The wage problem in a nutshell

[braindrain]

$15 an hour is not enough. $35 per hour would barely make it.

That is an interesting fairytale land you live in.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Of course, because you have shit as far as argument, just like ever right winger, No fact support your scummy lies

yeah, keep sucking billionaire D while majority of this country barely scrape by. But let me guess, you are well off and have no empathy so why give a shit about anybody else.

Before the standard moronic deflection, I'm doing well myself but unlike right wingers, I'm not selfish and I have empathy and every problem in this country is because of greed, not the moronic right wing lies of liberals, people of color and immigrants

Thank you for yet another, in a long, long series of tastefully sophisticated and elegantly sublime responses - obviously the culmination of considerable thought and contemplation.

Indeed, I stand utterly captivated and intrigued by your charmingly urbane articulation of concepts some might have otherwise thought so seemingly far beyond your grasp.

But no! With sheer decency, grace, and decorum do you so eloquently prove (yet again) how wrong we all are!

Kudos, sir!

 

[Deuce]

same damn argument that has been said at least 30x in the last 5+ years since i joined....with the exact same charts

and my exact same reply

what happened in the 1970's to where everything started to change? what was the couple of inventions that changed the world?

automation and computers

my office went from 18 column green books for accounting to spreadsheets (lotus 123) i think was the 1st one (been almost 40 years ago

and went from 23 people to 11 in under three years.....same amount of work done by less than half the people

Management and ownership paid for all the computers....and the training.....and everyone that remained got raises

But the total payroll went WAY DOWN.....and profits WAY UP

And this happened in almost every facility, every business across America and across the world over the next 20+ years

The workers had NOTHING to do with making those changes.....they didnt invest in the hardware.....didnt pay for the training

My salary went up a bunch....because i could do more with less....and that is the way corporations work.....and have for quite some time now

So what? A more productive worker is a more productive worker. There's no magic law of the universe that necessitates every last dollar of that going to the executives. Why shouldn't the American people as a whole benefit from this?

 

[Deuce]

A government that can tax your income, your property OWNS your income and your property.

LOL "taxation is theft" garbage. Listen, go start your own country if you don't want to pay for the existence of civilization. You think you're entitled to all these roads and national defense and police forces for free? Really?

 

[The Old Soul]

Problem is: A mandated minimum wage is cast in stone, and applied to all workers evenly.

Counterpoint is: Worker quality and productivity is as varied as shifting sands, with little to do with the minimum wage paid.

One possible solution is: Two stepwise Minimum Wages; every new hire is probationary at unlivable minimum wage #1, for a preset period (30 days maybe?) with employers able to dismiss the newbie for any reason on the spot. Employers would be able to evaluate workers on the jobJ, which is vastly more accurate than any HR interview. Same for probationary employees with the right to walk if the employer sucks kahoonas.

If the employee passes probation, then full effect employment laws and rules (like a Union would impose) go into effect, at the much higher livable wage, with wage #2 reimbursement for the abbreviated wage paid the first 30 days on permanent hire. A structured form of this nature would incentivize both employer and worker, and vastly reduce revolving door positions as both would have stake in the position.

 

[EdwinWillers]

LOL "taxation is theft" garbage. Listen, go start your own country if you don't want to pay for the existence of civilization. You think you're entitled to all these roads and national defense and police forces for free? Really?

It's obvious you didn't even read my post, did you?

What'd you do, see the really dark text that stood out in contrast to the lighter text and think that's all I wrote?

 

[donhughesmusic]

Listen to yourself.....But it makes much more sense to give more money to the poorer part of the income pool

Not that they EARN it....that you give it to them

What ever happened to the old adage of an honest days work for an honest days pay

If a person feels they are underpaid, especially in this economy, they have every right to ask for a raise

And the owner/manager has every right to give one or say no.....

No one is FORCED to work anywhere.....if unhappy or underpaid.....MOVE or change jobs

But if it is a lack of skills that is the problem, then fix that

Because sometimes an honest day's work does not mean an honest day's pay.

At my company they are currently bring in employees at a lower position at the same pay rate as current employees at the position above them.

 

[Deuce]

It's obvious you didn't even read my post, did you?

What'd you do, see the really dark text that stood out in contrast to the lighter text and think that's all I wrote?

You appear to be objecting to taxing property and income. News flash: that's how society gets paid for. It's utterly bizarre that you think taxing income is government theft but taxing a purchase is totally fine.

 

[EdwinWillers]

You appear to be objecting to taxing property and income. News flash: that's how society gets paid for. It's utterly bizarre that you think taxing income is government theft but taxing a purchase is totally fine.

Well that can happen when you ignore all but the bolded text.

Here's what I wrote - only this time bolding the stuff which you ignored before:

Me? 100% all in for a flat tax* - one that has NOTHING TO DO WITH INCOME or PROPERTY, strictly purchases. Flat rate on everything you buy. I'll even concede no tax for lower income people. $20k? $30k? More? They can buy all their essentials and pay no taxes at all on the purchases. A government that can tax your income, your property OWNS your income and your property.

