CEO Crushes The Minimum Wage Lie: "It's Cheaper To Buy A Robot Than Hire At $15/Hour"

[Skull Pilot]

MAybe they can't because their resumes suck

Tell me in this entire country that there is not a place where anyone can work full time.

If you can't find a job in one state I bet you can in another

Most people can't afford to move.

I think we've all had enough of your "Let them eat Cake" answers, thank you.

Bull shit. A lot of places will help you move. SHouldn't you know that if you really help people get jobs?

 

[JoeB131]

Dude, your naivte is touching, but disturbing when you try to make arguments based on it. Robots already make burgers better than humans and fry donuts. Do you REALLY think they won't be making french fries?

Yeah, guy, you know what, I haven't been to a place where a robot made my food yet.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Dude, your naivte is touching, but disturbing when you try to make arguments based on it. Robots already make burgers better than humans and fry donuts. Do you REALLY think they won't be making french fries?

Yeah, guy, you know what, I haven't been to a place where a robot made my food yet.

So you never buy food at a supermarket?

 

[JoeB131]

Bull shit. A lot of places will help you move. SHouldn't you know that if you really help people get jobs?

I wouldn't know who a "lot of places" are. Frankly, I've only seen one company that ever offered to pay for relocation, and that's because they were in butt-**** Wisconsin.

 

[JoeB131]

So you never buy food at a supermarket?

Don't be dense. You specifically know I was talking about restaurants.

 

[hadit]

It doesn't work like that because all labor is not worth a "living wage". We keep coming back to that point, and you have no good answer as to why it should be.

I have a perfectly good answer. It's just not one you like.

If you have enough money to pay your CEO an 8 figure salary and huge dividends to shareholders off the labor of that fry cook, then you have enough money to pay that fry cook a living wage. It's not a matter of a lack of pie, it's how the pie is being divided.

Cut that CEO's pay in half and divide his salary among the hundreds of thousands or millions of employees in that company. It won't go very far.

If a particular job doesn't generate enough profit to pay an employee more than $5/hr, why should we force the employer to pay artificially higher wages? All he's going to do is raise prices, which drives inflation, which prices goods out of reach of the poor, which makes their artificially high MW useless, which drives the wage hikers back to their argument that it's just not high enough, and on it goes...

This is another bullshit argument. Do you know how much the cost of a Big Mac would go up if they paid a living wage? It would go up all of 17 cents.

This Is How Much A Big Mac Would Cost If The Minimum Wage Was $15

Again, you buy a naive argument. Your own source says, "If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent". That's ALL prices, which means that fast food prices underwent inflation at a rate of 4.3 percent. And, that's just fast food, not industries where people are already making double the MW but will wake up one morning back at MW.

Now, you're not addressing the fact that at least 62% of the American work force is going to get or demand big raises if you double the MW overnight. I know if I worked for 5 years to go from MW to double it, that I would not accept arbitrarily being dumped back to MW, or worked for 10 years to get $20/hr, only to find out that I'm suddenly just a little above MW. IOW, a whole lot more than just the cost of a Big Mac would undergo a big change.

 

[hadit]

Bull shit. A lot of places will help you move. SHouldn't you know that if you really help people get jobs?

I wouldn't know who a "lot of places" are. Frankly, I've only seen one company that ever offered to pay for relocation, and that's because they were in butt-**** Wisconsin.

Such a shame. During the IT boom of the 90's, Circuit City not only paid all my relocation costs to their Richmond headquarters, but paid my mortgage until my house sold. When the economy is good and the skill is demand, companies step up. I was a lowly junior programmer at the time, but if I was stocking shelves for MW, do you think they would have done that? Again, it all comes down to the employee's value to the company.

 

[hadit]

Dude, your naivte is touching, but disturbing when you try to make arguments based on it. Robots already make burgers better than humans and fry donuts. Do you REALLY think they won't be making french fries?

Yeah, guy, you know what, I haven't been to a place where a robot made my food yet.

Do you really know that for a fact, or are you making assumptions again?

 

[JoeB131]

Cut that CEO's pay in half and divide his salary among the hundreds of thousands or millions of employees in that company. It won't go very far.

