Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 59): That's a backwards way of looking at it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60): Actually, the opposite is true.

Really? Then explain why market forces dictate all other wage levels, and the the power of subsidy has no value. Your argument suggests that the Law of Gravity does not exist if you get close enough to the floor.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 62): market forces dictate all other wage levels, and the the power of subsidy has no value

Because wages and subsidies are two different things. Auto manufacturers left the United States because they found they could pay lower wages overseas. When those same manufacturing jobs came back, they came back at much, much lower wages with zero benefits.

The only subsides to be had were to the auto manufacturers. Not to employees.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 62): Your argument suggests that the Law of Gravity does not exist if you get close enough to the floor

Once you are flat on the floor, you can not go any lower unless someone else starts digging. Wal-Mart and fast food have found a way to do just that.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 62): Then explain why market forces dictate all other wage levels

There are more examples of wage levels being independent of market forces than aren't. Minimum wage dictates the majority of wage levels (usually starts at min wage, then performance raises are given in amounts relative to the minimum wage). And executive level pay is not set by market forces, but rather behind closed door negotiations.

Again, people seeking low wage jobs don't know what their minium income needs to be to survive. They take what they can get, and try to make the best of it. Raising the minimum wage will go a long way to helping reduce poverty.

Quoting ual747den (Reply 16): A CEO of a very successful corporation should be and must be paid very well or he/she will just move on to a business that will pay this person what they are worth and that corporation won't be very successful anymore.

Absolutely agree. When you're talking about profits in the hundreds of millions that person deserves to be compensated well. Everybody likes to act like these guys show up, go to a couple meetings, and go to the country club before lunch. When it fact their work is their life.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 18): Damn facts getting in the way of a good ol' fashioned conservative argument!

 . I do love the idea that only the right is ever wrong. The left, never!

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 18): I'd say the concession prices are far more influential on the decision to purchase than anything the talent on the court/field will do.

Boy then we go to sporting events for way different reasons. I have never sat down and said "Should we go to the Rangers game because the hot dog is 7 bucks or the Bruins because it is only 6?" I'll pick the team that is doing better or I am a fan of.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21): If you have access to a quite basic kitchen it's easy to eat food that's better for you than is fast food and is cheaper than fast food. The real problem is the lack of education both by the public schools and by parents.

It's actually very comparable unless you want to have spaghetti with every meal. Don't get me wrong, I'm a college student. I'm supposed to live off of ramen and pasta. But it isn't a myth that it can be cheaper. Take it from someone who lives on a limited income.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21): Simply come up with a formula based on the ratio of the pay of the entry level workers (contract as well as direct) to the CEO based on traditional/world norms and make it illegal for a CEO to earn more than that ratio upon pain of jail time. CEOs hate jail more than the love money. If that means these CEOs choose to move their companies outside of the US, that's fine too. What is far worse is them staying in the US and continuing to live high off the hog whilst the middle class disappears. It's clear to me that far more would chose to stay here than would leave, because these people already have the means to leave. Say goodbye to all of them and let's have a new generation of corporate leaders who realize the least among us have to succeed for them to succeed.

So what you're saying is the "least of us" who may not be putting in 100% should drag down someone who has worked to get to their position? Hardly an idea that would motivate someone to work hard. I don't understand the idea that we should hit these CEOs for being successful while rewarding those who may have not worked very hard.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 22): Corn, soybean, meat, chicken, potato.... they are living off the government dole at a much higher rate than the workers! Cut welfare for the rich and let's see what that does to the debt and deficit!

The rich aren't the only ones benefiting from those subsidies. You eat everyday just like the rest of us. I'd be willing to bet you've bought all those ingredients in the store as well. You just benefited from a subsidy.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23): When you are pulling in $13+ Million a year there is a strong motivation to keep lower level employees below the poverty line.

Yes, because the CEO wakes up and says "How can I screw the little guy today?" Not quite.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23): Considering that they are far easier to replace than, say, a surgeon, I'd say you are a bit too much in love with the CEOs.

Just did a quick google search and in 2010 there were 135,834 surgeons in the US. There are far more surgeons that could replace someone than CEOs who could replace a Fortune 500 CEO.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23): Another factor is competition. McDonalds over prices their products and competitors can come in and eat their lunch. So the CEO only gets $12+ million a year. I'll shed a tear over that.

If McDonalds over prices their products they sure as heck know how to do it and still come out cheaper. Even an expensive meal at McDonalds is cheaper than it's next biggest competitor.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 37): Anyone who defends or denies this happens is being a little naïve, or obtuse.

Or have a differing view.

Quoting cmf (Reply 40): Straight from the article. The money isn't handed directly to McD but they are the beneficiary.

They are the beneficiary. But the question now becomes, Is what they are doing illegal? No. It isn't.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49): I agree to perform work for you in return for an amount of money that must serve my needs. If the money is not enough, I have to go look elsewhere. If your offered salary is not enough for me (or anyone else) to serve their needs, you need to increase the offered wage.

If they can't find someone to fill the position they increase their wage. But there isn't a shortage of workers looking to work these jobs.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49): The fact is that there IS a market for very cheap labor that students can meet - they are simply looking for enough money to buy gas and condoms.

And then there are some of us who are trying to pay their way through school. What you earn in life shouldn't be defined by your age. What you end up doing should determine your wage.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 57): When we went to Mexico two years ago, the number of women and children (under 10 years old) begging on the streets was heart wrenching. All I could think is "this is how the right wants workers in United States to live." Spend a week around the cathedral in Mazatlan and you will get it.

That's a sad story, but way to twist it to make the right look bad....

Quoting seb146 (Reply 62): The only subsides to be had were to the auto manufacturers. Not to employees

The subsidies ending up employing people, so just like McDonalds may be getting indirect subsidies those employees are as well.
Pat

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39): I see it as being more anti-Income Support Programs. I've been making the same argument on this board for years. Companies who hire at or near minimum wage, and who do not restrict such hires to students and such just looking for a supplementary income to buy gas and go on dates, but hire people who must earn a living, are effectively getting massive subsidies from the government. THIS is the real corporate welfare scandal.

If I read you correctly, I agree with you on this 100%. They are getting massive subsidies from the government. They pay the minimum to anyone desperate enough to walk in and apply. They know this, the days of high school kids taking these jobs is long over. So now Mother's, Fathers, retired, broke, are taking these jobs. They could care less. They know how to milk the system. They counsel how to apply for help. by doing this, they know that the chances of some desperate soul staying are greatly enhanced, because they can survive with government help. Not without it. Let me tell you, 2K a month is dog wages here. You will live in poverty and you will live on fast food and the free food you might while get for working for dog wages.

http://www.providencejournal.com/opi...ma-harrop-scandal-in-candyland.ece



Speaking of subsidies, which follows along with the theme of this thread. Fast food and sugar certainly go hand in hand. This article explains what is going on in the Sugar World, and how we are being screwed by subsidies, just as McDonalds and many more are screwing us and their workers by using government subsidies. Once again, right out of our pockets, and into the pockets of the wealthy.

[Edited 2013-10-27 18:38:03]

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 56): This article explains what is going on in the Sugar World, and how we are being screwed by subsidies, just as McDonalds and many more are screwing us and their workers by using government subsidies. Once again, right out of our pockets, and into the pockets of the wealthy.

