The $100/hr. Minimum Wage idea I presented isn't popular?

[hadit]

$100 an hour is too high

$10-$15 an hour is more justified

I could not live on $2.10 an hour but it provided what Conservatives always claims is the purpose of minimum wage...A Starter Wage

On $2.10 an hour, I could get started in life by paying my college tuition without going into debt. I could buy a car to get to work and pay for gas in that car.

You can't do that on todays $7.25 wage

Well, no you couldn't pay your college costs... we had to institute the student loan program to help you do that... remember?

And why are you now arguing the Conservative argument about the MW being a "starter wage" and abandoning your argument for a "living wage?"

I am arguing that for 82 years, liberal democrats have promised a minimum wage which provided a decent living... it's time to deliver on your promise and implement my idea of a $100/hr. MW. That solves the problem for everyone and everyone is happy, right?

You're not giving me a good reason why we shouldn't do this. If the principles behind your idea of a $15 MW are sound, then a $100 MW should be too. It's just a number. What are you so afraid of?

Are you concerned that we might actually solve the problem and you won't have anything to complain about anymore?

If minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, those student loans would not be necessary. I didn't need one and I only made $2.10 an hour
Pay kids $10 to $15 an hour and they would not need all that college debt

I would be content with just a "Starter Wage" right now. $7.25 is not that wage
Give workers a wage they can get started in life with ....pay for college, basic transportation

Your $100 theme on this thread is just nonsense and does nothing to negate the fact that we need a $10-$15 wage just to provide the buying power that was available to workers thirty years ago

So where is all these magical company's going to come from?

What world do you live in?


Oh yea you live in a world of pixie dust, unicorns and fairys.

Those magical companies used to be all over the place. They paid a wage workers could get started on and offered a path up where you could do better in life

But they learned that if you kept workers hungry and made sure there were plenty of workers who were willing to take their jobs, you could pay anything you want

The result is the wage structure has not kept up with the cost of living.

Unless the government stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.......the current workforce structure will continue

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

 

[hadit]

Maybe that is why all the places that are implementing MW are spreading it out over a few years.

Yeah, I saw a study that said that increasing it too quickly would be even more dangerous than the final level to which it's increased.
.

The other thing the MW increasers don't want to talk about is the ripple effect. 62% of America's workers earn $20/hour or less. Everyone of those workers will demand a raise as well if we bump the minimum to $15. That's an effect that can't be ignored.

I'm willing to talk about it

Long overdue

Okay, good. Do you believe that over half the workers in America can receive large raises at the same time without impacting prices and available jobs?

Nope

But keep in mind, they have been denied raises at the same time and it has been going on for over a decade

Raises reflect increased value to the company, correct? If wages are not going up, here are the biggest reasons why they are not.

1. The work is losing value to the company. As an example, let's say one backhoe can do the work of 10 guys with shovels. The company buys a backhoe and hires a trained operator at double the wage of the guys with shovels. Guess whose wages are not going to be going up any time soon?

2. There is a glut of workers willing to do the job at a lower cost. During the 90's, American computer programmers commanded high and rapidly climbing wages. When Indian programmers entered the market at 1/3 the cost, the wages of the American programmers stopped climbing so fast.

3. Wage increases get pumped into mandated benefit packages. You do include the cost of benefits in a worker's total compensation, right?

 

[rightwinger]

$100 an hour is too high

$10-$15 an hour is more justified

I could not live on $2.10 an hour but it provided what Conservatives always claims is the purpose of minimum wage...A Starter Wage

On $2.10 an hour, I could get started in life by paying my college tuition without going into debt. I could buy a car to get to work and pay for gas in that car.

You can't do that on todays $7.25 wage

Well, no you couldn't pay your college costs... we had to institute the student loan program to help you do that... remember?

And why are you now arguing the Conservative argument about the MW being a "starter wage" and abandoning your argument for a "living wage?"

I am arguing that for 82 years, liberal democrats have promised a minimum wage which provided a decent living... it's time to deliver on your promise and implement my idea of a $100/hr. MW. That solves the problem for everyone and everyone is happy, right?

You're not giving me a good reason why we shouldn't do this. If the principles behind your idea of a $15 MW are sound, then a $100 MW should be too. It's just a number. What are you so afraid of?

Are you concerned that we might actually solve the problem and you won't have anything to complain about anymore?

If minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, those student loans would not be necessary. I didn't need one and I only made $2.10 an hour
Pay kids $10 to $15 an hour and they would not need all that college debt

I would be content with just a "Starter Wage" right now. $7.25 is not that wage
Give workers a wage they can get started in life with ....pay for college, basic transportation

Your $100 theme on this thread is just nonsense and does nothing to negate the fact that we need a $10-$15 wage just to provide the buying power that was available to workers thirty years ago

So where is all these magical company's going to come from?

What world do you live in?


