Minimum Wage... (i.imgur.com)

Conservative

266 ups - 84 downs = 182 votes

46 comments submitted at 07:52:35 on Feb 23, 2014 by chabanais

  • [-]
  • caelub
  • -21 Points
  • 09:56:35, 23 February

Don't just put the blame on Obama. Take it up with the CEO who won't take a meager pay cut out of his already ludicrous salary to give the people sweating for his opulence a living wage.

  • [-]
  • Chubberbun
  • 13 Points
  • 10:32:37, 23 February

blame is besides the point here though. It doesn't matter to the person who lost a job whether it was Obama's fault or the CEO's fault, they still lost their job

  • [-]
  • caelub
  • -16 Points
  • 10:38:07, 23 February

Who we blaim today is who we hold respibsible tomorrow. Who would you rather see held responsible; the man trying to make a difference in a corrupt system, or the source and embodiment of the corruption itself?

  • [-]
  • Chubberbun
  • 7 Points
  • 10:45:12, 23 February

I'm not convinced Obama gives a shit, and I think human nature is to be self interested so we should try to design policies that don't rely on people being generous to work

  • [-]
  • caelub
  • -14 Points
  • 10:51:27, 23 February

How about legislation that puts limits on greed instead of rewarding it?

  • [-]
  • Chubberbun
  • 11 Points
  • 10:52:23, 23 February

So we limit greed to 1.3 Scrooges per businessman?

  • [-]
  • caelub
  • -14 Points
  • 10:57:54, 23 February

Salary caps, bonus limits, make it more rewarding to have modest wealth than it is to horde money.

  • [-]
  • Iyoten
  • 4 Points
  • 15:47:46, 23 February

Salary caps? That'll discourage a lot of otherwise hard workers from taking the monetary risk of starting a business; or, when they hit the cap, they could just stop their business from progressing since there's no more benefit for them.

I agree that in a perfect world, everyone would be super rich and have everything they ever wanted. But enacting policy to achieve this goal hurts everyone and ensures that no one will reach that ideal.

  • [-]
  • caelub
  • -1 Points
  • 17:27:12, 23 February

No, in a perfext world no one would be super rich. Wouldn't want an entire species infected with "afluenza," would we?

  • [-]
  • caelub
  • -15 Points
  • 11:00:19, 23 February

If you make more than $1mil/year, you pay 50% income tax. At $999k/year its 30%. A bonus cannot exceed the annual salary of the lowest paid employee in the company.

  • [-]
  • DangerDance
  • 5 Points
  • 12:56:41, 23 February

I do not know if its actually a good plan or not (I am not an economist) but I heard a proposal once saying that the top earners in a company should make no more than 50 times what the lowest paid full time employee makes annually. 50 still seems kinda low honestly. If you work at taco bell for 18k a year that means the CEO would be making 900,000. Although I guess he could still invest that money and get returns on it and what not. This plan also did not include anything about bonuses.

Pros to the plan as I see it:

If the CEO wants a raise, pretty much everybody else in the company has to get a raise first.

Cons to the plan as I see it:

Even though the CEO of Taco Bell and the CEO of an engineering firm may do the same amount of work, the latter would be able to make WAY more money.

This would encourage people to set up Russian nesting doll-like corporations where the CEO of Taco Bell contracts out all the low paying Taco Bell jobs to a second company, so that "Taco Bell's" lowest paid employee makes more money and the low payed workers in the restaurants are contractors. Not real employees.

  • [-]
  • SE17
  • 6 Points
  • 11:27:00, 23 February

So if you earn 999k you take home $699,300 but then if you get a raise to $1m you only take home 500k. So nobody will have a salary between 999k and 1.4m

If anybody wants to get a raise it has to be a raise of 400k. And god forbid you don't accidenally get an extra 1k from somewhere otherwise you're 200k out of pocket.

  • [-]
  • KingPickle
  • 7 Points
  • 12:01:02, 23 February

That's not how tax brackets work.

You get taxed at the rate within each bracket. So in his example, if you made 1.1 million, only 100k of that would be taxed at 50%. The rest would be taxed at the various lower brackets that they fall into.

  • [-]
  • DangerDance
  • -1 Points
  • 12:01:28, 23 February

not exactly

  • [-]
  • DangerDance
  • 0 Points
  • 11:49:41, 23 February

This is not how taxes work. If the tax rate below 1 million is 30% and the tax rate above 1 million is 50% and you make exactly 1,000,000.00 a year you take home the first 999,999 at 30% and then you take the last dollar (the millionth dollar) at 50 percent.