No argument about sugar (And corn, milk and other foods as well as well, via different mechanisms). But why are you blaming McDonalds and other such companies? I don't recall them ever promoting or lobbying for expansion of income supplement programs. They are simply responding to market pressures. Why should they pay $15 per hour when people are willing to do the work at to take half that? Especially when increasing their wages would mean having to significantly increase their prices in a very competitive market. So what exactly are you blaming them for? It's like blaming a poor person for all the income support programs he benefits from.

It sounds to me like you are seeking to assign blame to "evil big business", when the fact of the matter is that this is just another (probably unintended) consequence of those programs that Democrats pushed for, and that Conservatives warned you would happen.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 48): People don't know what their minimum income needs are

False. Of all people, the poor will be the most aware of the cost of food, shelter, etc.

Don't assume poor equals completely ignorant and out of touch.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 53): And executive level pay is not set by market forces, but rather behind closed door negotiations.

And what do you think those negotiations are?

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 53): Raising the minimum wage will go a long way to helping reduce poverty.

Minimum wage laws destroy jobs. Destroying jobs, no matter how marginal they are, will NEVER reduce poverty.

Stop killing jobs.

[Edited 2013-10-27 20:00:06]

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57): It sounds to me like you are seeking to assign blame to "evil big business", when the fact of the matter is that this is just another (probably unintended) consequence of those programs that Democrats pushed for, and that Conservatives warned you would happen.

I believe in a living, or livable wage. I support the worker, not the corporations in this matter. You and I both know that the corporations are using the government programs to subsidize workers wages. As I stated, the programs were not meant to allow corporations to offer a non-living wage. That is what they do. Now you and I know that the conservatives scream and holler about spending when the Dems are in office. That is the mantra, lower spending. Yet when I or anyone on the opposite side mention the use of a social program being used as a subsidy. You folks play deaf and dumb. Whether at a state or federal level, the systems are being bled dry. When you have any large corporation counseling their help to apply for welfare, food stamps or anything else, that increases the spending you folks are screaming about. I am appalled at the hypocrisy from the right. The figures are there. People should be paid enough to survive in the economy in which they live. You know it, you said it earlier. They are getting massive subsidies. They are bleeding the system. Now did I read it wrong, or did you admit they are?????

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39): I see it as being more anti-Income Support Programs. I've been making the same argument on this board for years. Companies who hire at or near minimum wage, and who do not restrict such hires to students and such just looking for a supplementary income to buy gas and go on dates, but hire people who must earn a living, are effectively getting massive subsidies from the government. THIS is the real corporate welfare scandal

I read it again, it seems your agreeing about the subsidies has turned into a n accusatory rant about my hating, blaming corporations. I noticed also, not one comment about the pay ratio of the CEO's to workers that I put on earlier. The silence is telling, the hypocrisy is telling. After awhile there is no credibility to the conservatives words.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 59): You and I both know that the corporations are using the government programs to subsidize workers wages.

This idea makes no sense.

Just because a large number of people working for those wages also are welfare beneficiaries does not mean it has an impact on the market price for that type of labor.

In fact, no company will offer some college graduate a job for a lower salary because he still lives at home with his parents and thus has a cost of living advantage over one that is all on his own! That's just ludicrous!

It's just the latest attempt at an economic rationale for minimum wages from the left.

[Edited 2013-10-27 20:19:31]

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 59): I believe in a living, or livable wage.

Here is where I get confused with the living wage theory--let's say we make living wage, IDK, $15/hr (I have no idea if this is in the ballpark or not but just for sake of argument we'll set it at that.) Min wage is about $7.50ish, so if raise $7.50.hr -> $15/hr and $14/hr -> $15, isn't that a bit unfair? You have people doing the most basic, low skill work making as much as someone that put a bit of time and effort into their job. I doubt employers will have much incentive to raise the $14/hr people to $20some/hr just to be fair. How does that get worked out?

Again, I'm not talking about the overall merits and fallbacks of living wage, just wondering about this specific aspect

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 62): Here is where I get confused with the living wage theory--let's say we make living wage, IDK, $15/hr (I have no idea if this is in the ballpark or not but just for sake of argument we'll set it at that.) Min wage is about $7.50ish, so if raise $7.50.hr -> $15/hr and $14/hr -> $15, isn't that a bit unfair? You have people doing the most basic, low skill work making as much as someone that put a bit of time and effort into their job. I doubt employers will have much incentive to raise the $14/hr people to $20some/hr just to be fair. How does that get worked out? Again, I'm not talking about the overall merits and fallbacks of living wage, just wondering about this specific aspect

I understand. Let us look at the difference in living costs, say for instance, up North, and down South. In the city, and in the outskirts. Surely there is a difference in different areas. You cannot expect a single Mother in New York City to be able to support herself and her family on minimum wage. In my area. suburbs, she has a slightly better chance. Not much, but ever so slightly. The term living wage, means that you can work 40 hours, and expect to be able to survive, no matter what the area. 15 bucks an hour here, in my area, is still poverty wages, never mind in the city. After taxes, you will just scape by even at 15 bucks an hour. You will drive a shit box car if you can find one. You will live in an apartment, or lose your home if you had one in the beginning. You will be on food stamps, you will be on assistance of some kind, if you have no family to rely on. That is what 15 bucks gets you here, never mind 7.50 per hour.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 61): It's just the latest attempt at an economic rationale for minimum wages from the left.

Absurd, how about we couch it in human terms, the ability to support yourself, not to be exploited by greedy corporations, greedy anybody. The ability to give to your children, the ability to not have to take welfare after working two jobs. The ability to not have to read about someone making 50 million a year while you have just had your wages, or hours reduced. A funny thing, some scream and holler, and yet defend the greedy from the Right.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 63):

I realize that, I was just pointing out that people making $7.50 an hour and someone making almost double, $14/hr, will both be raised to our hypothetical living wage of $15. You see how that is not fair and doesn't make much sense? That means you have a burger flipper and, IDK, an entry level job for a college student* all of the sudden making the same amount of money.

Would that entry level job go up? Why would employers raise it much more than the living wage already raised it? Is it fair to have these two jobs with much different skill sets/lack of skills make the same much?

I know other countries have done this and they haven't fallen off the face of Earth so I was just wondering what would happen and what the implications are

Bottom line is, I wouldn't call it corporate welfare, but it is annoying to have tax payers pay for someone that has a job and doesn't make much money. I know we get that money back in the form of cheaper burgers, but it's kind of convoluted. Have to think about this one...


*I don't know what average entry level wages are for college student, but we can agree that a person making $14/hr is more qualified/skilled than someone on minimum wage

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65): I was just pointing out that people making $7.50 an hour and someone making almost double, $14/hr, will both be raised to our hypothetical living wage of $15. You see how that is not fair and doesn't make much sense? That means you have a burger flipper and, IDK, an entry level job for a college student* all of the sudden making the same amount of money.

Do you have any idea how common that already is?
Frequently shift supervisors and the like will be within a dollar of entry level.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65): Why would employers raise it much more than the living wage already raised it? Is it fair to have these two jobs with much different skill sets/lack of skills make the same much?