Oh yea you live in a world of pixie dust, unicorns and fairys.

Those magical companies used to be all over the place. They paid a wage workers could get started on and offered a path up where you could do better in life

But they learned that if you kept workers hungry and made sure there were plenty of workers who were willing to take their jobs, you could pay anything you want

The result is the wage structure has not kept up with the cost of living.

Unless the government stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.......the current workforce structure will continue

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

I mostly agree but it extends well beyond unskilled labor. College graduates cannot obtain jobs that lead to a career. They graduate with large debt and receive offers that are internships, temp jobs or contract employees. Mid level managers are overworked and under paid

You can't say the money is not there to pay workers more. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserve. Top executives are receiving record compensation. It used to be that profit was shared with those employees who helped generate it, now corporations have figured a way to just keep it

 

[Mac1958]

$100 an hour is too high

$10-$15 an hour is more justified

Well, no you couldn't pay your college costs... we had to institute the student loan program to help you do that... remember?

And why are you now arguing the Conservative argument about the MW being a "starter wage" and abandoning your argument for a "living wage?"

I am arguing that for 82 years, liberal democrats have promised a minimum wage which provided a decent living... it's time to deliver on your promise and implement my idea of a $100/hr. MW. That solves the problem for everyone and everyone is happy, right?

You're not giving me a good reason why we shouldn't do this. If the principles behind your idea of a $15 MW are sound, then a $100 MW should be too. It's just a number. What are you so afraid of?

Are you concerned that we might actually solve the problem and you won't have anything to complain about anymore?

If minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, those student loans would not be necessary. I didn't need one and I only made $2.10 an hour
Pay kids $10 to $15 an hour and they would not need all that college debt

I would be content with just a "Starter Wage" right now. $7.25 is not that wage
Give workers a wage they can get started in life with ....pay for college, basic transportation

Your $100 theme on this thread is just nonsense and does nothing to negate the fact that we need a $10-$15 wage just to provide the buying power that was available to workers thirty years ago

So where is all these magical company's going to come from?

What world do you live in?


Oh yea you live in a world of pixie dust, unicorns and fairys.

Those magical companies used to be all over the place. They paid a wage workers could get started on and offered a path up where you could do better in life

But they learned that if you kept workers hungry and made sure there were plenty of workers who were willing to take their jobs, you could pay anything you want

The result is the wage structure has not kept up with the cost of living.

Unless the government stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.......the current workforce structure will continue

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

I mostly agree but it extends well beyond unskilled labor. College graduates cannot obtain jobs that lead to a career. They graduate with large debt and receive offers that are internships, temp jobs or contract employees. Mid level managers are overworked and under paid

You can't say the money is not there to pay workers more. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserve. Top executives are receiving record compensation. It used to be that profit was shared with those employees who helped generate it, now corporations have figured a way to just keep it

While I certainly understand the argument that the MW increase could increase consumer prices, it will be interesting to see where the money actually comes from.

First, yes, shaving a few million dollars off the pay of a CEO might be more likely than some kind of dollar-for-dollar cost increases. The danger here will be what we're already seeing, an increase in automation particularly at the low end.

It could also be argued that wage increases would lead to higher economic activity, which could benefit both the company and the CEO on the back end.

If we're going to have a minimum wage, it has to be tied to inflation or we'll see what we're seeing now: Potential wage-based price shocks.
.

 

[Yarddog]

"The $100/hr. Minimum Wage idea I presented isn't popular?"

Anything proposed in bad faith is not 'popular.'

Why do you say it's "in bad faith?" Why would I not want people to make a living wage? Why wouldn't I want to solve the wealth disparity problem once and for all? Why wouldn't I want to end poverty and make life better for millions of working poor? All the things you claim in "good faith" that a $15/hr. MW will do, I maintain a $100/hr. MW will do considerably better. Why are you opposing me? It's kind of insulting that your "good faith" is only worth $15/hr. I can make nearly that much picking up cans on the side of the road. I want people to be making the kind of money that they don't have to worry anymore. Isn't that what this is all about?

Its about the union scale. I can imagine a 35 dollar Big Mac

 

[rightwinger]

$100 an hour is too high

$10-$15 an hour is more justified

If minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, those student loans would not be necessary. I didn't need one and I only made $2.10 an hour
Pay kids $10 to $15 an hour and they would not need all that college debt

I would be content with just a "Starter Wage" right now. $7.25 is not that wage
Give workers a wage they can get started in life with ....pay for college, basic transportation

Your $100 theme on this thread is just nonsense and does nothing to negate the fact that we need a $10-$15 wage just to provide the buying power that was available to workers thirty years ago

So where is all these magical company's going to come from?

What world do you live in?


Oh yea you live in a world of pixie dust, unicorns and fairys.

