the industrial revolution.

If laborers today refuse to work unless they are paid enough to live on and/or are given benefits they are replaced by legal or illegal immigrants or others who are even cheaper. A race to the bottom, as the OP points out.

One of the reasons for the period of American prosperity during the 1950's and 60's was the increase in wages for the lowest-paid workers, those at the bottom of the income ladder. This was due to pressures from labor unions and other political and social forces.

The increased income for the bottom rung resulted in increased spending power. These increases pushed up the wages for the next highest rung and so on. As people began to afford more, they began to buy more, everything from basics like better food to household appliances to cars and other luxury items.

In short, the economy was humming. Not because the wealth of the super-rich was "trickling down" to the "lower" classes (the rich in fact tend to save, hoard, buy property in other countries and in general do not put that much money back into the economy that quickly) but because the income, and thus the buying power, of the average American was increasing. In truth, for every $100 the government gives in tax breaks to the rich it recoups only $40 in increased economic activity. On the other hand, the middle and working classes tend to spend, by necessity, their income as soon as they receive it and it goes directly back into the economy almost immediately.

No, increasing the wages of the lowest-paid employees to an amount they can live on will neither bankrupt the economy nor keep the rich from going wherever in the world human labor is cheapest. Of course they will always do whatever makes them richer. It is not a question of how low can you go (if the owners had their way we'd all be getting 10 cents an hour and then be replaced by someone who will work for 5 cents). In many other industrialized nations -- Japan, for example -- upper management and owners do not make the obscene amounts that American CEO's make proportionate to what they pay their workers, and their societies are not disintegrating.

We as a country just need to reduce our worship of the rich and care more about the average American.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


Quite frankly, I'm tired of listening to both sides, they both lie too damn much.

Plus they have agenda which are wholly stupid, useless, and or wasting tax money.

The corporation's can pay a more reasonable rate of money than minimum wage.

And they can make less of a profit because life is not about making money.

Since I have began getting minimum wage back when I was 15 years old, back in 1988, it was $3.35 an hour, now it is a measly $7.25 an hour, yet back in all those years between now and then the costs, fees, and rates of everything else have skyrocketed.

And it's not exponentially raised to a fair rate of cost verses profit margin.

Notice that?

22 years yet minimum wage has barely doubled.

Yes gasoline has nearly tripled and in some cases it has and not during the holiday rush.

Bureau of Labor Statistics : Gasoline 1988 to 2010

I see all this partisan nonsense as just that, nonsense, it is merely a means to wave a flag.

And by waving the Republican banner, or Democratic banner, it is not waving the American flag.

It is merely dividing the people to pick a side which is usually divisive, which is not good for America.

I'm tired of lying politicians screwing the citizens, I'm done listening and or following others, I'm leading myself.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


First, I didn't mean to offend you by saying, "lost cause" and if I did, I apologize. I was just referring to how vast a span lies between your way of thinking about business success and mine.

I believe that part of the problem I see here, is the fact that some people seem to believe that CEOs are to business, what God is to humanity. I'm not even sure that my church would allow me to anoint them with this level of praise.

No one said that business owners shouldn't be allowed to make a fair profit for their efforts, but they should not be given a license to deprive their workers of a living wage just because they may have a "higher education." Going to school is really not as hard as going to work, I've done both and I know the difference.

You want to know what hard work is? Try loading 500 lb. bales of cotton, by hand, into the hold of a cargo ship for 14 hrs. a day in S. Texas heat where cargo hold temps. exceed 115 degrees in the summer. Or, you might want to try loading 110 lb. bags of wheat, by hand, under the same conditions and more often than not, for the purpose of providing "food aid" to millions of starving people around the world.

On several occasions the "terrible" union I worked for, participated in shipments where we donated all necessary labor for the cargo loading operations as our part in food drives for foreign nations. (would that count as helping to save lives or do I have to actually get my hands bloody?)

That's just what I was doing when I was 17 yrs. old and working to earn money for school. Furthermore, I would not even attempt to compare what I did with the sacrifices of our men and women serving in the armed services today, neither in terms of value or worth. I wonder if our soldiers suffer from stress or if they save lives? I wonder how many of our solders get paid like CEOs?

IMO, having an education should only be rewarded if you use it to help lift others and not to repress them.

I know that a lot of people and many CEOs think that their world, or their company, can't survive without them but I got some news for them, their wrong. One of the first things I learned as a working adult is that no one is indispensable regardless of position, including myself.