You'd have to ask the employers. You ought to know there's enough variety there to make asking something like that here an exercise in philosophy with little bearing on the real world.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65): I don't know what average entry level wages are for college student, but we can agree that a person making $14/hr is more qualified/skilled than someone on minimum wage

Not if $14 is the minimum. Here at LAX, minimum is already over $15. We have seen no loss in positions as a result of this. Or for any reason for that matter.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 53): And executive level pay is not set by market forces, but rather behind closed door negotiations.

Of course it is. It's minimum wage that is not set by the market, because minimum wage is by its very nature a market distortion.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 54): So what you're saying is the "least of us" who may not be putting in 100% should drag down someone who has worked to get to their position?

That's exactly what liberals are saying. I don't know about you, but I have no interest in living in a place where everyone is average.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57): Especially when increasing their wages would mean having to significantly increase their prices in a very competitive market.

Let's not forget who would really get nailed with a minimum wage increase. It's not people working at steakhouses who are making minimum wage, it's the folks at McDonald's. And who patronizes McDonald's and other fast food joints? The lower and middle class.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57): It sounds to me like you are seeking to assign blame to "evil big business", when the fact of the matter is that this is just another (probably unintended) consequence of those programs that Democrats pushed for, and that Conservatives warned you would happen.

There in fact are fast food places that do pay $15 per hour. The reason they have to do so is because 1) that's what the cost of living is and 2) it's the only way they can hope to retain workers and even then any other job pays more and the turnover is high.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 62): Min wage is about $7.50ish, so if raise $7.50.hr -> $15/hr and $14/hr -> $15, isn't that a bit unfair?

Yes it is, and what's worse is that the person who got a $1 per hour raise probably buys many things made by people who just got their pay doubled. Think of all the places we do business where many employees make minimum wage and then consider if all those places had their employee costs nearly doubled (don't forget this would run all the way up the supply chain too) which we would have to absorb while getting little or no pay raise. Despite what liberals might tell you, it's a little bigger than an extra $0.50 on your hamburger once in a while.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65): You see how that is not fair and doesn't make much sense?

Liberal economics uses an odd definition of "fairness."

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65): Would that entry level job go up?

No, and effectively their pay would drop from having to pay more for everything.

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 66):

You are taking my hypotheical numbers too seriously. Basically, I'm saying that absolute minimum wage jobs might be elevated to the same level as some college graduate level jobs. You can see the dilemma there

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 66): You'd have to ask the employers. You ought to know there's enough variety there to make asking something like that here an exercise in philosophy with little bearing on the real world.

I figured some posters here would have better insight than just "ask employers"

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 66): We have seen no loss in positions as a result of this.

I'm not saying it would. I was just wondering what the outcomes and implications would be. Does the raising of minimum wage increase all wages around that area to some extent? I find it hard to believe that different levels of skill all level out to a living wage.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 54): The subsidies ending up employing people

At low wages and no benefits.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 54): I'd be willing to bet you've bought all those ingredients in the store as well. You just benefited from a subsidy.

I shop at a locally owned market that sells local organic as well as mass produced crap. I can make my own decision and spend a little more so I don't put cancer causing chemicals in my body, thank you very much.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 54): That's a sad story, but way to twist it to make the right look bad

I don't feel a bit sorry the truth hurts. If you don't like it, stop supporting it!

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 63): You cannot expect a single Mother in New York City to be able to support herself and her family on minimum wage

No, but that is when the states come in and hike the minimum wage for their state.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 64): not to be exploited by greedy corporations, greedy anybody

What makes corporations greedy? Is it the fact that they do what they are designed to do, which is make money? Or is it because one industry screwed around and ended up having to be bailed out?

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 66): Here at LAX, minimum is already over $15. We have seen no loss in positions as a result of this. Or for any reason for that matter.

Do you mean LAX airport, or the area? Because I've heard more about companies bailing for Texas and other low cost states than running towards CA.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 69): At low wages and no benefits.

Again, these are jobs, not careers.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 69): I shop at a locally owned market that sells local organic as well as mass produced crap. I can make my own decision and spend a little more so I don't put cancer causing chemicals in my body, thank you very much.

That's good for you, but not all of us can run to some organic market to buy food. Not to mention I'd be surprised if those small local growers you buy from don't receive subsidies.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 69): I don't feel a bit sorry the truth hurts. If you don't like it, stop supporting it!

Oh please. Sometimes you need to take a step back and realize liberal ideology isn't 100% correct. It gets really old when you run around basically calling the right a bunch of jerks who kick the poor. Not all of us earn a million bucks a year. I'd be happy with 20,000 a year at this point.

Pat

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70): Sometimes you need to take a step back and realize liberal ideology isn't 100% correct.

Neither is tea ideology.

Which is worse: The group that says "we need to help everyone because we are only as strong as the weakest among us" or the group that says "the Bible is our leader but greed is our God; screw the fake poor people!"?

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70): I'd be happy with 20,000 a year at this point.

Work for Wal-Mart. In a year, you might earn $25,000!

[Edited 2013-10-27 23:47:50]

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 44): Again, speculation causes efficient use of resources.

Again, no, it does not. All it does is exchange inefficiencies from one point on a timeline to another, while trading purchasing power for commodities. In engineering, we call that "moving the problem somewhere else".

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 44): Ok, so can you explain to my why youth unemployment is at historical highs in the UK, even though overall unemployment, though high, is not at historic levels?

Of course I can't. Taking that assertion at face value, which I really don't have a reason to by the way, there are any number of reasons that could be the case. And since I'm in the UK less than a month per year on average, I'm not going to speculate on that.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 44): Why can't they just work for a price that is less than the minimum wage but more than nothing?

Or better yet, just keep working for nothing at all... The answer is there's no incentive to raise wages for any reason at all in that scenario. If you have trouble with that, take a good look at the early 20th/late 19th centuries.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 68): Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 66): You'd have to ask the employers. You ought to know there's enough variety there to make asking something like that here an exercise in philosophy with little bearing on the real world. I figured some posters here would have better insight than just "ask employers"

I very much doubt that's the case. And that's coming from someone who did work that industry for a few years.

The problem with your question is that you're using a very broad question to seek out very specific answers. Some companies may address the issue by raising the price of low-cost/high yield products (I would, given that is the least painful all-around solution to the issue). Some may raise the price on everything but at a lesser percentage. Some may reduce inventory (something I'd also do here). And yes, (since I get the feeling this is what you're really asking), some may cut hours and lay-off staff.

The main issue I'm seeing with a lot of the idealism here is that some of us are making the comically stupid assertions that all businesses will do this, or all businesses will do that, and that the world will divide by zero. In case it isn't obvious, I don't buy that. The reason is that there have been all manner of revenue shocks to attack domestic businesses pretty much since the revolution. Some have weathered such storms well, and some have failed abjectly. So in a nutshell, that's your answer.

I for one see a lot to be gained by having a much better paid labor sector. Whatever we lose from cheap labor we gain back from growing our economy (where we previously couldn't) by way of giving more purchasing power to more people. My job, for example, is directly tied to how many folks can afford to fly. I probably wouldn't be doing as well with 1980's enplanement numbers.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 68): Does the raising of minimum wage increase all wages around that area to some extent?

Maybe, maybe not. The real question is why does it matter to you? If you're making $16/hr, and labor was in at $7.50, and now they're making $14, you still haven't lost anything.