Those magical companies used to be all over the place. They paid a wage workers could get started on and offered a path up where you could do better in life

But they learned that if you kept workers hungry and made sure there were plenty of workers who were willing to take their jobs, you could pay anything you want

The result is the wage structure has not kept up with the cost of living.

Unless the government stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.......the current workforce structure will continue

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

I mostly agree but it extends well beyond unskilled labor. College graduates cannot obtain jobs that lead to a career. They graduate with large debt and receive offers that are internships, temp jobs or contract employees. Mid level managers are overworked and under paid

You can't say the money is not there to pay workers more. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserve. Top executives are receiving record compensation. It used to be that profit was shared with those employees who helped generate it, now corporations have figured a way to just keep it

While I certainly understand the argument that the MW increase could increase consumer prices, it will be interesting to see where the money actually comes from.

First, yes, shaving a few million dollars off the pay of a CEO might be more likely than some kind of dollar-for-dollar cost increases. The danger here will be what we're already seeing, an increase in automation particularly at the low end.

It could also be argued that wage increases would lead to higher economic activity, which could benefit both the company and the CEO on the back end.

If we're going to have a minimum wage, it has to be tied to inflation or we'll see what we're seeing now: Potential wage-based price shocks.
.

I agree

What appears to have happened is there has been a shift in the mindset of corporations in how they treat their employees. Employees used to be their most valuable asset and companies fought to keep them. Now, employees are a commodity to be hired and fired to generate short term profits. Keep an employee worried about his job and he will not complain when you increase his hours and cut his benefits

The amount of profit that is used to pay employees has dropped as more money is funneled to top executives and stockholders. It affects all wages, not just minimum wage

 

[hadit]

$100 an hour is too high

$10-$15 an hour is more justified

Well, no you couldn't pay your college costs... we had to institute the student loan program to help you do that... remember?

And why are you now arguing the Conservative argument about the MW being a "starter wage" and abandoning your argument for a "living wage?"

I am arguing that for 82 years, liberal democrats have promised a minimum wage which provided a decent living... it's time to deliver on your promise and implement my idea of a $100/hr. MW. That solves the problem for everyone and everyone is happy, right?

You're not giving me a good reason why we shouldn't do this. If the principles behind your idea of a $15 MW are sound, then a $100 MW should be too. It's just a number. What are you so afraid of?

Are you concerned that we might actually solve the problem and you won't have anything to complain about anymore?

If minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, those student loans would not be necessary. I didn't need one and I only made $2.10 an hour
Pay kids $10 to $15 an hour and they would not need all that college debt

I would be content with just a "Starter Wage" right now. $7.25 is not that wage
Give workers a wage they can get started in life with ....pay for college, basic transportation

Your $100 theme on this thread is just nonsense and does nothing to negate the fact that we need a $10-$15 wage just to provide the buying power that was available to workers thirty years ago

So where is all these magical company's going to come from?

What world do you live in?


Oh yea you live in a world of pixie dust, unicorns and fairys.

Those magical companies used to be all over the place. They paid a wage workers could get started on and offered a path up where you could do better in life

But they learned that if you kept workers hungry and made sure there were plenty of workers who were willing to take their jobs, you could pay anything you want

The result is the wage structure has not kept up with the cost of living.

Unless the government stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.......the current workforce structure will continue

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

I mostly agree but it extends well beyond unskilled labor. College graduates cannot obtain jobs that lead to a career. They graduate with large debt and receive offers that are internships, temp jobs or contract employees. Mid level managers are overworked and under paid

The rapidly escalating cost of a college education is a whole other issue that I do not believe is justified. Of course, choosing to take on 6 figures of debt to get a degree in Art History, for example, is not a really smart thing to do. As for mid level management, that is undergoing a transformation in the business world. It was trendy not long ago to experiment with self led teams and similar such that I believe was aimed at reducing or eliminating mid level management. Thus far it has not worked, but has indeed thrown that level into somewhat of a chaos. The entire business world is undergoing transformation with the advent of telecommuting. Workers really do not have to be physically present in an expensive office building any more, but business is having a hard time finding the right way to deal with a rapidly changing workforce.

You can't say the money is not there to pay workers more. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserve. Top executives are receiving record compensation. It used to be that profit was shared with those employees who helped generate it, now corporations have figured a way to just keep it

Profit sharing is a great thing and employees love it, but they are not willing to embrace loss sharing. Companies simply don't have the freedom to add 10% to paychecks one month and take away 10% the next. They have to keep paying their employees the same, regardless of overall performance. You also have to figure in this reality. There are a FEW companies that have large cash reserves and high profit margins, and most likely their workers are already paid well because they can easily afford to do so. Most companies do NOT have such large reserves and can not pay top dollar to hire and keep top talent. Also, we are not talking about increasing the pay of employees only at wealthy companies. We're talking about almost doubling EVERY company's labor costs, especially small to mid sized ones, and most of them do not operate with really high profit margins. They will be the ones hardest hit and their employees will suffer the most when they are laid off.