As you can see, I'm all for a FLAT tax - taxation on the things we purchase, or better labeled, a "consumption tax." Why you think that bizarre, I've no idea - in fact, governments are already doing it right now, just not at the levels needed to fully fund them.

It's silly to assert that ONLY taxation on what we own (income and property) is how governments get paid. That's demonstrably not at all true.

My statement, "A government that can tax your income, your property OWNS your income and your property" is actually quite true as well. Consider what happens when you pay neither - the government takes them from you - which they do on the fundamental premise that it [now] belongs to them; your property or your freedom, giving up what you own or becoming indentured to the government.

As to the "flatness" of the tax - I fully recognize the impacts felt by those on the lower scale of income are disproportionate to those felt at the opposite end - and that regardless how "fair" the tax may be. That said, I do actually favor a few measures to mitigate that; for instance, having an income threshold below which no one pays and two, making the rate marginally progressive - but ONLY marginally (for reasons I can expound on later if you need).

 

[gdgyva]

So what? A more productive worker is a more productive worker. There's no magic law of the universe that necessitates every last dollar of that going to the executives. Why shouldn't the American people as a whole benefit from this?

the workers did get their share....every one who stayed got raises

production went up, and everyone made MORE

ownership made the MOST, because they INVESTED in the machines, training, and costs

All we did was LEARN....and become more proficient....and we all made more for it

I went from like 27k to 45k in under 3 years....nice raises back then

 

[gdgyva]

Because sometimes an honest day's work does not mean an honest day's pay.

At my company they are currently bring in employees at a lower position at the same pay rate as current employees at the position above them.

what?

please explain the second sentence.....it makes NO SENSE

and please give some specifics

 

[eohrnberger]

the workers did get their share....every one who stayed got raises

production went up, and everyone made MORE

ownership made the MOST, because they INVESTED in the machines, training, and costs

All we did was LEARN....and become more proficient....and we all made more for it

I went from like 27k to 45k in under 3 years....nice raises back then

That's pretty awesome, and good on you!

 

[gdgyva]

That's pretty awesome, and good on you!

for the early 80's it was decent pay
my 1st year hitting 100k was 1993.....and i never looked back (that was salary and a nice bonus)

 

[eohrnberger]

for the early 80's it was decent pay
my 1st year hitting 100k was 1993.....and i never looked back (that was salary and a nice bonus)

Well, good on you. Took me awhile longer to hit that level of compensation, but I'm not complaining. Life just sort of IS.

 

[donhughesmusic]

what?

please explain the second sentence.....it makes NO SENSE

and please give some specifics

For example, and assistant manager makes let's say $20 an hour. They are bringing in new employees at a lower position at the same $20 rate.

 

[Bullseye]

Contrary to Republican views, wages can be too low. Most people like there to be some idea that the American economy can have prosperity somewhat shared so that at least most Americans are prosperous, not only 10% super-prosperous instead.

But, wages are set almost entirely - outside the minimum wage and minimal laws - by the dictates of the owners. This would itself result in too-low wages. Why wouldn't it?

One alternative would be for the government to dictate wages. This would raise them - but is a very unpopular idea and one with admitted flaws, so it has essentially no chance to happen.

The next thing to offset those low wages is 'the marketplace'. The idea that if employer 1 wants to pay very low wages, that employer 2 will offer a higher wage to 'compete' with employer 1.

Thing is, there is some truth to that but it's of very modest benefit. It SEEMS like it is - because it exists more in an environment that HAS decent wages. But by itself it wouldn't have much effect, in an environment where workers are disposable and there are a pool of unemployed people willing to take less. Looking at how much effect this has on wages for food gatherers comes to mind, for example. That COULD be nearly all employees.

I think people are more comfortable with an idea of some 'magic hand' ensuring fair wages, than any human direction. They don't really trust anyone to run the issue, and want to think 'the market will just take care of it'.

They forget that 'the market' has a very wide variation in what's possible, and those variations include both very low and higher wages, that it's a bit complicated with multiple factors.

People don't really appreciate just how much this mechanism of solely owner-set wages keeps wages down - because historically, wages rose proportionally with the wealth created, but that changed to wear the wealth created had no effect on wages. As the wealth created doubled and doubled again, wages remained flat; all of the increase went into owners' pockets and inequality skyrocketed.

I've seen it suggested that if this change hadn't happened, the average salary would be double what it is. People don't notice because it isn't a pay cut, but the owners sure notice as their wealth balloons.

A problem in people understanding this is that they think any question about fair wages means questioning the entire system of private enterprise - that it means owners not making profits, a collapse of the whole system. It doesn't, but people think it does and resist any question about wages.

The final main issue that could affect wages is the only one that adds some power to employees - labor organization, like unions. But unions have been nearly eliminated in the private sector, with few exceptions such as the handful of Amazon workers who are just organizing. A third of workers used to be organized. As of 1979 there were 21 million union members - the change I mentioned was immediately after that.