If you were making $14/he and now they are too, you have an excellent case to ask for a raise. If you don't get one, you have two options. Tell your boss you're only willing to do your former reports' job going forward, or keep on trucking until you find something new/better. In neither case have you lost anything. I'm not seeing the concern there.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70): Do you mean LAX airport, or the area?

Good question. I did mean the Airport specifically, but a quick bit of googling shows it applies for much of the area (including any hotel, for example, that does business with or in the vacinity of LAX) as well.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70): Because I've heard more about companies bailing for Texas and other low cost states than running towards CA.

That's the narrative, isn't it? In truth, that really hasn't been the case for a while now, and the airport and the region of SoCal around it have grown consistantly over the last four years (during which time the living wage has been raised twice, by about $4 altogether).

By way of example, my company paid a goodly amount of money to move me from TX to here last year, along with four other folks. I'd like to think my bosses are really cool people (and pretty much they are) and wanted to me to enjoy life on the coast. But the truth is that our business was growing tremendously and we needed all hands on deck, post haste. That's not to say anything bad about our North TX ops, but out here is where we really needed people.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72): http://www.bhg.com/recipes/healthy/d.../cheap-heart-healthy-dinner-ideas/ etc has forty recipes for under $3 each, all of which look better to me than my rice and veggies suggestion, and google is of course loaded with countless other suggestions.

Had a quick look at your link. Thanks for posting it and I look forward to a more detailed look-over later.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72): Do you really think that the main difference between the CEO and a large percentage of the working poor is that the CEO worked harder?

I actually think, as a rule, that CEOs do work harder than the average Joe. And between that and the level of responsibility where the health of the company, value to shareholders, and continued employment of its labor are concerned, they do earn a lot.

But 100 times more than average?! No way! I think you're right. If it takes 100 times average to get someone out of bed to do a job, time to find a new leader.

On the issue of CEO and other executives pay, part of that is a perverse system of consultants where if a peer in a similar business gets x amount, their guy must get x + x. Beyond the pay, there are the subsidized costs of private jets and security. In many countries high CEO pay is limited by cultural norms, extreme taxation, better worker protections and participation in big corporate boards.
Of course far too many CEO's have mal-incentives to cut costs by keeping pay low, sending jobs outside the USA and use connections with government officials for subsidies and lobby for laws that hold down labor and other costs including regulatory.
Far too many CEO's also get paid no matter if they screw up (look at the recent disaster of JCPenney), there needs to be a dominance of performance - i.e. making profits, but not at the expense of line workers or quality service.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 67): It's minimum wage that is not set by the market, because minimum wage is by its very nature a market distortion.

It would be great if minimum wage wasn't required. Unfortunately it is necessary to avoid an even bigger distortion.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70): Is it the fact that they do what they are designed to do, which is make money?

It is great they make money. Problem is that they fail to compensate some participants fairly and overcompensate those who decide on that distortion.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70): Again, these are jobs, not careers.

A great soundbite. Why shouldn't a job pay a living wage?

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70): Oh please. Sometimes you need to take a step back and realize liberal ideology isn't 100% correct. It gets really old when you run around basically calling the right a bunch of jerks who kick the poor.

Oh please. Time to realize you're doing the exactly the same, just in the other direction.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32): "That’s because Big Macs, Whoppers and their ilk are heavily subsidized fare. Low wages may help to keep fast food cheap. But because of them, most fast-food workers rely on public assistance just to get by." Straight from the article. The money isn't handed directly to McD but they are the beneficiary.

Talk about a serious case of cum hoc ergo propter hoc.   McDonald's shouldn't be the target of these attacks because their employees choose to make fast food into a career. McDonald's hires qualified labour, whether that be a teenager looking for part-time work or someone who mistakenly thinks they can raise kids on a cashier's salary. Sorry, but I'm not going to hold employees' private issues against their employer. If they have to receive assistance from the government, there was an issue long before they handed McDonald's a resume.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 34): There are also other forms of subsidies many big retailers and fast food outlets their owners get. There are property and corporate tax breaks given by some communities and states to get them to put up a store there for a few desperately needed jobs or to get some badly needed tax revenue to replace long gone factories that used to pay good wages. This leads to companies putting town vs. town for these subsidies to put their store in them and bigger tax breaks done.

Subsidies and tax breaks are not the same thing. They're both benefits, but they have vastly different implications on businesses.

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 37): You could make the argument that their labor isn't worth it and that it shouldn't be raised for that reason alone.

That's exactly the argument many are making. Pay should always be directly correlated to skills/qualifications and the value the individual provides as determined by the market.

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 37): I said this in another thread, and I think it's worth repeating here. Why is it that when a fuel spike, caused by rampant speculation and currency hedging, resulting in very real cost increases across the board (since pretty much nothing we have isn't transported at some point) is perfectly ok, because capitalism... but when labor cost increases that would not likely increase the final cost of a given product beyond 12 - 15% or so the forebearer or apocolypse?

Apples and oranges. If by "fuel" you mean gasoline and diesel, then that's because that fuel source has a near monopoly on that industry. McDonald's does not have a near monopoly in the labour market.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 45): Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 48): Hedging serves a purpose. It mediates the supply of something over time and helps to efficiently distribute resources. Actually, it gives more money to the top. Look at what happened in 2008 with oil and housing.

No, no it doesn't. Hedging is a gamble. In every bet there is a winner and a loser. People "at the top" have an equal chance of coming out as losers when they hedge, which of course is mitigated by smart hedging.

Actually, I'm not sure exactly where you think people "at the bottom" would even come into the discussion of hedging?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47): The right keeps complaining about things being "given" to the workers. Like "free" health care and "free" food and "free" shelter.

No educated person on the right ever uses the word "free" in that context. Educated people on the left and the right know full well that all of that is paid by tax payers.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47): When we went to Mexico two years ago, the number of women and children (under 10 years old) begging on the streets was heart wrenching. All I could think is "this is how the right wants workers in United States to live." Spend a week around the cathedral in Mazatlan and you will get it.

Wow.

I challenge you to back up that statement. I'm predicting that you'll only be able to come up with a couple examples of extremist nutjobs that 99% of conservatives also disagree with.

I look forward to your prompt and insightful response.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 56): Speaking of subsidies, which follows along with the theme of this thread. Fast food and sugar certainly go hand in hand. This article explains what is going on in the Sugar World, and how we are being screwed by subsidies

No disagreement there. The sugar industry in the US is a giant scam with which the government is a major player. It all started with the Cuba embargo in 1960, and the US used that as a quaint excuse to levy ridiculous tariffs on importing sugar from other countries, thereby artificially raising the price of domestically produced sugar.

People bitch and moan about the use of high fructose corn syrup in so many products in the US, but most of them don't realize it's because of government intervention.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):

Let's keep this in perspective and realize that the average CEO in the US does not make $1mil/year. Using the CEO of any blue chip Fortune 500 company for your example is not at all realistic.

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 75): I'm sure a lot of jobs were "lost" when child labor was outlawed.

The void was filled by unemployed adult workers.

A little off-topic, but the US is one of only three countries (the others being Somalia and South Sudan) that have not ratified the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child. It's pretty interesting to read about if you have the time. I only became aware of it very recently.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72): Do you really think that the main difference between the CEO and a large percentage of the working poor is that the CEO worked harder?