 

[hadit]

$100 an hour is too high

$10-$15 an hour is more justified

If minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, those student loans would not be necessary. I didn't need one and I only made $2.10 an hour
Pay kids $10 to $15 an hour and they would not need all that college debt

I would be content with just a "Starter Wage" right now. $7.25 is not that wage
Give workers a wage they can get started in life with ....pay for college, basic transportation

Your $100 theme on this thread is just nonsense and does nothing to negate the fact that we need a $10-$15 wage just to provide the buying power that was available to workers thirty years ago

So where is all these magical company's going to come from?

What world do you live in?


Oh yea you live in a world of pixie dust, unicorns and fairys.

Those magical companies used to be all over the place. They paid a wage workers could get started on and offered a path up where you could do better in life

But they learned that if you kept workers hungry and made sure there were plenty of workers who were willing to take their jobs, you could pay anything you want

The result is the wage structure has not kept up with the cost of living.

Unless the government stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.......the current workforce structure will continue

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

I mostly agree but it extends well beyond unskilled labor. College graduates cannot obtain jobs that lead to a career. They graduate with large debt and receive offers that are internships, temp jobs or contract employees. Mid level managers are overworked and under paid

You can't say the money is not there to pay workers more. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserve. Top executives are receiving record compensation. It used to be that profit was shared with those employees who helped generate it, now corporations have figured a way to just keep it

While I certainly understand the argument that the MW increase could increase consumer prices, it will be interesting to see where the money actually comes from.

First, yes, shaving a few million dollars off the pay of a CEO might be more likely than some kind of dollar-for-dollar cost increases. The danger here will be what we're already seeing, an increase in automation particularly at the low end.

Yes, first we would see efforts to increase efficiency and reduce waste. We would also see some shaving at the top. Now, the effect of such shaving depends on the size of the company. I work for a mid-sized non-profit, and when we faced a revenue shortfall, top level management took a temporary pay cut that allowed everyone else to function normally. If you have hundreds of thousands of employees, however, such a move really wouldn't help a lot.

It could also be argued that wage increases would lead to higher economic activity, which could benefit both the company and the CEO on the back end.

Unfortunately, that's like lifting yourself off the ground by pulling on your shoe strings. The concentrated cost to the company would exceed the diffused benefit. I used to work for Circuit City. If I got a $5,000 raise, for example, it did not result in my spending an additional $5,000 at the stores.

If we're going to have a minimum wage, it has to be tied to inflation or we'll see what we're seeing now: Potential wage-based price shocks.
.

True, and the only way it has minimal impact on prices and jobs is if it's kept low enough so as to not really matter.

 

[hadit]

So where is all these magical company's going to come from?

What world do you live in?


Oh yea you live in a world of pixie dust, unicorns and fairys.

Those magical companies used to be all over the place. They paid a wage workers could get started on and offered a path up where you could do better in life

But they learned that if you kept workers hungry and made sure there were plenty of workers who were willing to take their jobs, you could pay anything you want

The result is the wage structure has not kept up with the cost of living.

Unless the government stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.......the current workforce structure will continue

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

I mostly agree but it extends well beyond unskilled labor. College graduates cannot obtain jobs that lead to a career. They graduate with large debt and receive offers that are internships, temp jobs or contract employees. Mid level managers are overworked and under paid

You can't say the money is not there to pay workers more. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserve. Top executives are receiving record compensation. It used to be that profit was shared with those employees who helped generate it, now corporations have figured a way to just keep it

While I certainly understand the argument that the MW increase could increase consumer prices, it will be interesting to see where the money actually comes from.

First, yes, shaving a few million dollars off the pay of a CEO might be more likely than some kind of dollar-for-dollar cost increases. The danger here will be what we're already seeing, an increase in automation particularly at the low end.

It could also be argued that wage increases would lead to higher economic activity, which could benefit both the company and the CEO on the back end.

If we're going to have a minimum wage, it has to be tied to inflation or we'll see what we're seeing now: Potential wage-based price shocks.
.

I agree

What appears to have happened is there has been a shift in the mindset of corporations in how they treat their employees. Employees used to be their most valuable asset and companies fought to keep them. Now, employees are a commodity to be hired and fired to generate short term profits. Keep an employee worried about his job and he will not complain when you increase his hours and cut his benefits

The amount of profit that is used to pay employees has dropped as more money is funneled to top executives and stockholders. It affects all wages, not just minimum wage

It appears to be a shift because the reality is this: an employee's value is tied to the value of his work. Back then, a man who had worked on an assembly line for a few years, knew the tools and could weld car parts all day long was very valuable. Now, he's not worth much of anything because a robot can do his job better, faster, and far cheaper. So, who IS valuable? The guy who can service those robots should they break down, the guy who understands and manages the company's data, and the guy who manages the company's money. Employees are still valuable, it's just that the value of their work has changed.