If you took the 43% of the wealth controlled by teh 1% and distributed to the 40% who own less than 1% of the wealth, you'd be fine.

uch a shame. During the IT boom of the 90's, Circuit City not only paid all my relocation costs to their Richmond headquarters, but paid my mortgage until my house sold. When the economy is good and the skill is demand, companies step up.

Okay, let's review this little bit of stupidity...

Where is Circuit City now?

You see, the thing is, when clinton was President companies did pay more for labor, and they ******* hated it. And when the 2001 Recession hit, and 9/11 became the dog that ate everyone's homework, they couldn't fire the people they offered good jobs to fast enough.

 

[dannyboys]

Let's be for once honest.
There will always be a percent of the job seekers who are frankly too ******* mentally challenged to ever get a descent paying job.
Then there are the millions of young adults whom the LIB controlled union controlled teachers failed.
They don't give a shit about their students. Never have.
The result is millions of semi literates who can barely read a ******* billboard let alone function in a work environment populated by seriously smart aggressive people whose goal is to work as hard and smart as they can to get ahead.
These people also don't give a shit about the victims of the LIB/union controlled education system.

 

[hadit]

Cut that CEO's pay in half and divide his salary among the hundreds of thousands or millions of employees in that company. It won't go very far.

If you took the 43% of the wealth controlled by teh 1% and distributed to the 40% who own less than 1% of the wealth, you'd be fine.

Moving the goal posts seems to be something you enjoy. You were talking about CEO pay, NOT the total wealth owned by the wealthy, so please try to stick to the topic. When you get back to it, please let us know. Until then, we're going to ignore this particular inanity.

uch a shame. During the IT boom of the 90's, Circuit City not only paid all my relocation costs to their Richmond headquarters, but paid my mortgage until my house sold. When the economy is good and the skill is demand, companies step up.

Okay, let's review this little bit of stupidity...

Where is Circuit City now?

You see, the thing is, when clinton was President companies did pay more for labor, and they ******* hated it. And when the 2001 Recession hit, and 9/11 became the dog that ate everyone's homework, they couldn't fire the people they offered good jobs to fast enough.

Circuit City failed due to the bad decisions of the people at the top. You know, the ones who are counted on to make good decisions, the ones who deserve high pay when they consistently do that. And, when CC's CEO Rick Sharp left, the whole thing started to unravel. He was worth every penny they paid him while the one who replaced him was not so much. Now, as for the recession hitting, how would YOU have recommended companies react? Judging by the content of your posts, you would likely have demanded that they continue hiring more workers, paying higher wages and funding expensive benefits, pretending the bottom line doesn't exist. Thus, your prescription is the path to companies going out of business even faster. Heck yeah, CC had to lay people off. They had over 700 FTE's in IT alone after Y2K. Bad decision. Again, would you have ranted that they should NOT have laid anyone off?

 

[JoeB131]

Moving the goal posts seems to be something you enjoy. You were talking about CEO pay, NOT the total wealth owned by the wealthy, so please try to stick to the topic. When you get back to it, please let us know. Until then, we're going to ignore this particular inanity.

Not moving the goal posts at all. Wealth in this country is unevenly distributed and you know it. The minimum wage being as low as it is (compared to other developed countries) is a large part of the problem.

Circuit City failed due to the bad decisions of the people at the top. You know, the ones who are counted on to make good decisions, the ones who deserve high pay when they consistently do that. And, when CC's CEO Rick Sharp left, the whole thing started to unravel. He was worth every penny they paid him while the one who replaced him was not so much.

Circuit city failed because they had shitty customer service.

Here's an interesting article, though.

Eight Reasons Why Circuit City Went Bankrupt

These two points say it all.

1. To please Wall Street analysts, it went on a store expansion spree that resulted in too many stores in dicey neighborhoods.
2. To save money, it stopped paying commissions to its sales force and then fired 3,400 of its most experienced sales people.

Now, as for the recession hitting, how would YOU have recommended companies react? Judging by the content of your posts, you would likely have demanded that they continue hiring more workers, paying higher wages and funding expensive benefits, pretending the bottom line doesn't exist.

