The justification for wealth-redistribution.[W:2037]

[Arbo]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Businesses that don't pay full time workers a living salary, require government subsidies of the poor that they create.

Business is not in business to PAY people more than they are worth, business doesn't give a crap if you have the latest iPhone or big screen. Period. NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.

You know who's responsibility it is to ensure you bring in enough money to pay your bills and live the lifestyle you want? YOURS.


Why is this such a flipping difficult concept for so many people to understand?


Had each and every person that believes burger flippers should be paid $15 bucks an hour had lived during the times of the revolution (or before), they would have been the poorest of the poor … probably wouldn't have survived.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Businesses that don't pay full time workers a living salary, require government subsidies of the poor that they create.

No they don't and minimum wage jobs don't create poor people. Minimum wage jobs give kids a chance to be less poor. It's not the fault of the employer that someone applies for and accepts a job that doesn't pay them more than they "need".

 

[VanceMack]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Businesses that don't pay full time workers a living salary, require government subsidies of the poor that they create.

Thats just plain old ****ing stupid. Who told you that it was a businesses responsibility to provide someone a 'living wage'? Who's 'responsibility' is it to provide a living wage to the unemployed? The self employed? The business owners?

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

It doesn't matter what a river does, flipping burgers in NEVER $15 an hour work. It's unskilled labor, at the bottom of the pool. Want more? Do better for oneself.

Sure, but $15 isn't what it used to be. Fifteen years ago, when I was working at McDonalds $5.00 seemed like a pretty good wage, but gasoline was hovering around $1.00/ gallon.

In-N-Out pays their employees quite well for the work, same can be said of Costco or Trader Joe's, yet all of these companies are very profitable. Beyond paying higher wages, these companies also invest in their employees. This is one of the ways to solve the problem that we're facing. The other way is to have the government start investing in people, rather than weapons subsides or manufacturing.

There is so much ignorance in the above statement it's simply amazing.

That was a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence, probably the least ignorant thing ever said on this forum.

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Thats just plain old ****ing stupid. Who told you that it was a businesses responsibility to provide someone a 'living wage'? Who's 'responsibility' is it to provide a living wage to the unemployed? The self employed? The business owners?

That's actually a very logical statement.

Sure, McDonalds bottom line looks good because they pay their workers substandard wages. However, if you look to the overall financial burden placed upon the government for providing welfare to these same employees, it changes things quite dramatically. This is part of the race to the bottom, where two things are happening:

1. We are trying to keep up with developing nations. . . impossible.
   
   
   
   
   
3. Corporations focus on high margins and executive pay, to the detriment of the employees.

These are two of the most dangerous economic activities that could be undertaken in a capitalist nation.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

That's actually a very logical statement.

Sure, McDonalds bottom line looks good because they pay their workers substandard wages.

That's not THE reason why McDonalds has been successful. Are you really under that impression?

However, if you look to the overall financial burden placed upon the government

There is no "financial burden placed upon the government."

for providing welfare to these same employees, it changes things quite dramatically.

Welfare came about independently of McDonalds wages. Imagine a single McDonalds location that employs only 16-year olds who are completely happy with the low wages because all they're saving up for is beer or a video game. Then the government implements a vast welfare program that pays for every family's various basic needs, and suddenly parents in their twenties, thirties and forties are willing to do the same job the teenagers used to do because their other needs are met by the government.

In that scenario, the burden is not placed on government as a result of the low wages. Rather, the creation of welfare programs in the first place makes minimum wage jobs an option for people with financial responsibilities, whereas without the welfare programs, parents and others with financial responsibilities wouldn't even contemplate settling for that job.

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

That's not THE reason why McDonalds has been successful. Are you really under that impression?

Obviously that's not the reason they've been successful. They've been successful because they offer palatable food at dirt cheap prices. That' and they've conjured up a global market for their product.

The depressed wages are simply a tool to keep up their margins. Unfortunately this financial tool has consequences, not the least of which is creating a ready pool of welfare recipients.

And yes, the people & government are absolutely burdened by this cheap trick.

Welfare came about independently of McDonalds wages. Imagine a single McDonalds location that employs only 16-year olds who are completely happy with the low wages because all they're saving up for is beer or a video game. Then the government implements a vast welfare program that pays for every family's various basic needs, and suddenly parents in their twenties, thirties and forties are willing to do the same job the teenagers used to do because their other needs are met by the government.