Supply & demand mandates that if there is a need, someone will move in to fill the gap. It's the "need" or "demand" that will create and perpetuate "supply" chains, but a chain is just that and it's only as strong as it's weakest link.

Anyway, I noticed that another responder to my thread has really posted an excellent reply to yours and I highly recommend that you give it a read. It's a post by one of my chosen friends, "Sestias" and its directly under your post.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


Hi Sestias, and thanks for the thoughtful and "to the point" response. I couldn't agree with you more.

I have recommended it as a good read to "2manyquestions" and I sincerely hope he/she reads it.




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I say we give the people that really affect our society, teachers, social workers, day care givers, the people that give you your McBreakfast and cleans your toilets -comparable wages vs the ass&oles who sit with their feet upon their desk and really just plan how to screw over the rest of humanity.

Now come on, logically speaking, an actor or CEO should not really earn the millions of dollars they pull in...........come on people, compute what the real value of actual value is.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
The only thing wrong is people are greedy. Your CEO's make more money than god while those few who still have a job are really struggling to meet the most basic of needs. This is class warfare.

We need to boycott all the big corporate monopolies, we need to starve the over grown government of our tax revenue. We need to make our local community strong with local agriculture, local business. If we cooperate we can bring down these giants.

I guess if I was born with a silver spoon up my butt I would love the way the rich get the best life has to offer while the poor get nothing but a slow demise. I'm not rich. I make 12k dollars in a good year, and I don't care. This fiat currency is a joke, it's a number in a computer. and the whole credit system is like economic rape. There's no incentive at all to make this system work, but there's plenty of reasons to grab a torch and a pitchfork and march on the billionaires in their mansions and burn them to the goddamn ground.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by guyopitz
 


I agree with the premiss that our system is totally screwed up but I'm not so sure that I would go along with "burning down their mansions." Those mansions represent the excessive wealth that has been skimmed off the top at the expense of those on the bottom. To burn them down would create a lose, lose situation whereas I was actually looking to promote more of a win, win situation for everyone concerned.

We used to have a system in America, when unions were more prominent, that had a CEO to employee pay ratio of approx. 40 to 1 and the american dream of someday owning your own home was still alive. Today, that ratio has morphed into 300 to 1 leading to the rapid demise of the middle class who now hope and pray that they can hang onto their overvalued homes.

If we don't do something to correct the imbalance, it will soon be tents that we are trying to retain possession of.

As a retired union worker, I saw this coming a long time ago. I remember thinking to myself; "when are american workers going to wake up and demand what is theirs?" Then, along came NAFTA and China's most favored trading status followed by that "giant sucking sound," known today as "outsourcing" that ole Ross Perot talked about. (Yes, I know that Clinton enacted these laws and I won't forgive him for it.)

Anyway, at that time I thought; "well, this should wake them up." I was wrong, when jobs started going overseas, most people who weren't directly affected just seemed to be ignoring the situation or profiting from it.

Well, we are now approaching a "Critical Mass" situation where the problem can no longer be ignored and it's time that we took a realistic approach to solving it. I believe that we need legislation mandating that products being sold in America are built in America with american workers, just like Toyota is doing. The same should be true for american companies that wish to sell their product in foreign countries. They can employ workers in that country to make products for sale in that country. That way, manufacturers are forced to sell their product in the same economy they are built in, helping to insure that one nation's standard of living, or lack thereof, is not utilized to bring down that of another.

This approach would also help to insure the viability and longevity of each nation's manufacturing base, thereby insuring that their jobs will not migrate towards the lowest common denominator at some point in the future when their own standard of living improves and manufacturers decide that it's time again, to relocate to another emerging economy elsewhere in the world.

I believe that "free trade" should be limited to raw materials and that all refined or manufactured goods should be produced "in house" or taxed heavily for the lack thereof. The tax is to offset the economic impact felt by workers of one nation when goods are produced in the weaker economy of another.

Those are just some of my ideas and I could very well be wrong, but if we don't do something this will become the new "Neverending Story" except in this one, there is no "luck dragon" to save our standard of living and our way of life from total demise.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by Alxandro
 


I think you're trying to compare apples to oranges here.

The GPA of 4.0 was a product of the student's hard work alone and did not require the input of a team of workers to acquire it. When that student starts a business that requires a team of workers to produce a product then the wealth should be shared. If the student doesn't want to share the profits then maybe he/she shouldn't share the workload either. Let that student reap the profits from whatever he/she can produce in solitary and let's see how rich he/she gets.


I had to come back to this because what you stated is not exactly true on two counts.