No, it's a combination of working hard and working smart.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83): Pay should always be directly correlated to skills/qualifications and the value the individual provides as determined by the market.

In general I would agree with this statement. However when the number of unemployed far exceeds the number of unfilled positions the market value of these individuals approaches zero. At this point there are several options. Some societies would notice that the option most appropriate to their market value is to let them starve on the streets (even the stray cats and dogs have value to some restaurants). Other societies would start to consider the concept of social responsibility. It's considered nicer for the neighbourhood to get them off the streets, and anyway, the bodies start to smell a bit ripe in summer.
This is generally done via minimum wages and social programs. Some societies have been known to use gulags and workhouses but they're rather out of favour at the moment.
The problem with social security is that it has to be paid for through increased taxation - not always a good vote winner. For this reason some countries try to link the minimum wage to a certain standard of living to reduce the social security costs. There will always need to be a balance of social security programs and wage control for this to work.

For this reason I can only agree with your statement to a point. Below that our responsibility to society requires a change in the rules.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83): I challenge you to back up that statement.

Read comments on this thread alone. They are simply re-packaged talking points we have been listening to for years.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83): I'm not sure exactly where you think people "at the bottom" would even come into the discussion of hedging?

They have to pay into they system without getting anything out of it. In 2008 when the rich were gambling with oil prices, we, the workers, had to pay the price. Gas was near $5 a gallon in Oregon. People on Wall St. were getting rich. Not us workers. We didn't see any benefit. We still had to go to work, somehow. Thankfully, in Portland, we have options for getting to work. Unless, like my partner and I, at the time we were building fences. The recklessness of those on Wall. St. was killing us financially. What did we get out of their gain? Nothing.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83): No educated person on the right ever uses the word "free" in that context. Educated people on the left and the right know full well that all of that is paid by tax payers

Ah. See.... You used a word that followers of far right wing nutbags hate: education. People who write talking points for people to follow tell everyone that all the poor want is free stuff from the government. I am sure you know they type. They get all their information from FOX and AM Radio. I have seen those exact talking points used ad nauseum on this board, too.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84): I'd also add 'opportunity'... Clearly some will have no issue at all with opportunity. Not to pick on one person, but, for instance, Mitt Romney whose father was CEO of AMC and Governor of Michigan. Mitt worked hard and worked smart but he also had far more opportunity than the average Joe/Jane on the street. Yes, this is an 'accident of birth', but as a society, do we want to have a future where almost the only ones to have an opportunity will be the children of the 'haves'? Yes, there are cases where the average Joe/Jane has gone on to become CEO, but is it best for society to continue to make it less and less possible for that to happen with each passing year?

Yes, opportunity is indeed a factor, I give you that, but I think people point to that because it makes a better headline to accuse someone of getting where they are because of circumstance rather than an average fella who struggled and worked his way to the top. I have no way of proving this, but I suspect only a minority of CEOs were born into wealth and basically handed their good fortune in life. When I look at the executives I know, this is definitely the case.

Let's bring this back to McDonald's. I already mentioned the McDonald's Canada CEO earlier in this thread...but the current CEO of McDonald's, Don Thompson, grew up near the projects in Chicago. Same goes with the previous CEO, Jim Skinner; he grew up an average middle-class kid. People here will scream about them being elitist and taking advantage of low-level labour...but all these guys were there at some point in their lives.

Quoting Philby (Reply 85): In general I would agree with this statement. However when the number of unemployed far exceeds the number of unfilled positions the market value of these individuals approaches zero.

That's a fair point, but I don't think it necessarily applies to the labour market because markets always attempt to bring themselves into equilibrium. The value of labour approaching zero is not sustainable because they won't be able to reinvest their earnings into the same products/services they're creating. Market forces shouldhave an impact there.

It reminds me of the story of a Ford executive walking through one of the Ford plants in the 1950s with the head of the union, Walter Reuther. The Ford executive was bragging about all the wonderful machines that have replaced human workers, to which Reuther responded: "How will you get robots to buy cars?". It's the same thing here. You will always eventually get to a point where you've depleted the labours' spending power to the point where the business itself suffers, and the market should correct itself before approaching that point.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 86): Read comments on this thread alone. They are simply re-packaged talking points we have been listening to for years.

I've read every post in this thread. Which ones advocate women and children begging in the streets again?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 86): In 2008 when the rich were gambling with oil prices, we, the workers, had to pay the price.

No, they gambled with assets (effectively cash) that they already owned. And again, in every hedge there is a winner and a loser. For all the rich that were winning, there were also rich that were losing.

Also, there's no criteria to engage in hedging. All you need is a few bucks and a low aversion to risk. Hedging isn't just a pastime for the wealthy.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 86): What did we get out of their gain? Nothing.

Unless you put up the capital, why should you gain anything? If you want to benefit from a business's gains, then buy some shares.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 86): Ah. See.... You used a word that followers of far right wing nutbags hate: education.

Thanks for making my point.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 67): Despite what liberals might tell you, it's a little bigger than an extra $0.50 on your hamburger once in a while.

I know. I've been to a few McDs in foreign countries (mainly to use the bathroom) and I've seen the prices. All prices seem to go up. The country doesn't collapse, it's just more socioeconomically equal and although you have more taken care of by the government, you have less disposable income. I'm just responding to the people that are preaching gloom and doom... it won't be the end of the world, it will just be a very different America if we go down that road completely

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70): What makes corporations greedy? Is it the fact that they do what they are designed to do, which is make money?

I often point this out. It's like getting mad at a dog for barking... it's what dogs do. We shouldn't get mad at corporations for doing what corporations do, we should just accept it and put forth reasonable regulations

Quoting seb146 (Reply 71): Which is worse: The group that says "we need to help everyone because we are only as strong as the weakest among us" or the group that says "the Bible is our leader but greed is our God; screw the fake poor people!"?

OK, 1: the latter is NOT what conservatives are saying. They are more about personal responsibility and tend to put blame on the individual for not applying themselves. I know you completely disagree, but at least get their position right... NO ONE is saying greed is our God, screw the poor

2: Most people don't have a problem with the liberals' goal, just the way they go about doing it. I'm in this boat... I know that they only want the best but sometimes their ideas just seem very unrealistic and unfeasible. And no, that doesn't mean I'm firmly in the opposing camp

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 74): The problem with your question is that you're using a very broad question to seek out very specific answers.

Not really, I just wanted a broad answer on what would probably happen to wages just under the living wage, on average. But I'll drop it since we aren't getting anywhere, unless someone else can answer it

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 74): Maybe, maybe not. The real question is why does it matter to you? If you're making $16/hr, and labor was in at $7.50, and now they're making $14, you still haven't lost anything.

You mainly lose wage relative to the bottom. It would suck making twice as much as minimum wage and all of the sudden making only a buck or two more. You mention you'd be a good candidate for a raise and I agree, I was just wondering if that happened in other countries? I'd hate to see the most unskilled workers making as much as someone that is somewhat skilled. Maybe I'm not making my question clear enough, because your answers seem to skip around what I'm looking for

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83): McDonald's shouldn't be the target of these attacks because their employees choose to make fast food into a career.

It is an error to think this is why they are targeted.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83): If they have to receive assistance from the government, there was an issue long before they handed McDonald's a resume.

