So, this is how a Milennial sees a solution to the "Living Wage" issue....

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xtrozero

In teaching a topic, one learns more about it. The ability to teach well indicates an ability to learn well.

Damn. That is a brilliant approach!

You would not believe how many times a person hands an extremely good resume, has everything, talks well in the questions phase and when they get to the instruction it is like OMG. They normally do 15 minutes, but I have said a few time, ok that is good after 5 minutes, in a nice way, but inside I was like I can not take anymore of this...

Feel free to use this technic, its gold...hehe

a reply to: Xtrozero

Taking CEO money is a pipe dream because for one person it is a lot, but for 130,000 it is 8 cents per hour raise. Take Walmart that evil corp, I personally do not like it nor do I shop there.

This is called argument ad absurdum, you shouldn't expect me to dignify it with a serious response, but I will. Ignoring the absurdities, obviously your idea is not what's being proposed. It's like saying, "well, there's a problem with inner city gangs, so you obviously expect us to kill off all the black youth, since they make up a large portion of them in _____ city."

It's hilarious how people hear a different train of thought and immediately associate some dystopian communist authoritarian state where every makes cents of the dollar and business collapses around them.

Newsflash, if you didn't dump hundreds of billions into bailouts for companies that don't deserve to exist, that money could go somewhere else. If you didn't have corporations shirking billions of dollars in taxes, that money could go somewhere else. If you didn't have companies using regulations to completely monopolize markets, you'd have competitive industry, and money generated...wait for it...could go somewhere else.

The CEOs of America's 500 biggest companies got a collective pay raise of 16% last year earning total compensation of $5.2 billion. That's an average $10.5 million apiece.

www.forbes.com...

You don't necessarily need to break down a CEOs pay to every person in the company. That was but a single example (that worked for said company apparently), but lets say the highest paid CEOs, instead of their collective pay raise went to workers in another end of the spectrum that is 500,000 workers.

That's not including their current pay. That is just their BONUS a 16% raise they received last year. That means they are already earning something like 70 Million/Year.

They could give up that bonus collectively and give 500,000 workers a $10,000 Bonus. Cut down the CEOs pay to 10 million and whoa, suddenly you have 3 million workers with bonuses. Not bad.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: boncho

Two employees hired to do the same job. One sits there and surfs her smart phone most of the day while the other works. You pay them both exactly the same.

Is that fair or right? One is actually working hard at what you hired her to do while the other is slacking off and not doing the job, but you pay them the same.

But hey ... yeah, let's just give everyone the same basic income.

You are telling me people are currently by productivity only? Nice fantasy. I suppose you have never heard the word 'seniority.'

a reply to: Shamrock6

Completely ignore the actual discussion and throw stones. Ad hominem. I might have been critical of the response to the issue, but I at least explained my side on the issue, and looked at it with a modicum of depth.

"Money has to come from somewhere", yes, and what's your opinion that it would cost less than the current system? Or does that money come from thin air? Did you even read the OP article, or is your indignation about my indignation preventing you from having an actual discussion?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: boncho



Really? CEO pay cuts are going to rustle up $3-7.5 trillion dollars? After you remove the Federal workforce, who is the largest employer in the country, where is the tax money those people pay going to be made up from?

Where does the tax money need to go when you print money from trees? Look I can build straw man arguments and be absurd too. I listed a few examples of a few different means of implementing a few different programs all under the same banner. Is there a specific one you want to critique?

Why not critique the OP one which puts a living wage as costing less than the current system. Or does the current system have magical money as well?

originally posted by: boncho
Newsflash, if you didn't dump hundreds of billions into bailouts for companies that don't deserve to exist, that money could go somewhere else. If you didn't have corporations shirking billions of dollars in taxes, that money could go somewhere else. If you didn't have companies using regulations to completely monopolize markets, you'd have competitive industry, and money generated...wait for it...could go somewhere else.

Hmm I think this is a whole list of Red herrings...lol My point was about the evil CEOs not everything above.

The CEOs of America's 500 biggest companies got a collective pay raise of 16% last year earning total compensation of $5.2 billion. That's an average $10.5 million apiece.