Here's the thing guy, in EVERY recession between 1929 and 1991, the sensible reaction was to infuse the economy with increased government spending and keeping employment up. The goal was not to do what we did in 2008, where we bailed out the rich investors, who then proceeded to put the squeeze on workers and consumers and you wonder why that ballooned into the worst recession in 80 years.

The biggest scam the one percenters have pulled off is convincing stupid people they are a vial organand not parasites.

Heck yeah, CC had to lay people off. They had over 700 FTE's in IT alone after Y2K. Bad decision. Again, would you have ranted that they should NOT have laid anyone off?

If you are aguing the purpose of the economy is to produce profits for the 1% over the broken bodies of consumers and workers, then, yes, that's where we are now.

Maybe it's time for something better. something where we keep people employed in renumerative jobs.

The McJob has not made anyone's life better.

 

[hadit]

Moving the goal posts seems to be something you enjoy. You were talking about CEO pay, NOT the total wealth owned by the wealthy, so please try to stick to the topic. When you get back to it, please let us know. Until then, we're going to ignore this particular inanity.

Not moving the goal posts at all. Wealth in this country is unevenly distributed and you know it. The minimum wage being as low as it is (compared to other developed countries) is a large part of the problem.

That's not what you were talking about. I kicked it through the uprights, and now you want to move the goal posts, hoping I won't score again.

Circuit City failed due to the bad decisions of the people at the top. You know, the ones who are counted on to make good decisions, the ones who deserve high pay when they consistently do that. And, when CC's CEO Rick Sharp left, the whole thing started to unravel. He was worth every penny they paid him while the one who replaced him was not so much.

Circuit city failed because they had shitty customer service.

Here's an interesting article, though.

Eight Reasons Why Circuit City Went Bankrupt

These two points say it all.

1. To please Wall Street analysts, it went on a store expansion spree that resulted in too many stores in dicey neighborhoods.
2. To save money, it stopped paying commissions to its sales force and then fired 3,400 of its most experienced sales people.

They also made the mistake of sitting on a billion dollars in cash instead of using it wisely. They laughed at Best Buy because BB had to finance their big expansion. It wasn't long, however, before they were frantically trying to change their business model to look more like BB. Regardless, I got out on my own terms 4 years before they went under.

Now, as for the recession hitting, how would YOU have recommended companies react? Judging by the content of your posts, you would likely have demanded that they continue hiring more workers, paying higher wages and funding expensive benefits, pretending the bottom line doesn't exist.

Here's the thing guy, in EVERY recession between 1929 and 1991, the sensible reaction was to infuse the economy with increased government spending and keeping employment up. The goal was not to do what we did in 2008, where we bailed out the rich investors, who then proceeded to put the squeeze on workers and consumers and you wonder why that ballooned into the worst recession in 80 years.

The biggest scam the one percenters have pulled off is convincing stupid people they are a vial organand not parasites.

Heck yeah, CC had to lay people off. They had over 700 FTE's in IT alone after Y2K. Bad decision. Again, would you have ranted that they should NOT have laid anyone off?

If you are aguing the purpose of the economy is to produce profits for the 1% over the broken bodies of consumers and workers, then, yes, that's where we are now.

Maybe it's time for something better. something where we keep people employed in renumerative jobs.

The McJob has not made anyone's life better.

Lucrative jobs are not made by fiat. They are made by employees having skills or abilities that employers need but can't get elsewhere for less. Hence my ability to have CC pay my relocation costs and my mortgage for 5 months as a junior level programmer. You DID take economics at some point in your life, right? You DO know that you can't just write laws requiring jobs pay high wages for no increase in value and expect them to actually work, right?

 

[JoeB131]

That's not what you were talking about. I kicked it through the uprights, and now you want to move the goal posts, hoping I won't score again.

That's exactly what I was talking about. It's absolutely insane that we pay guys eight figures to run a company while the people who do the actual work can't feed their families without government assistance.

They also made the mistake of sitting on a billion dollars in cash instead of using it wisely. They laughed at Best Buy because BB had to finance their big expansion. It wasn't long, however, before they were frantically trying to change their business model to look more like BB. Regardless, I got out on my own terms 4 years before they went under.