What issue would that be? I fail to see any issue that should remain after they work full time, at McD or by combining multiple jobs, and still make them employable by McD.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83): Subsidies and tax breaks are not the same thing. They're both benefits, but they have vastly different implications on businesses.

Tax breaks are often subsidies. Read the WTO definition all WTO members must follow"

" For the purpose of this Agreement, a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if:"
...
(ii) government revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e.g. fiscal incentives such as tax credits)1;"
http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83): Pay should always be directly correlated to skills/qualifications and the value the individual provides as determined by the market.

Problem is we do not have a perfect market. Thus we need to push it towards perfection.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83): Let's keep this in perspective and realize that the average CEO in the US does not make $1mil/year. Using the CEO of any blue chip Fortune 500 company for your example is not at all realistic.

Glad you bring up perspective. You should take a look at how income is distributed in this country. It certainly doesn't reflect the effort put into the product.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83): A little off-topic, but the US is one of only three countries (the others being Somalia and South Sudan) that have not ratified the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child. It's pretty interesting to read about if you have the time. I only became aware of it very recently.

ot just that convention but a lot of others. Even when they have been ratified there are often exemptions meaning they are not really complying.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83): No, it's a combination of working hard and working smart.

Plus a lot more, greed, power, old boys network, and so on.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 86): The question I have is 'shouldn't we be working on making the odds better instead of worse'?

Of course! But I don't see how things are particularly worse for front-line workers now than they were before. Both my parents worked in McDonald's restaurants in the early 70s and made minimum wage...I worked for Dairy Queen when I was in high school and made minimum wage. Not much has changed on that front, so it's hard to say it got worse. McDonald's has scholarship programs for its employees now, so that's at least a step in the right direction.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88): What issue would that be? I fail to see any issue that should remain after they work full time, at McD or by combining multiple jobs, and still make them employable by McD.

There can be a multitude of issues that cause someone to require social assistance, but their acquiring employment at a fast food restaurant is not one of them. I have sympathy for people who were put into a shitty situation at no doing of their own, but then going and getting a minimum wage job at the local fast food restaurant then complaining that you can't live on what they're paying you is simply blaming someone else for your pre-existing problems. There's a reason that so many municipalities/provinces/states/etc offer programs to help people train for more lucrative jobs in the trades and other fields. It's to get people away from their job at the fryer and into a good career. All they need to do is be proactive in seeking that valuable assistance which will get them out of welfare.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88): Tax breaks are often subsidies. Read the WTO definition all WTO members must follow" " For the purpose of this Agreement, a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if:" ... (ii) government revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e.g. fiscal incentives such as tax credits)1;"

Tell that to any of the NFPs that I work with. The generally accepted definition of "subsidy" as used by people/organizations that actually receive them is that they are receiving funding from the government by means of a payment. A tax break is referred as exactly that, a "tax break", and never referred to as a "subsidy". That's likely not the only area of WTO bylaws that cause confusion either.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88): Problem is we do not have a perfect market. Thus we need to push it towards perfection.

Agreed that it's not a perfect market, and probably never will be...but I fail to see how imposing pay raises across the board through legislation will get it anywhere closer to perfection in the long term.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88): Glad you bring up perspective. You should take a look at how income is distributed in this country. It certainly doesn't reflect the effort put into the product.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I'll blame the government for that long before I blame a fast food chain.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88): Plus a lot more, greed, power, old boys network, and so on.

You think that's how most CEO got to where they are? If so, I've got more than a few CEOs in contact book you should meet...

Quoting seb146 (Reply 71): Neither is tea ideology.

I don't expect you to know all my posts. But we seem to interact on political topics quite often. Just in case you've never noticed I'm firmly against the tea party.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 71): Which is worse: The group that says "we need to help everyone because we are only as strong as the weakest among us" or the group that says "the Bible is our leader but greed is our God; screw the fake poor people!"?

You are the only person I've ever interacted with that seems to come to that conclusion.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 71): Work for Wal-Mart. In a year, you might earn $25,000!

I'm a college student, I'd love to earn that much. But I also recognize my low paying job is a stepping stone to a better career.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72): I note you didn't even mention rice, which is what a large percentage of the world gets by on, and is healthier and cheaper than processed foods such as ramen or pasta. Add some relatively cheap veggies and some soy etc for flavor and drink water instead of soda and I'm sure you can get several meals for the price of one trip to Mickey D's.

You know I never really ever thought of eating more rice until a couple weeks ago when I made a wonderful jumbalaya. I have slowly started to introduce more into my diet. I only seem to drink soda with something salty so I avoid it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72): has forty recipes for under $3 each, all of which look better to me than my rice and veggies suggestion, and google is of course loaded with countless other suggestions.

I'm bookmarking this to go over later. Thank you for sharing, I'm looking for some new ideas!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72): How much more than the average worker does this person need to have before you're worried about them being 'dragged down'?

Alright I'll throw it in different terms as I was a little vague. So lets say Joe Schmo takes over Airline X. His starting salary is 1 million. They lost 200 million last year and are on track for the same this year. Joe comes in and turns it around and 2 years later they post a 500 million dollar profit. Shouldn't he be given a higher salary to reward him for his success? Why should the fact that they pay a guy minimum wage to sweep the floor affect what he has done?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72): Do you really think that the main difference between the CEO and a large percentage of the working poor is that the CEO worked harder?

To a degree yes. Now I'm not talking physically. But to get to that point they put in a lot of time and energy. Lets put it this way. I show up to work at UPS at 5 PM. I empty package cars, load trailers, and fix address issues then at 10 PM I clock out. Meanwhile the CEO probably was up at 430 AM on his crackberry, in meetings all day, and probably had the meal with his family interrupted by an important phone call. My point is I clock out at 10 and my interaction and responsibility with UPS is done until the next day at 5. That guys constantly has the weight of the corporation and it's shareholders on his shoulders.

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 74): The main issue I'm seeing with a lot of the idealism here is that some of us are making the comically stupid assertions that all businesses will do this, or all businesses will do that, and that the world will divide by zero. In case it isn't obvious, I don't buy that.

I don't buy the idea that companies wouldn't react to huge cost changes. They aren't going to eat huge wage gains.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 76): Far too many CEO's also get paid no matter if they screw up (look at the recent disaster of JCPenney), there needs to be a dominance of performance - i.e. making profits, but not at the expense of line workers or quality service.

By far too many do you mean a half dozen? Or all of the Fortune 500 companies? Shareholders and board of directors don't usually let disaster CEOs last too long..

Quoting cmf (Reply 77): Why shouldn't a job pay a living wage?

Why should they have to exceed what is legal for jobs that require little skill? The government is supposed to determine a living wage with minimum wage. It isn't the responsibility of McDonalds to exceed that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 77): Oh please. Time to realize you're doing the exactly the same, just in the other direction.

I didn't come out with some story saying liberals are trying to take every penny from the rich and move the poor into Hollywood mansions. I don't need to drum up emotions to get my point across.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84): Not to pick on one person, but, for instance, Mitt Romney whose father was CEO of AMC and Governor of Michigan. Mitt worked hard and worked smart but he also had far more opportunity than the average Joe/Jane on the street. Yes, this is an 'accident of birth', but as a society, do we want to have a future where almost the only ones to have an opportunity will be the children of the 'haves'? Yes, there are cases where the average Joe/Jane has gone on to become CEO, but is it best for society to continue to make it less and less possible for that to happen with each passing year?