Sure the GPA of a student may be the result of their own sweat, hard work and effort they put in but you are fogetting about other factors.
You are forgetting about class participation.
Every student learns and absorbs new material at a different pace. It may be fairly easy for some, but for others it might require more time before it finally sinks in.
Many times the material may not sink in until some other student makes an analogy related to the subject matter and BAM, hits them like a ton of bricks.
Long story short, students learn as much from each other as they do on their own.
Obviously the instructor plays a major role as well so these outside influences also contribute to a student's GPA.

Coming back to the big evil business discussion, a giant corporation didn't start off as a giant corporation.
It started as an idea, which developed into a money making possibility, then became a small business.
As in any new business venture, during the early stages of development the success of that business will depend on the decisions made by that one individual that takes it upon himself/herself to work the long hours and do whatever it takes to get the business off the ground, all while the rest of common folk continue doing what they do for fun.
A corporaton does not grow unless it offers a product that people can't live without; the bigger the demand, the bigger the corporation.
Kill a corporation and all its employees are out of a job.

Nut shell: Why target a persons "due diligence" so that others can have "low lying fruit"?



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


Janitors make 19 dollars hour is due to moral ethics of hiring a citizen, base on market laws of demand and supply.

By all means, with the current status qou, Corporations can freely hire illegals, take the risks or just pack up and go overseas where slaves are avaliable.

The law of supply and demand is NOT based on Education, but simply a need to be filled, regardless of one's background or educational level so long as he is a legal citizen and fully capable to meet the needs.

We must never follow the jap style of excellent packaging, or be deluded by chinese cheap goods. It may seem a rational decision to buy such goods, but in the end, we end up with frustrations, as the goods are not of quality and at times even life threatening as Corporations are only interested in making their billions.

So what if they are caught up dealing with inferior goods? Simply play a fine by the dummy company, take the rap, rename a new company, and billions from the foolish but poor and no choice but to by it folks will reap them further scam monies.

Stop defending your pathetic degrees or PHDs and view it as a right to earn big bucks. The more we think this is the way we should progress, the more we will only devolve. Invention is the mother of neccessity, and so are needs.

After all the arguments and debates, one and only solution remains - we humans need an universal minimum wage mechanism for all nations, or everyone in the end will only become slaves of corporations whom seek only the lowest denominator in costs, exploitation of humanity at max.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


You act as if corporations create the demand for their product. Well, they do not. Demand is created by the needs of an ever growing population and is not something that will cease to exist if a corporation disappears. If a corporation ceases to supply a product that is still in need, I assure you that someone else will move in and begin making the product.

By the way, the term "small business" is a term used to describe a company, namely an "S" corporation, that has a small number of people claiming the companies profits as taxable income. The term has absolutely nothing to do with the number of employees or the gross income of the company. The Chicago Tribune is a small business, hard to believe right? As a matter of fact, many if not most of the big companies in America are technically small businesses under the current definition in the IRS tax code.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
If all these CEO's, President's, and business owners jobs are so easy to do, that you would recommend cutting their wages to subsidize everybody else, answer my one question.

When a company get's a bad leader, why does it fail?

Is it because all those hard working employees that "made" the owner rich have changed.

Or is it because 99.9% couldn't do the job they do, wether we would like to admit it or not.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


So much for the KISS method.
I was kinda hoping you would have kept it as simple as possible, but instead you had to start muddying the water by using terminology and descriptors that were first introduced and put in place most likely by, of all people, "corporate lawyers".
These "loy-yahs" are even more guilty for turning the corporations into the entities you hate today.

I don't like the big greedy corporations any more than you do but there is something not quite right about forcing them to fork over their assets and "distribute the wealth" just so that everyone supposedly can benefit.
I'm sorry but there's something not right about that mindset that stems more from emotion than from logic.

Let's say they, the corporations, do get "held up and robbed" and all that wealth is distributed equally ampng the masses.
Who do you feel should be entitled to all that redistributed wealth?
How much do you think every individual should receive?

No matter what amount you specify here, I guarantee you that amount just won't be enough for some people.

Most people would probably blow it in zero time flat, while others would invest and come out ahead in the long run. At some point the "blowers" will once again ask for a cut of the "investors'" wealth.

Here is another very simple analogy that demonstrates this fact.




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


First, I didn't mean to offend you by saying, "lost cause" and if I did, I apologize. I was just referring to how vast a span lies between your way of thinking about business success and mine.


Apology accepted.