I think my points were more salient. They put pleasing wall Street above looking out for the people who were doing the hard work.

Lucrative jobs are not made by fiat. They are made by employees having skills or abilities that employers need but can't get elsewhere for less. Hence my ability to have CC pay my relocation costs and my mortgage for 5 months as a junior level programmer. You DID take economics at some point in your life, right? You DO know that you can't just write laws requiring jobs pay high wages for no increase in value and expect them to actually work, right?

Guy, after 2008, your side doesn't get to talk about economics anymore. 2008 proved once and for all that you simply do not know what the **** you are doing.

The thing is, we DID do exactly that between 1930 and 1980. and it was the greatest period in our economic history. Guys like my dad could buy nice summer homes in Wisconsin on a middle class salary, because we had a middle class that meant something.

And the people you worship got Reagan and the Bush Crime family elected, and they pretty much managed to **** all that up.

 

[hadit]

That's not what you were talking about. I kicked it through the uprights, and now you want to move the goal posts, hoping I won't score again.

That's exactly what I was talking about. It's absolutely insane that we pay guys eight figures to run a company while the people who do the actual work can't feed their families without government assistance.

Nope. Your quote was, "If you have enough money to pay your CEO an 8 figure salary and huge dividends to shareholders off the labor of that fry cook, then you have enough money to pay that fry cook a living wage." You were talking about a CEO's salary, NOT the total wealth of the country. You're simply wrong, or lying. And since I made it absolutely clear, if you repeat it, you will be lying.

They also made the mistake of sitting on a billion dollars in cash instead of using it wisely. They laughed at Best Buy because BB had to finance their big expansion. It wasn't long, however, before they were frantically trying to change their business model to look more like BB. Regardless, I got out on my own terms 4 years before they went under.

I think my points were more salient. They put pleasing wall Street above looking out for the people who were doing the hard work.

In either case, they would have had to lay people off and cut costs somewhere. Their business model would not survive as more than a niche player in today's tech climate.

Lucrative jobs are not made by fiat. They are made by employees having skills or abilities that employers need but can't get elsewhere for less. Hence my ability to have CC pay my relocation costs and my mortgage for 5 months as a junior level programmer. You DID take economics at some point in your life, right? You DO know that you can't just write laws requiring jobs pay high wages for no increase in value and expect them to actually work, right?

Guy, after 2008, your side doesn't get to talk about economics anymore. 2008 proved once and for all that you simply do not know what the **** you are doing.

Gee, how's that working out for you, pretending some sort of faux moral superiority? Get anyone to shut up yet?

The thing is, we DID do exactly that between 1930 and 1980. and it was the greatest period in our economic history. Guys like my dad could buy nice summer homes in Wisconsin on a middle class salary, because we had a middle class that meant something.

We had industries with no global competition and rapidly increasing demand. Inevitably, that changed. Demand cannot increase infinitely and global competition made bloated incomes unsustainable. We had an IT boom in the 90's that mirrored that curve. I know, I lived it.

And the people you worship got Reagan and the Bush Crime family elected, and they pretty much managed to **** all that up.

Worship? Man, are you ever messed up. You have to be projecting.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope. Your quote was, "If you have enough money to pay your CEO an 8 figure salary and huge dividends to shareholders off the labor of that fry cook, then you have enough money to pay that fry cook a living wage." You were talking about a CEO's salary, NOT the total wealth of the country. You're simply wrong, or lying. And since I made it absolutely clear, if you repeat it, you will be lying.

Please note the part of my original statement you ignored. The part that includes all rich investors, not just the CEO.

Gee, how's that working out for you, pretending some sort of faux moral superiority? Get anyone to shut up yet?

Guy, you all fucked it up so bad that our best hope is that Hillary can beat the socialist and then beat the Nazi. That's how bad you all fucked it up. Just saying.

We had industries with no global competition and rapidly increasing demand. Inevitably, that changed. Demand cannot increase infinitely and global competition made bloated incomes unsustainable. We had an IT boom in the 90's that mirrored that curve. I know, I lived it.