He did have quite the opportunity, there isn't a question of that. But he did do something with that opportunity. I'd be willing to bet there are far many more who don't appreciate the opportunity and end up throwing it away.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 86): The recklessness of those on Wall. St. was killing us financially. What did we get out of their gain? Nothing.

Are you supposed to gain something that other people have done with their money?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 86): You used a word that followers of far right wing nutbags hate: education. People who write talking points for people to follow tell everyone that all the poor want is free stuff from the government. I am sure you know they type. They get all their information from FOX and AM Radio. I have seen those exact talking points used ad nauseum on this board, too.

Far right nutbags eh? I hear more stuff from the left about these so called right wing crazies than I do from right wing media. Funny how that works.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 88): Unless you put up the capital, why should you gain anything? If you want to benefit from a business's gains, then buy some shares.

Absolutely agree.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 89): I'm in my early 50s and I see how so many current kids are getting so little opportunity handed off to them and how little others seem to think this matters and it makes me shake my head.

I obviously can't look back to when you were my age and compare it. But there are many opportunities that students these days can take advantage of. Laziness just comes into play though.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90): We shouldn't get mad at corporations for doing what corporations do, we should just accept it and put forth reasonable regulations

Very well put.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90): 2: Most people don't have a problem with the liberals' goal, just the way they go about doing it. I'm in this boat... I know that they only want the best but sometimes their ideas just seem very unrealistic and unfeasible. And no, that doesn't mean I'm firmly in the opposing camp

You mean like calling one side nutjobs? I have no problem with many liberals' goals. I love discussing things and it has shaped my views. But too many on both sides state their opinion as if it is fact. When it can't be farther from the truth.
Pat

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85): There can be a multitude of issues that cause someone to require social assistance, but their acquiring employment at a fast food restaurant is not one of them. I have sympathy for people who were put into a shitty situation at no doing of their own, but then going and getting a minimum wage job at the local fast food restaurant then complaining that you can't live on what they're paying you is simply blaming someone else for your pre-existing problems.

Always easy to hide behind undefined issues. Their problem is that if they don't take that too low paying job, plus often one or two more too low paying jobs, then they get accused of being welfare queens spending the days on the sofa eating chips.

reality is that they try to make the best they can. get as much money they can by working as many jobs as they possibly can. Not every single one of them but the vast majority. And it is still not enough. That is the real problem.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85): There's a reason that so many municipalities/provinces/states/etc offer programs to help people train for more lucrative jobs in the trades and other fields.

This isn't a fix as we actually need most of those low-paying jobs performed. The problem is that we are undervaluing them.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85): Tell that to any of the NFPs that I work with. The generally accepted definition of "subsidy" as used by people/organizations that actually receive them is that they are receiving funding from the government by means of a payment. A tax break is referred as exactly that, a "tax break", and never referred to as a "subsidy". That's likely not the only area of WTO bylaws that cause confusion either.

That they don't understand the definition is their problem. The definition is what I posted.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85): Agreed that it's not a perfect market, and probably never will be.

It certainly isn't and I agree it never will be. For example few negotiations are between equals as required for the theory to work. The fundamental option of walking away just isn't there.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85): but I fail to see how imposing pay raises across the board through legislation will get it anywhere closer to perfection in the long term.

Do you agree laws punishing burglars and murderers are worth having? It is the same principle.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85): Maybe I'm just cynical, but I'll blame the government for that long before I blame a fast food chain.

I think you're cynical. Seems to me you think the government is an entity with its' own agenda. Not something influenced by everyone in the country, mainly based on how much attention they can get.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85): You think that's how most CEO got to where they are? If so, I've got more than a few CEOs in contact book you should meet...

No idea what point you think you made.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86): Why should they have to exceed what is legal for jobs that require little skill? The government is supposed to determine a living wage with minimum wage. It isn't the responsibility of McDonalds to exceed that.

Who has argued that it is McD's responsibility to exceed minimum wage? I think it has been very clear that the only way to get McD to pay it is by raising the minimum wage.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86): I don't need to drum up emotions to get my point across.

Then why are you doing just that? Your very first post includes "Should only McDonalds be punished? Why not every other company that operates in the US" and "Fast food jobs are not supposed to be careers. They are just that, jobs." Then you include emotions such as "I do love the idea that only the right is ever wrong. The left, never!", "while rewarding those who may have not worked very hard." and Yes, because the CEO wakes up and says "How can I screw the little guy today?" Not quite."Yes, because the CEO wakes up and says "How can I screw the little guy today?" Not quite." You should get the drift.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86): Very well put

Great, reasonable regulations is all we want  

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86): You mean like calling one side nutjobs? I have no problem with many liberals' goals. I love discussing things and it has shaped my views. But too many on both sides state their opinion as if it is fact. When it can't be farther from the truth.

Don't you think you should start by cleaning your own house?

Quoting cmf (Reply 87): get as much money they can by working as many jobs as they possibly can. Not every single one of them but the vast majority. And it is still not enough. That is the real problem.

It's never enough. By definition, the people at the lowest wage level are struggling. But, they are eating.

Right now, a lot of CEOs are gathering in Washington because there aren't enough American workers to keep their operations running. So, we need more foreign nationals working here. Really, they say that.

[Edited 2013-10-28 14:00:40]

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65): That means you have a burger flipper and, IDK, an entry level job for a college student* all of the sudden making the same amount of money.

I maybe out of touch to some degree, but where in the world are we if a college graduate starts at 15 bucks an hour? That seems ludicrous. My goodness have we sunk that low with wages? You see my point ? A burger flipper needs 15 bucks an hour to barely survive, and a college grad spends 100k for 15 bucks an hour. Something is wrong somewhere.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 89): I maybe out of touch to some degree, but where in the world are we if a college graduate starts at 15 bucks an hour? That seems ludicrous. My goodness have we sunk that low with wages? You see my point ? A burger flipper needs 15 bucks an hour to barely survive, and a college grad spends 100k for 15 bucks an hour. Something is wrong somewhere.

I threw the number out as a hypothetical. I get a salary so I don't work "by the hour" so I am not sure what a normal entry level amount per hour is.

I was just wondering about the equalizing of wages (making a living wage) for unequal amounts of work. Basically, you're gonna have someone who has the skill of $7/hr get paid the same amount as someone who has the skill of living wage minus $1 /hr if we put a living wage

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70): What makes corporations greedy? Is it the fact that they do what they are designed to do, which is make money? Or is it because one industry screwed around and ended up having to be bailed out?

