Democratic Nominee in 2020

Quote: rxwine

What does the pay of the lowest paid workers have to do with CEOs? Because one of the excuses of not paying a living wage is not enough money to go around. Yet they seem to find money to raise the pay of CEOs to record highs in some cases.

And actually, even if they can't reach the goal of a full living wage, there seems to be a lot of lack of effort to even get partially there by some. I'd still be fighting for a higher floor for these people even if it can't reach the full goal.

The CEO pay is usually based on large part in performance and stock options. The janitor has a guarantee. If the janitor wants to make CEO pay then the janitor should try to be a CEO.

Or another way, both are paid based on their value produced.

Quote: rxwine

Nope. If employers could always pay the value of the employee they might opt to pay less than minimum wage.

But they can’t because they cannot stay staffed paying only minimum wage.

Have you ever run a business? You seem to think that a CEO sits like Scrooge McDuck while a guy dressed like tho monopoly guy brings in a wheelbarrow of money and dumps it on the floor every hour or so.

Quote: AZDuffman

Have you ever run a business?

I think we all know the answer to that. It always cracks me up whenever I see libbies who have never run anything in their lives trying to tell business owners how to run their businesses. Libbies think business owners go into their backyard and pluck money off a money tree.

It boggles my mind that there are people out there who truly believe that you should be able to buy a house and raise a family just by sweeping floors for 40 hours a week. It's insanity man. 🙄

Quote: AZDuffman

But they can’t because they cannot stay staffed paying only minimum wage.
.

Better check your American History then. Because it certainly hasn't always been true. People worked for boarding house wages. Enough to pay a landlord that they worked for in an endless circle of poverty.

Quote:

Have you ever run a business? You seem to think that a CEO sits like Scrooge McDuck while a guy dressed like tho monopoly guy brings in a wheelbarrow of money and dumps it on the floor every hour or so.

I like when people can't even get their facts right and then lecture me in the same post.

Also,

Quote: AZDuffman

If the janitor wants to make CEO pay then the janitor should try to be a CEO.

You need to submit evidence anyone said a janitor should make CEO pay. Just making stuff up, are you.

Labor is a commodity just like any other. Minimum wage discussion is irrelevant in a booming economy like we have under the "Great One" DJT. The cost of labor is up just like the cost of steel products is up just like the cost of gas is down. Simple supply and demand. Works every time it's tried.

Quote: SOOPOO

1.)I understand that you WANT the CEO to make less, and that you WANT the janitor to make more! Someone (at least theoretically!) determines how much value the CEO brings to the company, and compensates him or her accordingly. Usually, a large portion of the 'salary' of the CEO is not salary, but stock option type stuff, which means the CEO succeeds IF the company succeeds.

2.)The janitor agrees to work a set number of hours for a set amount of pay. If the company does not offer enough pay then the janitor does not have to work there! The company decides what the value of having a janitor is, but you want the government to take over that role from the company! Actually, it's the same thing for the CEO pay.

3.)My 'last few sentences' were bemoaning the fact that I worked more than 40 hours a week my entire career.... yet you think someone making MW should not have to if they want more money..... just have the government legislate them more money....

Quote unaltered, with exception to the fact that I added numbers.

1.) I basically agree with all of that, except I don't necessarily want our unidentified CEO to make less.

2.) "If the company does not offer enough pay then the janitor does not have to work there!" I LOVE this argument, because it's just so bad. If we stipulate that the janitor DOES have to work SOMEWHERE does the fact that he does not have to be a janitor for a specific location really matter?

The companies, at one time, decided that having children work dangerous jobs would be a fine idea. They decided that no safety regulations would be just swell. Any law is a matter of social contract. It's been well-established that companies cannot be left to just do whatever the hell they want to, and I think most would argue, for very good reason. The question isn't about whether or not there is a minimum that the company should have to pay, a minimum to which they should have to adhere as to safety regulations, a minimum age that individuals must be to work (or even to work certain jobs)..these things have all been well-established. In this country, the answer is, "Yes," in all cases. Resoundingly, at that.

The question is what do we, as a society, believe is an appropriate minimum, per hour, that companies must pay. Like it or not, the companies themselves are not individually relevant to the discussion in any way. They don't get to have a choice anymore, because when they did have complete freedom of choice, it has been determined that they screwed it all up. I didn't determine that and nor did many of the people here, because we weren't alive yet.

The states have the freedom and opportunity to, if they wish, increase that minimum over and beyond what is demanded by the federal government. The companies have the freedom to, if they wish, exceed the minimums required by the federal and/or state government. That's where the companies get to become relevant again on an individual basis.

3.) Why would you bemoan something that you chose to do? Minimum wage simply dictates to companies what they must pay per hour. That's literally all that it does. If an individual wants more money than what the minimum wage demands he/she should be paid for forty hours, then that individual must work overtime, (I don't think you have any idea how loathe some employers---not all---are to pay overtime. Even accidentally ending up with overtime would be immediate termination at the distribution center, for example) get a second job (again, there's some luck involved here, also, as many employers demand that you adhere to their schedule FIRST in order to get that minimum wage, while some other employers require that you be available to come into work at a moment's notice in exchange to get that minimum wage) or simply find a job that will pay them more.

Anyway, whatever the specific situation, the onus is definitely on the individual to accomplish any of those things or fall short of his/her desires. That has absolutely nothing to do with what the minimum wage either is or is not in and of itself, though.

Quote: Shrek

It boggles my mind that there are people out there who truly believe that you should be able to buy a house and raise a family just by sweeping floors for 40 hours a week. It's insanity man. 🙄

I don't think you're talking about me, but just to be clear, I do not believe that or anything even within a mile of that.

The problem today is not our inflation of our needs/costs it is the inflation of our wants. People don't want to live without all the marvelous things our technology has brought us. How many of the following are people willing to live without now: dishwasher, TV, cell phone (with unlimited data), separate bedroom for everyone, meat every meal, exotic holidays, unlimited treats (ie pop, chips, chocolate,), this is what has changed, people have lost the distinction between needs and wants and think society owes them all their wants. A living wage is a wage that keeps you alive not a wage that supplies all your wants.

My father was a vice-principle in 1958 and earned $300/month. In todays dollars that is $2,670 this is about $16/hr the average person would be well below that in 1958 so most people did not make a living wage. Bottom line in this as with most things in life is that most people can't be made happy by giving them more, they will only want even more. This is true of money, power, and almost anything else. That is why people and society need to draw a line and say no more.

Quote: rxwine

Nope. If employers could always pay the value of the employee they might opt to pay less than minimum wage.

But they can't, so they pay the lowest
allowed by law. I don't see your
point.