I've worked at a McDonalds, and been to plenty of interstate fast-food stops. In all of my time, I've never seen a fast food joint staffed entirely by high-schoolers. Sure it isn't glamorous work, but it's work and for some people that's all they have. To use as a stepping stone, means to an end or at the minimum sustenance.

Thing is, this is how it should be.

In that scenario, the burden is not placed on government as a result of the low wages. Rather, the creation of welfare programs in the first place makes minimum wage jobs an option for people with financial responsibilities, whereas without the welfare programs, parents and others with financial responsibilities wouldn't even contemplate settling for that job.

Thing is, the burden is placed upon the government in either case. I don't agree with minimum wage, or welfare. However, I've grown quite fond of math and economics.

The creation of both the minimum wage and welfare were the direct result of cheap tricks conducted on the part of companies. It's not a zero sum game, many companies do right by sound capitalist principles, but many just look for the short term gains.

Things like Unions, the FDA and Glass-Steagal are all the direct result of poor economic decisions.

 

[Awesome!]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

I believe that history has provided more than ample proof that extreme wealth inequity creates societies that range from dysfunctional to unstable.

Free enterprise without restriction leads to that, and it's very, very expensive for everyone.

In this country we are at that extreme. The wealthy are going to have to let go of a few cookies to get their hand out of the cookie jar. Or they won't be getting any more.

Your going to pillage and plunder huh?

 

[VanceMack]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

That's actually a very logical statement.

Sure, McDonalds bottom line looks good because they pay their workers substandard wages. However, if you look to the overall financial burden placed upon the government for providing welfare to these same employees, it changes things quite dramatically. This is part of the race to the bottom, where two things are happening:

1. We are trying to keep up with developing nations. . . impossible.
   
   
   
   
   
3. Corporations focus on high margins and executive pay, to the detriment of the employees.

These are two of the most dangerous economic activities that could be undertaken in a capitalist nation.

McDonalds, nor anyone other busienss is beholded to pay anyone a 'liveable wage'. They pay what the job is worth. Taking an unskilled uneducated teenager off the street, teaching them how to assemble a sandwich and drop fries...that job is worth minimum wage at best.

Its mind numbingly stupid to believe anyones answer to economic prosperity is to double the wages for minimum wage jobs. The emphasis SHOULD BE on reinvigorating an industrial base and creating REAL middle income jobs.

The good news is...what a great country. people like YOU are free to start a business and pay your employees anything you want. And you should by all means do that. Unfortunately, we have a whole lot of people in this country that have never run so much as a newspaper route that believe they have all the 'answers'.

 

[Arbo]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Sure, but

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

That was a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence, probably the least ignorant thing ever said on this forum.

I believe you believe that, but your belief of it doesn't make it so.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

That's actually a very logical statement.

Sure, McDonalds bottom line looks good because they pay their workers substandard wages. However, if you look to the overall financial burden placed upon the government for providing welfare to these same employees, it changes things quite dramatically. This is part of the race to the bottom, where two things are happening:

1. We are trying to keep up with developing nations. . . impossible.
   
   
   
   
   
3. Corporations focus on high margins and executive pay, to the detriment of the employees.

These are two of the most dangerous economic activities that could be undertaken in a capitalist nation.

That number 2 bullet point..... seems a lot like number 2. What do you call a "high margin" and how do you explain your assertion that corporations focus on "executive pay"? I've never been aware of any corporation focusing on executive pay even if liberal pinkos focus on it with mad obsession. They're always and I mean ALWAYS focused on other things like expansion, operations, market share, mergers, takover attempts, acquisitions, market pressures, etc. etc. etc. etc. Executive pay isn't anywhere near the top ten things a corporation "focuses" on. Not in the real world. Maybe in the madness of liberal delusions but not in the real world.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Welfare came about independently of McDonalds wages. Imagine a single McDonalds location that employs only 16-year olds who are completely happy with the low wages because all they're saving up for is beer or a video game. Then the government implements a vast welfare program that pays for every family's various basic needs, and suddenly parents in their twenties, thirties and forties are willing to do the same job the teenagers used to do because their other needs are met by the government.

Seriously? People are going to want to work for McDonalds rather than a high paying job because of welfare???:roll:

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

That number 2 bullet point..... seems a lot like number 2. What do you call a "high margin" and how do you explain your assertion that corporations focus on "executive pay"? I've never been aware of any corporation focusing on executive pay even if liberal pinkos focus on it with mad obsession. They're always and I mean ALWAYS focused on other things like expansion, operations, market share, mergers, takover attempts, acquisitions, market pressures, etc. etc. etc. etc. Executive pay isn't anywhere near the top ten things a corporation "focuses" on. Not in the real world. Maybe in the madness of liberal delusions but not in the real world.