This is not a black and white situation, one cannot look at the corporation as not having a duty to the people who are at the bottom. The people who do the WORK should be afforded a wage that does not require state intervention to allow them to survive. This is not the age of the serfs serving the King. This is the supposed age of fairness, equality. We know that is bull, and with you folks being the apologists for corporate and management greed things are going to get worse if this continues. There will be a social upheaval eventually with this ever widening wealth gap. I have been run over by police horses during strikes to prevent this from happening, the return of servitude to the work place, the age of dog wages, at will dismissals, no benefits. I for the life of me have to wonder, do you folks have family, children, grandchildren? What are you folk thinking?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90): I threw the number out as a hypothetical. I get a salary so I don't work "by the hour" so I am not sure what a normal entry level amount per hour is. This is one of the most difficult questions, what is a wage that is fair, livable, and what are the responsibilities of a corporation. As Mitt once said while running for President, Corporations are people. Well why do they shrink back in to the faceless corporation, the pure money machines when it comes to wages? Where is the humanity? Surely they know that humans are working for them, with children, families to feed and cloth. Surely they know that people will have to resort to welfare because of the costs of living. Surely they know that government programs cost taxpayers money. Surely they know that the result is more government spending. Hypocrisy is rampant these days. I was just wondering about the equalizing of wages (making a living wage) for unequal amounts of work. Basically, you're gonna have someone who has the skill of $7/hr get paid the same amount as someone who has the skill of living wage minus $1 /hr if we put a living wage

7 dollars an hour is certainly far from a living wage in the US. 15 dollars an hour as I said earlier is still slave ages in a one wage earner household in the US. We have many millions of them . Let us look at the cost of living, and the dollar amount to survive. That is the key question, how much to survive basically, not to drive sports cars, not to live in mansions, not to afford vacations. To survive so you can pay your bills without government assistance. The Right rails on about this, yet they perpetuate the very system they rant on about. I call it for what it is, hypocrisy.

Not sure why my earlier post was deleted - aren't I supposed to get some kind of explanation email when that happens?

Anyways.....

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 91): The people who do the WORK should be afforded a wage that does not require state intervention to allow them to survive.

This is the most critical point. Conservatives cannot simultaneously complain about the number of people on welfare and be against raising the minimum wage - the two go hand in hand. The minimum wage has been raised how many times since the 1930s when it began? And how much did it hurt unemployment each time is was raised? Not really at all.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90): I was just wondering about the equalizing of wages (making a living wage) for unequal amounts of work.

That will only be a short term problem. Intially, businesses will be reluctant to give out raises until market adjustment to new prices occurs, but eventually, those who distinguish themselves as being worthy of more than the minimum will be rewarded as such.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90): I was just wondering about the equalizing of wages (making a living wage) for unequal amounts of work. Basically, you're gonna have someone who has the skill of $7/hr get paid the same amount as someone who has the skill of living wage minus $1 /hr if we put a living wage

It would be a lot better than today but it would not be a good solution. The problem really is that too much goes to the top and not enough to the bottom, middle or even the high. You keep yourself pretty up to day so I'm sure you have seen the Wealth Inequality Video that explains it pretty well.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86): I'm a college student, I'd love to earn that much. But I also recognize my low paying job is a stepping stone to a better career.

I am also a college student and I work part time. However, there are college graduates who have a degree in a legitimate field like computer programming or engineering, who can not survive because they can not find jobs in their field of study AND they have to pay back massive student loans.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86): You are the only person I've ever interacted with that seems to come to that conclusion.

Then you are purposely not seeing what the rest of us are seeing. It is pointed out all the time, not only here but all over the media and web.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86): Are you supposed to gain something that other people have done with their money?

I wouldn't have had a problem if it had been with their money. But, they were using OUR money. The money we put into banks and 401Ks and at the gas pump. If they had taken their own money they off shored and used it to gamble on their own games, that is fine. But, using MY money to play THEIR game is not worth it. And, to top it all off, after they lost billions of OUR money, they had the nerve to ask US to pay THEM back! They took our money and want more of our money!

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86): I hear more stuff from the left about these so called right wing crazies than I do from right wing media. Funny how that works.

Again, you are blind when it comes to these things.

Name calling has been going on for a long, long time. It was the right who made "liberal" and "Democrat" four letter words. It was the right who decided anyone who disagreed with them should be looked down upon; that the only "true" Americans are the right wing Americans.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90): I was just wondering about the equalizing of wages (making a living wage) for unequal amounts of work. Basically, you're gonna have someone who has the skill of $7/hr get paid the same amount as someone who has the skill of living wage minus $1 /hr if we put a living wage

What about people who have skills and degrees but are forced to take low wage jobs because their job is either not available or they were fired so their job could be moved overseas? What about them? I get not paying lazy people as much. There are people who simply want to work just because they need something to fill their day or to show their parole officer or so they can buy beer. I think we need to focus the discussion on legitimate workers. People who have families and who are trying to work two or three jobs just to survive. Those who have skills and education but can do nothing about it because of corporations.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95): I wouldn't have had a problem if it had been with their money. But, they were using OUR money. The money we put into banks and 401Ks and at the gas pump. If they had taken their own money they off shored and used it to gamble on their own games, that is fine. But, using MY money to play THEIR game is not worth it. And, to top it all off, after they lost billions of OUR money, they had the nerve to ask US to pay THEM back! They took our money and want more of our money!

I don't buy that argument. There are arguments for your position but yeah you give them money but they give you gas, for example. It's not like you give them free money (excluding bailouts and corporate subsidies but we aren't talking about that)

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95): What about people who have skills and degrees but are forced to take low wage jobs because their job is either not available or they were fired so their job could be moved overseas? What about them?

What about them? I'm not talking about them at all

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 81): The Ford executive was bragging about all the wonderful machines that have replaced human workers, to which Reuther responded: "How will you get robots to buy cars?".

Well, the billions of Indians and Chinese take the sting out of that one.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83): I know. I've been to a few McDs in foreign countries (mainly to use the bathroom) and I've seen the prices. All prices seem to go up.

It's not just fast food. It's everything. Think about that: every employee making less than $15 per hour at everywhere you spend money gets a raise to $15 per hour. Think about how that will affect your budget, when you don't get a raise.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83): The country doesn't collapse, it's just more socioeconomically equal and although you have more taken care of by the government, you have less disposable income.

Well, that's the problem. I'm all about disposable income. There's no upside to that.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90): I was just wondering about the equalizing of wages (making a living wage) for unequal amounts of work.

Not just work, many people work hard. Productivity and skill are major factors.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 92): 15 dollars an hour as I said earlier is still slave ages in a one wage earner household in the US.

No. Slave wages would be $0 per hour. That's what a slave is.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94): You keep yourself pretty up to day so I'm sure you have seen the Wealth Inequality Video that explains it pretty well.

Just another whiny liberal who thinks rich people owe him something for breathing.

There's only one lesson to be learned from this chart: save and invest.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95): And, to top it all off, after they lost billions of OUR money, they had the nerve to ask US to pay THEM back! They took our money and want more of our money!

No, you don't understand. Unless that money resides in an account with your name on it, IT IS NOT YOURS!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98): It's not just fast food. It's everything. Think about that: every employee making less than $15 per hour at everywhere you spend money gets a raise to $15 per hour. Think about how that will affect your budget, when you don't get a raise.

I have thought about it. People do just fine in the countries where a living wage has been established. Talk to the foreigners on this very board. I'm not telling you to embrace it but results aren't catastrophic

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98): Well, that's the problem. I'm all about disposable income. There's no upside to that.

They have more taken care of and their disposable income actually is disposable.

But you are right, there seems more of a chance to make the big bucks in America, won't deny that

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98): Just another whiny liberal who thinks rich people owe him something for breathing.

Then provide arguments against it instead of repeating whiny 20 for a dussin generic soundbites.