Now, short term thinking vs long term thinking is a completely different story. Chasing the short term is what destroyed Circuit City (I was there and saw it happen).

 

[rightwinger]

$100 an hour is too high

$10-$15 an hour is more justified

If minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, those student loans would not be necessary. I didn't need one and I only made $2.10 an hour
Pay kids $10 to $15 an hour and they would not need all that college debt

I would be content with just a "Starter Wage" right now. $7.25 is not that wage
Give workers a wage they can get started in life with ....pay for college, basic transportation

Your $100 theme on this thread is just nonsense and does nothing to negate the fact that we need a $10-$15 wage just to provide the buying power that was available to workers thirty years ago

So where is all these magical company's going to come from?

What world do you live in?


Oh yea you live in a world of pixie dust, unicorns and fairys.

Those magical companies used to be all over the place. They paid a wage workers could get started on and offered a path up where you could do better in life

But they learned that if you kept workers hungry and made sure there were plenty of workers who were willing to take their jobs, you could pay anything you want

The result is the wage structure has not kept up with the cost of living.

Unless the government stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.......the current workforce structure will continue

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

I mostly agree but it extends well beyond unskilled labor. College graduates cannot obtain jobs that lead to a career. They graduate with large debt and receive offers that are internships, temp jobs or contract employees. Mid level managers are overworked and under paid

The rapidly escalating cost of a college education is a whole other issue that I do not believe is justified. Of course, choosing to take on 6 figures of debt to get a degree in Art History, for example, is not a really smart thing to do. As for mid level management, that is undergoing a transformation in the business world. It was trendy not long ago to experiment with self led teams and similar such that I believe was aimed at reducing or eliminating mid level management. Thus far it has not worked, but has indeed thrown that level into somewhat of a chaos. The entire business world is undergoing transformation with the advent of telecommuting. Workers really do not have to be physically present in an expensive office building any more, but business is having a hard time finding the right way to deal with a rapidly changing workforce.

You can't say the money is not there to pay workers more. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserve. Top executives are receiving record compensation. It used to be that profit was shared with those employees who helped generate it, now corporations have figured a way to just keep it

Profit sharing is a great thing and employees love it, but they are not willing to embrace loss sharing. Companies simply don't have the freedom to add 10% to paychecks one month and take away 10% the next. They have to keep paying their employees the same, regardless of overall performance. You also have to figure in this reality. There are a FEW companies that have large cash reserves and high profit margins, and most likely their workers are already paid well because they can easily afford to do so. Most companies do NOT have such large reserves and can not pay top dollar to hire and keep top talent. Also, we are not talking about increasing the pay of employees only at wealthy companies. We're talking about almost doubling EVERY company's labor costs, especially small to mid sized ones, and most of them do not operate with really high profit margins. They will be the ones hardest hit and their employees will suffer the most when they are laid off.

Employees have always participated in loss sharing. It costs them their jobs
Executive makes a bad decision? It is the lower level employees who end up on the street

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So where is all these magical company's going to come from?

What world do you live in?


Oh yea you live in a world of pixie dust, unicorns and fairys.

Those magical companies used to be all over the place. They paid a wage workers could get started on and offered a path up where you could do better in life

But they learned that if you kept workers hungry and made sure there were plenty of workers who were willing to take their jobs, you could pay anything you want

The result is the wage structure has not kept up with the cost of living.

Unless the government stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.......the current workforce structure will continue

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

I mostly agree but it extends well beyond unskilled labor. College graduates cannot obtain jobs that lead to a career. They graduate with large debt and receive offers that are internships, temp jobs or contract employees. Mid level managers are overworked and under paid

The rapidly escalating cost of a college education is a whole other issue that I do not believe is justified. Of course, choosing to take on 6 figures of debt to get a degree in Art History, for example, is not a really smart thing to do. As for mid level management, that is undergoing a transformation in the business world. It was trendy not long ago to experiment with self led teams and similar such that I believe was aimed at reducing or eliminating mid level management. Thus far it has not worked, but has indeed thrown that level into somewhat of a chaos. The entire business world is undergoing transformation with the advent of telecommuting. Workers really do not have to be physically present in an expensive office building any more, but business is having a hard time finding the right way to deal with a rapidly changing workforce.