OK who cares...so they make 10.5 mil. The CEO of Boeing makes about 20 mil with stock options and if he keeps me in a job for 40 years then he can keep it all. So we take your 5.2 billion and give it to all the Walmart employees, CONGRATS you gave them $1.30 per hour raise. My point is people feel the Evil rich can pay for everything and I stand by my point that it is a lot of money for one but to the masses its pennies, or in this case buck 30...lol

a reply to: Xtrozero
No, man. It's the principle of the matter, not the facts.
Somebody is making way, way more money than I am and that is just not right.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xtrozero
No, man. It's the principle of the matter, not the facts.
Somebody is making way, way more money than I am and that is just not right.

Very true...people hate success... I love the ones like about the guy who makes a billion in the hedge market, who the F cares, it sure does nothing to my life...lol

originally posted by: boncho

They could give up that bonus collectively and give 500,000 workers a $10,000 Bonus. Cut down the CEOs pay to 10 million and whoa, suddenly you have 3 million workers with bonuses. Not bad.

Do we run a lottery for the 500k out of 100 million on who gets the bonuses?

a reply to: nullafides

We are just about out of enough labor....both skilled and unskilled.... to run an economy in any healthy way, on that basis. Yet we still have to feed, shelter, and cloth people. The compliance costs for a needs based social program system are huge.

Tons of resources, infrastructure, make-work jobs, and many other things go into keeping what we currently have barely afloat. The working poor are mostly desperate and can't afford what it takes to learn something that would actually be useful. And the non-working poor are disincentivized because if they improve their lot at all, in a legal fashion, they will lose their benefits.

So that breeds crime and black markets to turn say....food stamps into cigarettes, for example. Getting rid of all welfare programs and just cutting checks, would pay for about half of it. And would remove the shame factor.

Currently, all the benefits of automation accrue to Corporations. Why should that be? Do you pay less at the store for checking yourself out? The four cashier's paychecks they save go directly to their bottom line. But everyone is a stakeholder in an economy. The other half of a basic income would be paid as a direct tax on business at about 15-20%....which would go into the pool. ...and be distributed to people.....who would SPEND it.....keeping them in business and the market both freer and liquid.

It places control of the market back where it belongs. ...in the choices of the consumers. Everything would quickly find its real value, based on voluntary choice. What would you do with your 12K extra a year? Go to school? Stay home and take care of your own kids? Buy a better car? Go on vacation? Whatever you choose to do with it though will provide at least some work for some who doesn't want to live at the bare minimum.

Under such conditions, McDonalds would be lucky to find burger flippers for 15 bucks an hour.

Time to institute the Progress Dividend for everyone.

a reply to: Phage

I think you're actually correct, sarcastic though you are (you're also missing seventeen or so "way"s). While someone making "more" money is fine, when it gets to the obscene level that 0.1% of the population is as wealthy as the bottom 90%, something isn't right. I don't care if someone makes ten times as much as I do, or even thirty times as much, it's when it gets to the point that you'd have to work a decent job for thousands of years with no taxation or other expenses to get to the same level of wealth that I find unacceptable.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

it's when it gets to the point that you'd have to work a decent job for thousands of years to get to the same level of wealth that I find unacceptable.

Why? Except out of envy? That's the part I don't get.
Yes, there is "income inequality", no doubt. But as has been pointed out, so what? You want that income to be distributed evenly? As has been pointed out, it doesn't go far if you do.

The problem is not that a small number people make an obscene amount of money. You need to find another windmill to tilt against.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope we hear this argument a lot in the uk, that if we regulate banks our bankers will just go elsewhere? The thing is they like living in London with all it has to offer the rich. Where else they going to go, where they have the freedoms to enjoy their wealth? When you can buy anything money can buy here in the uk. They have private jets to get about, if they get bored, but very few countries provide the permanent stability and freedoms they appreciate in the uk. Why would they want to go live in some Middle East Disney land or Far Eastern island, with the likes of China breathing down their necks. The U.K. Is a stable country with established law and order and infrastructure. Why go to some tax haven to riskthose advantages. When they have so much money anyway. Somethings you can't pay for.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Anyone saying "you're poor because you don't try" is just sad.

Indeed it is. It makes me very sad to look at three members of my extended family who could be doing as well as their four cousins had they applied themselves. It makes me sad to think that they think having a cool tattoo is more important than paying the rent or thinking that having a big screen tv is more important than having a home.

But at the same time it makes me very proud to look at those other four young men who have applied themselves and avoided the pitfalls of debt by WORKING, sometimes WORKING TWO or THREE JOBS while they were in school. They applied themselves in school, got scholarships for their efforts and got through school without a load of debt. Yes, they had little bits of "help" from the older generation from time to time. That's because in my family, we are quick to help those who help themselves, those who have goals and are pursuing them with vigor. The ones sitting on the couch playing video games and complaining about being broke---not so much.