Oh looky here: Taxpayers are subsidizing CEO salary---can't wait to here you rationalize this one!

Fast-food giants save money by paying their typical workers very little, but they also save money by paying their CEOs millions, thanks to a quirk of the tax code. In both cases, American taxpayers cover the cost.

McDonald’s saved $14 million in taxes over the past two years using a loophole that lets companies deduct the costs of performance-based executive pay, according to a report released Monday by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank. McDonald’s isn’t alone: Over the past two years, the six largest fast-food companies have used the loophole to save an estimated $64 million in taxes, the report found. (Story continues after graphic). You're Secretly Subsidizing A Fast Food CEO's Million-Dollar Salary

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

McDonalds, nor anyone other busienss is beholded to pay anyone a 'liveable wage'. They pay what the job is worth. Taking an unskilled uneducated teenager off the street, teaching them how to assemble a sandwich and drop fries...that job is worth minimum wage at best.

Obviously you've never been to In-N-Out. . . paying people a little bit more and treating them like humans has done a lot for that company. There's actually no comparison between McDonalds and In-N-Out, and the primary difference is a focus on the people working there and the quality of their product. If more companies did just that we wouldn't be in the mess we are currently in today.

Its mind numbingly stupid to believe anyones answer to economic prosperity is to double the wages for minimum wage jobs. The emphasis SHOULD BE on reinvigorating an industrial base and creating REAL middle income jobs.

Actually, I agree with that sentiment. Raising minimum wage isn't a good answer, never has been and never will be. Using the government to force a solution will be half-hearted at best and likely result in corporate resentment.

This economic mess can end in three ways:

1. Corporations start looking into the long-term effects of their actions (investing in the people that work there), while the rest of us start looking for a new paradigm. . . education, entertainment, research or service for example.
   
   
3. A bloody revolution, likely the first thing to happen after someone gets the wise idea to cancel football, to increase profits.
   
   
5. We, as a nation, get super lucky and find ourselves the benefactors of some natural disaster/ other profitable event.

The good news is...what a great country. people like YOU are free to start a business and pay your employees anything you want. And you should by all means do that. Unfortunately, we have a whole lot of people in this country that have never run so much as a newspaper route that believe they have all the 'answers'.

You're right, it's a great country. I was born to a broke family and through toil, determination and a lot of luck I've made some decent money. I didn't need to start my own company to do it either, I used my military experience to get in the door with a decent operation that is actually investing in the employees. As a result we generally far out perform our competitors.

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

How so?

I'm pretty sure that the line quoted from the good old Declaration of Independence is extremely pertinent to the discussion. We are talking about liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are we not?

I believe you believe that, but your belief of it doesn't make it so.

You're right, I edited history and included that line in the original text. . .

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Oh looky here: Taxpayers are subsidizing CEO salary---can't wait to here you rationalize this one!

Fast-food giants save money by paying their typical workers very little, but they also save money by paying their CEOs millions, thanks to a quirk of the tax code. In both cases, American taxpayers cover the cost.

McDonald’s saved $14 million in taxes over the past two years using a loophole that lets companies deduct the costs of performance-based executive pay, according to a report released Monday by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank. McDonald’s isn’t alone: Over the past two years, the six largest fast-food companies have used the loophole to save an estimated $64 million in taxes, the report found. (Story continues after graphic). You're Secretly Subsidizing A Fast Food CEO's Million-Dollar Salary

Oh that horse crap again. How is the deduction of performance based executive pay a "loophole". All pay is deductible, so what makes anyone think "performance pay" shouldn't be deductible? It's a perfectly sensible deduction. Oh, I see. More crap from "a progressive think tank". You should stop filling your head with crap from progressive think tanks.

And that this "progressive think tank" coupled this turdlet with the unrelated turdlet of "food stamps subsidizes corporations that don't pay their workers enough" just proves how dishonest and intellectually bankrupt their propaganda is.

And this is all beside the fact that your drivel amounts to a non-sequitur regarding the statement that you quoted. The idea that the focus of business is on executive pay is abysmally stupid.

 

[Arbo]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

You're right, I edited history

You would have to know and understand history to edit it…

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

That number 2 bullet point..... seems a lot like number 2. What do you call a "high margin" and how do you explain your assertion that corporations focus on "executive pay"?