You can't say the money is not there to pay workers more. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserve. Top executives are receiving record compensation. It used to be that profit was shared with those employees who helped generate it, now corporations have figured a way to just keep it

Profit sharing is a great thing and employees love it, but they are not willing to embrace loss sharing. Companies simply don't have the freedom to add 10% to paychecks one month and take away 10% the next. They have to keep paying their employees the same, regardless of overall performance. You also have to figure in this reality. There are a FEW companies that have large cash reserves and high profit margins, and most likely their workers are already paid well because they can easily afford to do so. Most companies do NOT have such large reserves and can not pay top dollar to hire and keep top talent. Also, we are not talking about increasing the pay of employees only at wealthy companies. We're talking about almost doubling EVERY company's labor costs, especially small to mid sized ones, and most of them do not operate with really high profit margins. They will be the ones hardest hit and their employees will suffer the most when they are laid off.

Employees have always participated in loss sharing. It costs them their jobs
Executive makes a bad decision? It is the lower level employees who end up on the street

1) they choose to be employees with the benefits and losses thereof.
2) mostly wages stay the same despite losses or gains at a corporations. Its nice security for those who want to live that way.

 

[hadit]

Those magical companies used to be all over the place. They paid a wage workers could get started on and offered a path up where you could do better in life

But they learned that if you kept workers hungry and made sure there were plenty of workers who were willing to take their jobs, you could pay anything you want

The result is the wage structure has not kept up with the cost of living.

Unless the government stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.......the current workforce structure will continue

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

I mostly agree but it extends well beyond unskilled labor. College graduates cannot obtain jobs that lead to a career. They graduate with large debt and receive offers that are internships, temp jobs or contract employees. Mid level managers are overworked and under paid

The rapidly escalating cost of a college education is a whole other issue that I do not believe is justified. Of course, choosing to take on 6 figures of debt to get a degree in Art History, for example, is not a really smart thing to do. As for mid level management, that is undergoing a transformation in the business world. It was trendy not long ago to experiment with self led teams and similar such that I believe was aimed at reducing or eliminating mid level management. Thus far it has not worked, but has indeed thrown that level into somewhat of a chaos. The entire business world is undergoing transformation with the advent of telecommuting. Workers really do not have to be physically present in an expensive office building any more, but business is having a hard time finding the right way to deal with a rapidly changing workforce.

You can't say the money is not there to pay workers more. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserve. Top executives are receiving record compensation. It used to be that profit was shared with those employees who helped generate it, now corporations have figured a way to just keep it

Profit sharing is a great thing and employees love it, but they are not willing to embrace loss sharing. Companies simply don't have the freedom to add 10% to paychecks one month and take away 10% the next. They have to keep paying their employees the same, regardless of overall performance. You also have to figure in this reality. There are a FEW companies that have large cash reserves and high profit margins, and most likely their workers are already paid well because they can easily afford to do so. Most companies do NOT have such large reserves and can not pay top dollar to hire and keep top talent. Also, we are not talking about increasing the pay of employees only at wealthy companies. We're talking about almost doubling EVERY company's labor costs, especially small to mid sized ones, and most of them do not operate with really high profit margins. They will be the ones hardest hit and their employees will suffer the most when they are laid off.

Employees have always participated in loss sharing. It costs them their jobs
Executive makes a bad decision? It is the lower level employees who end up on the street

1) they choose to be employees with the benefits and losses thereof.
2) mostly wages stay the same despite losses or gains at a corporations. Its nice security for those who want to live that way.

The flip side of the coin, of course, is that the business owner puts everything he has on the line for the business. They get very envious when he's successful and think they should be entitled to share in that success. They want him, however, to deal with the losses on his own.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The flip side of the coin, of course, is that the business owner puts everything he has on the line for the business.

yes and 90% of businesses fail!!

 

[hadit]

So where is all these magical company's going to come from?

What world do you live in?


Oh yea you live in a world of pixie dust, unicorns and fairys.

Those magical companies used to be all over the place. They paid a wage workers could get started on and offered a path up where you could do better in life

But they learned that if you kept workers hungry and made sure there were plenty of workers who were willing to take their jobs, you could pay anything you want

The result is the wage structure has not kept up with the cost of living.

Unless the government stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.......the current workforce structure will continue

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

I mostly agree but it extends well beyond unskilled labor. College graduates cannot obtain jobs that lead to a career. They graduate with large debt and receive offers that are internships, temp jobs or contract employees. Mid level managers are overworked and under paid

The rapidly escalating cost of a college education is a whole other issue that I do not believe is justified. Of course, choosing to take on 6 figures of debt to get a degree in Art History, for example, is not a really smart thing to do. As for mid level management, that is undergoing a transformation in the business world. It was trendy not long ago to experiment with self led teams and similar such that I believe was aimed at reducing or eliminating mid level management. Thus far it has not worked, but has indeed thrown that level into somewhat of a chaos. The entire business world is undergoing transformation with the advent of telecommuting. Workers really do not have to be physically present in an expensive office building any more, but business is having a hard time finding the right way to deal with a rapidly changing workforce.