Source

  • [-]
  • Mister_Johnson
  • 3 Points
  • 15:02:33, 23 February

Small business accounts for 40-something percent of the hired workforce. They don't have CEOs, in fact most small businesses barely scrape by month to month. Significantly raising the minimum wage will severely hurt small businesses, so you'll see many close their doors while the rest fire employees and attempt to do the same amount of work with a smaller workforce.

  • [-]
  • LibertyPatriot7
  • 2 Points
  • 16:41:46, 23 February

In the jobless recovery, basically every single new job was created by small business.

If it wasn't for small business there would have only been jobs shed.

  • [-]
  • LibertyPatriot7
  • 3 Points
  • 16:36:12, 23 February

Most ceos, even ones who make 400* the media salary of their company. If you took their compensation 100% and distributed it among the entire company, each person would likely get $500... if even that.

When a single person is responsible for an operation that has 11,000 or many times more employees. It is quite reasonable they make many many times more than a single person.

  • [-]
  • effervescent_cyanide
  • 5 Points
  • 11:48:36, 23 February

Labor is a commodity just like any other. The labor that a fast food employee is not worth very much, because anyone could do it. The labor of a CEO, on the other hand, is worth a lot because not many people can run a large company and keep it profitable. If the CEO was forced to take a pay cut, as you suggest, the CEO would simply find employment elsewhere with a different company that is willing to pay what he is worth.

Same goes for the low wage workers, everyone wants to sell their labor for as much as they can. Besides the state mandated minimum wage, there's also the individual's minimal amount of money they will accept in return for their labor.

  • [-]
  • KingPickle
  • 2 Points
  • 12:10:42, 23 February

You're mostly right, but I feel it's important to point out that our system isn't really a meritocracy either.

For example, there are a lot more people capable of being a CEO or an investment banker than there are people that do the job of a physicist, geneticist, etc. And yet, heads of companies and people that deal with money make far more than those scientists.

On a broad scale, we do reward talent and hard work to some degree. But in a lot of cases our wage distribution is somewhat arbitrary.

  • [-]
  • L3ADboy
  • 5 Points
  • 12:40:44, 23 February

The CEO owns the business. Business is about making a profit; not making sure everyone has a "livable" wage. Say the inflation was disregarded from the minimum wage increase. Why would anyone go into a expensive college to get a degree for some sort of specialized job when they could just make the same wage working at Mc' D's?

  • [-]
  • KidChildishWest
  • -1 Points
  • 15:36:02, 23 February

I think you would have liked living in the 1900's. They thought the same way. Workers? Fuck 'em. Profits? Love 'em.

  • [-]
  • L3ADboy
  • 3 Points
  • 15:45:36, 23 February

That is a strawman argument. Workers have the choice to leave a job if they are being treated like pigs. No one is forcing you to work at Wal-Mart. It is up to the employer to attract new employees with benefits and such. There isnt really any competition for minimum wage jobs though; because there is a huge pool of employees willing to do the work that anyone could do. But for a specialized job? The demand is great and the supply is low(most of the time). So employers amp up benefits, the wage, etc. to try and get the best employees for their business. Read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell and learn some things.

  • [-]
  • KidChildishWest
  • 1 Points
  • 16:24:27, 23 February

I'm a huge fan of Thomas Sowell.

> There isnt really any competition for minimum wage jobs though; because there is a huge pool of employees willing to do the work that anyone could do.

Wouldn't a large pool of employees lead to more competition for min. wage jobs?

So, someone doesn't like their working conditions at a minimum wage job and they leave, their spot is filled immediately.

They try to find a job somewhere else but can't because "there is a huge pool of employees willing to do the work that anyone could do" this reminds me a lot of 1900-1910 where there were plenty of unskilled workers and employers could take advantage of that.

  • [-]
  • L3ADboy
  • 2 Points
  • 16:28:59, 23 February

I am talking about competition between employers to get the best employees. There isn't much competition between employers to get employees for a low paying job because anyone willing could do it un-skilled or not.

  • [-]
  • veritas8911
  • 4 Points
  • 14:51:24, 23 February

LOL. CEOs need to take a paycut to support unskilled workers? You occupy guys get dumber every month.