1. You are aware of the financial term "margin" yes? Businesses like McDonalds and Wal-Mart are high-volume low-margin operations, kind of like oil companies. Thing is, to appease share holders & corporate management, they often attempt strategies to improve their margins to the detriment of the employees. This is a very shortsighted strategy, it's part of the race to the bottom.

2. I'm not sure where I got the notion of companies focusing on executive pay, probably from that liberal rag Forbes Magazine . The link trails to a whole article. . .database really, focused on executive compensation. This isn't some new phenomenon really either, it's been happening every year and published by the same liberal rag, Forbes Magazine.

Of that list, just the top 100 paid CEO's pull in more than $2.6 billion per year (rounded down naturally). Remember this is only the top 100, and doesn't include the rest of executive management.

I've never been aware of any corporation focusing on executive pay even if liberal pinkos focus on it with mad obsession. They're always and I mean ALWAYS focused on other things like expansion, operations, market share, mergers, takover attempts, acquisitions, market pressures, etc. etc. etc. etc. Executive pay isn't anywhere near the top ten things a corporation "focuses" on. Not in the real world. Maybe in the madness of liberal delusions but not in the real world.

Right, Forbes is just making this stuff up. . .

 

[VanceMack]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Obviously you've never been to In-N-Out. . . paying people a little bit more and treating them like humans has done a lot for that company. There's actually no comparison between McDonalds and In-N-Out, and the primary difference is a focus on the people working there and the quality of their product. If more companies did just that we wouldn't be in the mess we are currently in today.



Actually, I agree with that sentiment. Raising minimum wage isn't a good answer, never has been and never will be. Using the government to force a solution will be half-hearted at best and likely result in corporate resentment.

This economic mess can end in three ways:

1. Corporations start looking into the long-term effects of their actions (investing in the people that work there), while the rest of us start looking for a new paradigm. . . education, entertainment, research or service for example.
   
   
3. A bloody revolution, likely the first thing to happen after someone gets the wise idea to cancel football, to increase profits.
   
   
5. We, as a nation, get super lucky and find ourselves the benefactors of some natural disaster/ other profitable event.

You're right, it's a great country. I was born to a broke family and through toil, determination and a lot of luck I've made some decent money. I didn't need to start my own company to do it either, I used my military experience to get in the door with a decent operation that is actually investing in the employees. As a result we generally far out perform our competitors.

In and Out burger employees make anywhere between 10 and 12 an hour (doing a basic search on Glassdoor). Average is 10.45. A McDonalds Fry cook makes between 7-12 an hour depending on their actual worth. More if the work a swing shift. McDonalds offers leads and management positions that In and Out doesnt offer. McDonalds also offers corporate courses and college tuition assistance as well as an employee scholarship program. Not bad for a bunch of unskilled otherwise unemployable teenagers. Your example of In and Out still falls dramatically short of a 'living wage'.

As for their product...meh...their burgers are a little better. In n Out fries suck.

As I said...its a great country. individual employers can choose to pay their employees whatever they want. Typically they pay market value. I am a business owner and hire clinical professionals. I pay a higher percentage than hospitals pay their full time staff. My reasons, my choice.

Focusing on making minimum wage jobs that have traditionally been held by high school kids and part time employees as a second job and trying to turn them into middle income careers is stupid. Period.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Oh that horse crap again. How is the deduction of performance based executive pay a "loophole". All pay is deductible, so what makes anyone think "performance pay" shouldn't be deductible? It's a perfectly sensible deduction. Oh, I see. More crap from "a progressive think tank". You should stop filling your head with crap from progressive think tanks.

And that this "progressive think tank" coupled this turdlet with the unrelated turdlet of "food stamps subsidizes corporations that don't pay their workers enough" just proves how dishonest and intellectually bankrupt their propaganda is.

And this is all beside the fact that your drivel amounts to a non-sequitur regarding the statement that you quoted. The idea that the focus of business is on executive pay is abysmally stupid.

You're rationalization is better than I predicted. Should I be surprised? Well, prepare to be outrage because of your support for such a loophole. There is a bill being proposed called S.1476 - Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act
113th Congress (2013-2014). So, it's not really crap if you feel this is unjustified. So, feel free to focus your outrage on a think tank that looked into such a thing. Go ahead and shot the messenger. It's a great way to deflect on the real issue Papa.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

1. You are aware of the financial term "margin" yes? Businesses like McDonalds and Wal-Mart are high-volume low-margin operations, kind of like oil companies. Thing is, to appease share holders & corporate management, they often attempt strategies to improve their margins to the detriment of the employees. This is a very shortsighted strategy, it's part of the race to the bottom.