I believe that part of the problem I see here, is the fact that some people seem to believe that CEOs are to business, what God is to humanity. I'm not even sure that my church would allow me to anoint them with this level of praise.


I personally don't feel CEOs are Gods to business, but the ones who are really good at what they do can make a company soar to new heights. If a business is successful and keeps growing, it also keeps hiring and giving raises.


No one said that business owners shouldn't be allowed to make a fair profit for their efforts, but they should not be given a license to deprive their workers of a living wage just because they may have a "higher education." Going to school is really not as hard as going to work, I've done both and I know the difference.


That's why we have "minimum wage" requirements. A company can't pay it's workers $2.00 an hour, they must pay them at least $7.50. A worker has the freedom to say "no" and look elsewhere for employment if this is not enough. The employer will either not find anyone to do the job for that kind of money and will be forced to raise the wage, or he'll find someone willing to do it for that amount. In my opinion minimum wage should be higher than that, but that's where we are at this time.



You want to know what hard work is? Try loading 500 lb. bales of cotton, by hand, into the hold of a cargo ship for 14 hrs. a day in S. Texas heat where cargo hold temps. exceed 115 degrees in the summer. Or, you might want to try loading 110 lb. bags of wheat, by hand, under the same conditions and more often than not, for the purpose of providing "food aid" to millions of starving people around the world.


I agree that it's more difficult to lift 500lb bales of cotton by hand than sit in a plush office, but that's the reason children are encouraged to study hard and choose a profession in which they do not have to do manual labor when it comes time to support themselves. Again, this is a choice people make. You can choose to do the job, or you can choose to look elsewhere for employment. That's life. I understand that somebody has to do the work. If there weren't enough people to do the work, maybe the pay for this type of work would be higher. Since more men are qualified to lift heavy objects than there are men who can perform brain surgery, I'm guessing that the guy who performs brain surgery is going to be considered more valuable to society than the guy lifting heavy objects. Maybe someday a time will come when men who can lift heavy objects will become scarce, and therefore will become more desirable and will receive higher pay for their work.



On several occasions the "terrible" union I worked for, participated in shipments where we donated all necessary labor for the cargo loading operations as our part in food drives for foreign nations. (would that count as helping to save lives or do I have to actually get my hands bloody?)


There's nothing wrong with Unions as long as they don't overstep their boundaries. As long as they ask only for fair compensation for the work performed and don't attempt to destroy the business if they don't get their way, I feel they can be and are valuable to society. Contributing to the good of society is always admirable. No need to get your hands bloody, but again.... if you're easily replaced, your compensation for that work is going to be less than what you feel your work is worth.



That's just what I was doing when I was 17 yrs. old and working to earn money for school. Furthermore, I would not even attempt to compare what I did with the sacrifices of our men and women serving in the armed services today, neither in terms of value or worth. I wonder if our soldiers suffer from stress or if they save lives? I wonder how many of our solders get paid like CEOs?


Soldiers suffer from horrendous amounts of stress, definitely. In my opinion they sacrifice a lot in life to go overseas and fight wars, but as sad as it is, once again they are easily replaced. All you need is a high school diploma. In exchange for an education, benefits or paycheck they CHOOSE to join the armed forces. The risks they take should be researched before they sign that piece of paper. People have a choice to either sign up, or not sign up. Those who do are highly appreciated by most. Even in the armed forces there are promotions one is able to obtain through hard work.



IMO, having an education should only be rewarded if you use it to help lift others and not to repress them.


That's not the real world. Everyone has the choice to use their powers for good or evil. We can't have the Government regulate the hell out of our lives to make sure nobody does anything "bad". What if your intentions are good, but end up repressing somebody? What may lift up some, will repress others. Where does it stop?



I know that a lot of people and many CEOs think that their world, or their company, can't survive without them but I got some news for them, their wrong. One of the first things I learned as a working adult is that no one is indispensable regardless of position, including myself.


Nobody is indispensable, but some are better than others, and some are more difficult to replace.



Supply & demand mandates that if there is a need, someone will move in to fill the gap. It's the "need" or "demand" that will create and perpetuate "supply" chains, but a chain is just that and it's only as strong as it's weakest link.


Not sure I understand how to answer this. Not sure it needs an answer.



Anyway, I noticed that another responder to my thread has really posted an excellent reply to yours and I highly recommend that you give it a read. It's a post by one of my chosen friends, "Sestias" and its directly under your post.


I read Sestias's post, but it was not addressed to me specifically. He quoted somebody else, not me. If Sestias wants me to reply to his post, I will.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join