You can't say the money is not there to pay workers more. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserve. Top executives are receiving record compensation. It used to be that profit was shared with those employees who helped generate it, now corporations have figured a way to just keep it

Profit sharing is a great thing and employees love it, but they are not willing to embrace loss sharing. Companies simply don't have the freedom to add 10% to paychecks one month and take away 10% the next. They have to keep paying their employees the same, regardless of overall performance. You also have to figure in this reality. There are a FEW companies that have large cash reserves and high profit margins, and most likely their workers are already paid well because they can easily afford to do so. Most companies do NOT have such large reserves and can not pay top dollar to hire and keep top talent. Also, we are not talking about increasing the pay of employees only at wealthy companies. We're talking about almost doubling EVERY company's labor costs, especially small to mid sized ones, and most of them do not operate with really high profit margins. They will be the ones hardest hit and their employees will suffer the most when they are laid off.

Employees have always participated in loss sharing. It costs them their jobs
Executive makes a bad decision? It is the lower level employees who end up on the street

Ever wonder why top executives typically don't stay very long at any one company? They make a few bad decisions and are "invited to resign".

 

[rightwinger]

Those magical companies used to be all over the place. They paid a wage workers could get started on and offered a path up where you could do better in life

But they learned that if you kept workers hungry and made sure there were plenty of workers who were willing to take their jobs, you could pay anything you want

The result is the wage structure has not kept up with the cost of living.

Unless the government stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.......the current workforce structure will continue

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

I mostly agree but it extends well beyond unskilled labor. College graduates cannot obtain jobs that lead to a career. They graduate with large debt and receive offers that are internships, temp jobs or contract employees. Mid level managers are overworked and under paid

The rapidly escalating cost of a college education is a whole other issue that I do not believe is justified. Of course, choosing to take on 6 figures of debt to get a degree in Art History, for example, is not a really smart thing to do. As for mid level management, that is undergoing a transformation in the business world. It was trendy not long ago to experiment with self led teams and similar such that I believe was aimed at reducing or eliminating mid level management. Thus far it has not worked, but has indeed thrown that level into somewhat of a chaos. The entire business world is undergoing transformation with the advent of telecommuting. Workers really do not have to be physically present in an expensive office building any more, but business is having a hard time finding the right way to deal with a rapidly changing workforce.

You can't say the money is not there to pay workers more. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserve. Top executives are receiving record compensation. It used to be that profit was shared with those employees who helped generate it, now corporations have figured a way to just keep it

Profit sharing is a great thing and employees love it, but they are not willing to embrace loss sharing. Companies simply don't have the freedom to add 10% to paychecks one month and take away 10% the next. They have to keep paying their employees the same, regardless of overall performance. You also have to figure in this reality. There are a FEW companies that have large cash reserves and high profit margins, and most likely their workers are already paid well because they can easily afford to do so. Most companies do NOT have such large reserves and can not pay top dollar to hire and keep top talent. Also, we are not talking about increasing the pay of employees only at wealthy companies. We're talking about almost doubling EVERY company's labor costs, especially small to mid sized ones, and most of them do not operate with really high profit margins. They will be the ones hardest hit and their employees will suffer the most when they are laid off.

Employees have always participated in loss sharing. It costs them their jobs
Executive makes a bad decision? It is the lower level employees who end up on the street

Ever wonder why top executives typically don't stay very long at any one company? They make a few bad decisions and are "invited to resign".

Employees don't get a golden parachute when they are "invited to resign"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

I mostly agree but it extends well beyond unskilled labor. College graduates cannot obtain jobs that lead to a career. They graduate with large debt and receive offers that are internships, temp jobs or contract employees. Mid level managers are overworked and under paid

The rapidly escalating cost of a college education is a whole other issue that I do not believe is justified. Of course, choosing to take on 6 figures of debt to get a degree in Art History, for example, is not a really smart thing to do. As for mid level management, that is undergoing a transformation in the business world. It was trendy not long ago to experiment with self led teams and similar such that I believe was aimed at reducing or eliminating mid level management. Thus far it has not worked, but has indeed thrown that level into somewhat of a chaos. The entire business world is undergoing transformation with the advent of telecommuting. Workers really do not have to be physically present in an expensive office building any more, but business is having a hard time finding the right way to deal with a rapidly changing workforce.

You can't say the money is not there to pay workers more. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserve. Top executives are receiving record compensation. It used to be that profit was shared with those employees who helped generate it, now corporations have figured a way to just keep it

Profit sharing is a great thing and employees love it, but they are not willing to embrace loss sharing. Companies simply don't have the freedom to add 10% to paychecks one month and take away 10% the next. They have to keep paying their employees the same, regardless of overall performance. You also have to figure in this reality. There are a FEW companies that have large cash reserves and high profit margins, and most likely their workers are already paid well because they can easily afford to do so. Most companies do NOT have such large reserves and can not pay top dollar to hire and keep top talent. Also, we are not talking about increasing the pay of employees only at wealthy companies. We're talking about almost doubling EVERY company's labor costs, especially small to mid sized ones, and most of them do not operate with really high profit margins. They will be the ones hardest hit and their employees will suffer the most when they are laid off.