2. I'm not sure where I got the notion of companies focusing on executive pay, probably from that liberal rag Forbes Magazine . The link trails to a whole article. . .database really, focused on executive compensation. This isn't some new phenomenon really either, it's been happening every year and published by the same liberal rag, Forbes Magazine.

To "appease" shareholders? How about to provide them the profits they are due for their investments?! What I am calling your attention to is your claim that they focus on "high margins". That's actually not correct. They focus on THE RIGHT margins. The highest margin isn't always going to be the most profitable because it is possible you can do better with lower margins and higher volumes. There is a great deal of attention paid to being a profitable business because business is for the sake of profit, but the highest profit margins don't necessarily equate to the greatest profits. As part of business strategy, every company will attempt to improve it's margin but to say they "focus on high margins" is absurd because (1) "high" is subjective and (2) focus means it's the primary objective and the primary objective isn't either high margins or corporate pay. It's typically going to be either market share, gross operating profit or net operating profit and "margins" are only one tool in the toolbox.

Right, Forbes is just making this stuff up. . .

It wasn't Forbes that made the statement I am refuting. Forbes didn't say that corporations focus on high margins and executive pay. You did that.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

You're rationalization is better than I predicted. Should I be surprised? Well, prepare to be outrage because of your support for such a loophole. There is a bill being proposed called S.1476 - Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act
113th Congress (2013-2014). So, it's not really crap if you feel this is unjustified. So, feel free to focus your outrage on a think tank that looked into such a thing. Go ahead and shot the messenger. It's a great way to deflect on the real issue Papa.

It's crap and it won't pass. This is the result of a bunch of crybaby progressive weenies trying to figure out some way to get additional taxes out of CEO pay that aren't warranted and punish them for the perceived wrongs of making "too much money". The CEO gets taxed when he's paid and when he's paid, it's no longer corporate profit, it's a pay expense.

Formal prognosis from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1476

1 percent chance of getting past committee.
0 percent change of getting enacted.

In other words, it's just another idiotic progressive wet dream.

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

You would have to know and understand history to edit it…

Obviously, which is why I edit it so well.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

It's crap and it won't pass. This is the result of a bunch of crybaby progressive weenies trying to figure out some way to get additional taxes out of CEO pay that aren't warranted and punish them for the perceived wrongs of making "too much money". The CEO gets taxed when he's paid and when he's paid, it's no longer corporate profit, it's a pay expense.

Formal prognosis from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1476

1 percent chance of getting past committee.
0 percent change of getting enacted.

In other words, it's just another idiotic progressive wet dream.

The point isn't rather it will pass or not. The point is there are many ways wealth gets redistributed to the top. You seem fine and dandy with that and will stop at nothing to rationalize it. With that said, when it's discussed how to counteract that by redistributing it back to the bottom again (where it was originally extracted) that becomes an issue for you. I presume the whole point of your thread? - The justification for wealth re-distribution-

You've justified it just fine for the top while you are outraged with it being done at the bottom.

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

To "appease" shareholders? How about to provide them the profits they are due for their investments?!

That should be the focus of any quality company. I'm glad that you understand this concept, as I can't actually debate anything you've posted here at all. Businesses need to be profitable and they need to focus on long-term growth (if they are actually looking to expand). Improvement should be the focus for business that aren't actually looking to expand.

focus means it's the primary objective and the primary objective isn't either high margins or corporate pay. It's typically going to be either market share, gross operating profit or net operating profit and "margins" are only one tool in the toolbox.

Margins aren't a 'tool in the tool box.' They are the results of good business practices, with increased efficiency comes increased margins. However, as you've already pointed out, the highest possible margins aren't necessarily the right margins. Businesses like Chevron make billions of dollars through volume sales.

That being said, CEO compensation (not just the salaries, which we've already talked about), but their actual compensation is a huge motivating factor for corporate actions. You can argue one way or the other, but the overwhelming majority of CEO's are not only taking in a salary, but also stock options and other non-taxable items. To argue otherwise is absurd and flies directly in the face of things like Forbes annual CEO salary list.

For a place like Forbes, its a morbid fascination. They aren't posting this information to incite change, they are posting it like ESPN posts football scores or MTV tours artists houses. The numbers, however are all still real.

I did a little more math, the top 400 CEO's raked in more than $4.9 billion in 2012. Not including stock options, bonuses or other non-listed compensation. These are only the top people in each company, there are typically more than a few high-end executives floating around for each company.

Just look at the actions of a company like AIG, especially following the government bail-out.