Your argument would be hold water if we lost to social darwinist libertards. We didn't. We lost to social democracies that had New Dealers set up their economics systems after the war.

 

[Conservative65]

It doesn't work like that because all labor is not worth a "living wage". We keep coming back to that point, and you have no good answer as to why it should be.

I have a perfectly good answer. It's just not one you like.

If you have enough money to pay your CEO an 8 figure salary and huge dividends to shareholders off the labor of that fry cook, then you have enough money to pay that fry cook a living wage. It's not a matter of a lack of pie, it's how the pie is being divided.

If a particular job doesn't generate enough profit to pay an employee more than $5/hr, why should we force the employer to pay artificially higher wages? All he's going to do is raise prices, which drives inflation, which prices goods out of reach of the poor, which makes their artificially high MW useless, which drives the wage hikers back to their argument that it's just not high enough, and on it goes...

This is another bullshit argument. Do you know how much the cost of a Big Mac would go up if they paid a living wage? It would go up all of 17 cents.

This Is How Much A Big Mac Would Cost If The Minimum Wage Was $15

The problem is you think a pie that doesn't involve your money is one for which you can divide. Not how it works.

You would double your pay if it went up to $15/hour. It would be 3x what you're actually worth.

 

[Conservative65]

MAybe they can't because their resumes suck

Tell me in this entire country that there is not a place where anyone can work full time.

If you can't find a job in one state I bet you can in another

Most people can't afford to move.

I think we've all had enough of your "Let them eat Cake" answers, thank you.

What we've had enough of is people like you thinking it's your place to dictate how a business owner should use his/her money.

I say let them come to you is they can't pay their bills. You say you care about them. Prove it.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem is you think a pie that doesn't involve your money is one for which you can divide. Not how it works.

You would double your pay if it went up to $15/hour. It would be 3x what you're actually worth.

Actually, $15.00 would be a pay cut for me. But Im not even paid hourly, Im paid annually...

Here's the thing. Let's say Hillary has a heart attack and Bernie gets the nomination and then he beats the Trumpenfuhrer like a drum...

Then I guess we can decide who divides the pie, eh?

What we've had enough of is people like you thinking it's your place to dictate how a business owner should use his/her money.

I say let them come to you is they can't pay their bills. You say you care about them. Prove it.

they aren't actually doing something for me. When someone does something for me, I pay them a fair price to do it.

McDonalds and WalMart should do the same.

But the reason why you are so shit-stain ******* stupid is what you don't get is that those Min wage workers aren't going to starve to death. They are going to collect government benefits and they'll keep voting for politicians who offer more of them.

So you see, it would actually be better from your perspective if the working poor were getting their pay from their employers instead of the government. Then your cries for less government might even have a receptive audience.

 

[Conservative65]

The problem is you think a pie that doesn't involve your money is one for which you can divide. Not how it works.

You would double your pay if it went up to $15/hour. It would be 3x what you're actually worth.

Actually, $15.00 would be a pay cut for me. But Im not even paid hourly, Im paid annually...

Here's the thing. Let's say Hillary has a heart attack and Bernie gets the nomination and then he beats the Trumpenfuhrer like a drum...

Then I guess we can decide who divides the pie, eh?

What we've had enough of is people like you thinking it's your place to dictate how a business owner should use his/her money.

I say let them come to you is they can't pay their bills. You say you care about them. Prove it.

they aren't actually doing something for me. When someone does something for me, I pay them a fair price to do it.

McDonalds and WalMart should do the same.

But the reason why you are so shit-stain ******* stupid is what you don't get is that those Min wage workers aren't going to starve to death. They are going to collect government benefits and they'll keep voting for politicians who offer more of them.

So you see, it would actually be better from your perspective if the working poor were getting their pay from their employers instead of the government. Then your cries for less government might even have a receptive audience.

Sure you make more than that. Prove it.

You don't pay people a fair price to work for you. That's a lie. You should pay them more.

It would be better of those freeloaders got nothing from the taxpayers and relied on people like you that claim they care about them. They'd get nothing if they depended on people like you to do what you say should be done volutarily.

The only reason you want to have a say in someone else's money is because you have none of your own.