Employees have always participated in loss sharing. It costs them their jobs
Executive makes a bad decision? It is the lower level employees who end up on the street

Ever wonder why top executives typically don't stay very long at any one company? They make a few bad decisions and are "invited to resign".

Employees don't get a golden parachute when they are "invited to resign"

so??? if they don't like it they can find some other means to make a living. Its a free country,

 

[Papageorgio]

$100 an hour is too high

$10-$15 an hour is more justified

Why is it too high? I think $50-$75 an hour would be fair. It would increase our income tax revenue. It would allow those that are on subsidies to get off and save the government billions.

 

[hadit]

Here's the reality. We don't have a manual labor economy any more where a man could leave high school, do shift work in a factory and make enough to raise a family. The wage structure for blue collar labor has not kept up, because blue collar labor is not as valuable to society as it was. Note I didn't say skilled manual labor. You can still make a really good living as a plumber, electrician, heat pump technician, etc. Good paying jobs today require far more than just 20 years on the job. They require training and education.

It's simple supply and demand. During the 90's, if you could write computer code, you could command huge increases in pay every year. You could leave one job for another one at a 20% bump. Today, simple code writing is a commodity and you get the prevailing wage.

I mostly agree but it extends well beyond unskilled labor. College graduates cannot obtain jobs that lead to a career. They graduate with large debt and receive offers that are internships, temp jobs or contract employees. Mid level managers are overworked and under paid

The rapidly escalating cost of a college education is a whole other issue that I do not believe is justified. Of course, choosing to take on 6 figures of debt to get a degree in Art History, for example, is not a really smart thing to do. As for mid level management, that is undergoing a transformation in the business world. It was trendy not long ago to experiment with self led teams and similar such that I believe was aimed at reducing or eliminating mid level management. Thus far it has not worked, but has indeed thrown that level into somewhat of a chaos. The entire business world is undergoing transformation with the advent of telecommuting. Workers really do not have to be physically present in an expensive office building any more, but business is having a hard time finding the right way to deal with a rapidly changing workforce.

You can't say the money is not there to pay workers more. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in reserve. Top executives are receiving record compensation. It used to be that profit was shared with those employees who helped generate it, now corporations have figured a way to just keep it

Profit sharing is a great thing and employees love it, but they are not willing to embrace loss sharing. Companies simply don't have the freedom to add 10% to paychecks one month and take away 10% the next. They have to keep paying their employees the same, regardless of overall performance. You also have to figure in this reality. There are a FEW companies that have large cash reserves and high profit margins, and most likely their workers are already paid well because they can easily afford to do so. Most companies do NOT have such large reserves and can not pay top dollar to hire and keep top talent. Also, we are not talking about increasing the pay of employees only at wealthy companies. We're talking about almost doubling EVERY company's labor costs, especially small to mid sized ones, and most of them do not operate with really high profit margins. They will be the ones hardest hit and their employees will suffer the most when they are laid off.

Employees have always participated in loss sharing. It costs them their jobs
Executive makes a bad decision? It is the lower level employees who end up on the street

Ever wonder why top executives typically don't stay very long at any one company? They make a few bad decisions and are "invited to resign".

Employees don't get a golden parachute when they are "invited to resign"

I didn't say it was fair. I was pointing out that top executives pay for mistakes too.

 

[rightwinger]

$100 an hour is too high

$10-$15 an hour is more justified

Why is it too high? I think $50-$75 an hour would be fair. It would increase our income tax revenue. It would allow those that are on subsidies to get off and save the government billions.

Is that what you pay your hookers?

 

[Boss]

"The $100/hr. Minimum Wage idea I presented isn't popular?"

Anything proposed in bad faith is not 'popular.'

Why do you say it's "in bad faith?" Why would I not want people to make a living wage? Why wouldn't I want to solve the wealth disparity problem once and for all? Why wouldn't I want to end poverty and make life better for millions of working poor? All the things you claim in "good faith" that a $15/hr. MW will do, I maintain a $100/hr. MW will do considerably better. Why are you opposing me? It's kind of insulting that your "good faith" is only worth $15/hr. I can make nearly that much picking up cans on the side of the road. I want people to be making the kind of money that they don't have to worry anymore. Isn't that what this is all about?

Its about the union scale. I can imagine a 35 dollar Big Mac

Whatever do you mean? I keep hearing that increasing the MW won't increase prices.. I've seen the graphs man! Are you now saying that isn't true? Furthermore, it appears you are reasoning the prices would rise in direct relation to the MW increase... 10x increase means 10x higher prices.

And union scale? No one is talking about the union wages, we're talking about the MW. Keep up!