If we bring the big picture down to our own extended family level---it becomes pretty clear that those four working families can't support the three that aren't working---especially when the non-working are the ones reproducing!

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Honestly, why would you want to be that rich anyway?

I've yet to hear of any of them being horribly happy. How much shopping, or parties aboard yachts, etc... can you do before it gets horribly boring.

Personally, I like taking a trip or two a year, that keeps it fresh and relatively new.

It might be fun for a little, but eventually, it'd be more trouble than it'd be worth. MHO, of course.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Apparently the momo in the article flunked basic math.

Let us just say that we are going to give everyone $20,000 and that there are 150,000,000 working class Americans.

That comes out to $3,000,000,000,000 in disbursements that needs to be made yearly with a static population. That is more than 75% of the current Federal budget. The derp is strong.

A basic income is working in Norway, I don't think they get $20,000 though, it's closer to around what $15,000 USD will get you. They also pay a much higher tax rate than we do.

On the other hand, because of the basic income it ensures that everyone is financially secure enough to work fewer hours, focus on self improvement, and improve their lot in life.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: forkedtongue

One way to fix this problem with too many people?

STOP IMPORTING THEM!

Seriously, if you examine the birth rate of the country, we aren't actually growing our population except through immigration. Our true birth rate is more like neutral growth.

So maybe if we stopped the wholesale immigration, we'd clear up that "too many people, not enough jobs" thing.

Our economic system is built on growth. It's strongly tied to a growth in population as more population means more customers for more products. If we don't continue to grow our population the entire thing will collapse.

Isn't capitalism wonderful?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
All the poor people you know, less than 5% don't work. Cool story. And has what to do with what I said? I know several people who don't make what would be considered a "living wage". Which is whom I'm referring to in my question. If they suddenly start getting a living wage, can their employer now pay them less since they're getting a freebie the government says is enough to live on? If no, why shouldn't the employer be able to cut wages? They don't need the money to "make a living." If it's a job requiring little to no skill, why bother even pretending to pay them something approaching a living wage anymore?

If there were a basic income, what you would find is that you could completely eliminate the minimum wage. Wages would truly be dictated by the market because those low skill low wage jobs wouldn't be positions that anyone actually has to fill in order to not go hungry. Instead those jobs would only get filled if the employer provided a decent wage, which then snowballs into better wages for everyone.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Where are the trillion of dollars in perpetuity going to come from?

$15,000 for everyone in the US comes to $4.8 trillion, in reality it would be less than that because you don't need to give a full $15,000 to young children. Lets call it $4.4 trillion. This would also eliminate the need for welfare spending and social security which come to $1.4 trillion. So what you would be looking at is coming up with about $3 trillion in additional revenue. An increase in federal income taxes could easily cover that.

a reply to: seagull

I've heard that it's an obsession, sort of like OCD. One of the richest men I know of (some Mexican guy) doesn't even do anything with his wealth as far as I'm aware but use it to acquire more wealth. He lives very modestly.
It's like the house upgrading in AC2. You upgrade your house with in-game currency... So you can acquire more in-game currency.

Why? Except out of envy? That's the part I don't get.

Envy certainly plays a part, but that's not the reason I'm so disgusted. The reason it's so abhorrent is because what is done in pursuit of this obscene wealth. Look at the TPP. That's there so corporations and a couple of a hundred of people can get a lot wealthier, but it totally screws over the majority of the United State's population. It's not so much the wealth itself, but the greed (or perhaps mental disorder) that it represents.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: boncho

Two employees hired to do the same job. One sits there and surfs her smart phone most of the day while the other works. You pay them both exactly the same.

Is that fair or right? One is actually working hard at what you hired her to do while the other is slacking off and not doing the job, but you pay them the same.

But hey ... yeah, let's just give everyone the same basic income.

I would be the one working, but yes that is completely right. If the employee sitting on her phone is a problem then modify her behavior or fire her. The employer letting it slide is saying that it's ok, and part of capitalism also involves the employee doing the least amount of work they can get away with. How does her not working, impact me choosing to work?

a reply to: Aazadan
So you're going to cut all the Social Security recipients down to $15k/yr.? How is that fair in any way?
Oh well, we Boomers knew we'd never see any of that money anyway....we've made other provisions.