That's the fundamental issue with wages. People would like them to be 'decent', but there is no mechanism to ensure that, so a system without that mechanism is deciding them - and deciding to keep them perhaps half of what they 'would be' under historical norms.

We have no clear alternative system. Democrats aren't running regularly on a 'new system for fair wages' I know of. If you asked a person how to ensure fair wages, I doubt almost any would have much answer. Yet we have political forces fighting to keep them down - and succeeding at that. That in a nutshell is the wage problem.

A chart showing the wishbone effect of the change:

A chart showing what Americans think wealth distribution is and should be versus what it is (this is pretty old now, it's now much worse):

That's a pretty big "nut". The Mother Jones graph makes no sense, but it's from MoJo which explains a lot.

 

[HangLow]

I was trying to simplify, and assuming that you thought the results in those countries bad.
I disagree with you, by the way.
A living wage is not communism.
It'd be simple to say "the government", but it would probably be more accurate to say "Congress directs, the bureaucracy fills in the details".
But that is the implementation.
As I understand it, a living wage is simply a wage sufficient for those working at it to meet their basic needs.
So in a way, Food Stamps, the ACA, Social Security, and all those other government assistance programs are part of the minimum wage, since they exist to try and get people their basic needs.

​

 

[vanceen]

The problem is not greedy or stingy employers.

Labor is very sensitive to supply and demand, and in "normal" times equilibrium will be reached pretty quickly. Because the truth is, the controlling factor for wages is how hard it is to replace a given worker with another one with similar skills. It's not how much an employee contributes to profit, it's not how hard they work, it is very simply how hard it is to replace them.

The problem we've seen growing in the last thirty years or so is the global availability of low cost labor (exacerbated by rapid technology changes in automation and communication). This reduces the market value of labor in traditional higher wage countries by putting their workers in competition with low income workers in low living cost countries. Now the labor pool for many jobs is the whole world, not just a local area or even a whole country.

Because of the fact that workers in high living cost countries are competing with workers with low living costs, there is a risk that some jobs will not pay enough for people to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves adequately. Aside from any issues about "greed" or morality, any society that has a lot of people who can't provide for themselves has a very serious problem.

This isn't an easy problem to solve. Increases in the minimum wage would be a reasonable short term measure. The long term solution would have to involve increasing the competitiveness of the labor force. That means training and education, heavy investment in infrastructure, and probably strategic aid to key high technology industries.

 

[Craig234]

The problem is not greedy or stingy employers.

Labor is very sensitive to supply and demand, and in "normal" times equilibrium will be reached pretty quickly. Because the truth is, the controlling factor for wages is how hard it is to replace a given worker with another one with similar skills. It's not how much an employee contributes to profit, it's not how hard they work, it is very simply how hard it is to replace them.

The problem we've seen growing in the last thirty years or so is the global availability of low cost labor (exacerbated by rapid technology changes in automation and communication). This reduces the market value of labor in traditional higher wage countries by putting their workers in competition with low income workers in low living cost countries. Now the labor pool for many jobs is the whole world, not just a local area or even a whole country.

Because of the fact that workers in high living cost countries are competing with workers with low living costs, there is a risk that some jobs will not pay enough for people to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves adequately. Aside from any issues about "greed" or morality, any society that has a lot of people who can't provide for themselves has a very serious problem.

This isn't an easy problem to solve. Increases in the minimum wage would be a reasonable short term measure. The long term solution would have to involve increasing the competitiveness of the labor force. That means training and education, heavy investment in infrastructure, and probably strategic aid to key high technology industries.

I think that dovetails nicely with the OP, that the current system which sends all wealth created to the owners to choose how to distribute does not provide for a strong middle class and low inequality. What you just are positive things, but they won't solve it either. Some way to ensure wealth is more distributed is needed.

 

[The Mark]

View attachment 67384616​

IMO stock buybacks should be illegal, or at least very restricted.

 

[Craig234]

IMO stock buybacks should be illegal, or at least very restricted.

When there is less inequality, companies can grow by being 'public' and using money from the public. But as inequality increases, the wealthy get richer by owning big companies privately, like the Koch brothers. Who needs the public, even the relatively small percent who own stocks, getting to share in the wealth? Other private companies include the largest car renter, Enterprise, Foster Farms, Hallmark, Bose, Staples, Bloomberg, Fidelity, Mars (candy)...

 

[HangLow]

I never called it good nor bad, I called out the multiple failures demonstrated in history of such economic systems.
Who get's to decide what this 'cost of living level' is, who gets to decide what 'a minimal but comfortable standard of living' is defined as?
At this moment, that which is considered 'a living wage' is being rapidly destroyed and degraded by inflation, as are everyone's wages.
As this minimum 'living wage' increases, it to contributes to inflationary pressures, so there's a bit of a feedback loop there.
Wages go up, inflations goes up reducing purchasing power, forcing wages to go up yet again.

​

 

[Craig234]

My post just above about privately owned companies - Cargill is the #1 private company in the US (Koch is #2), from the post above.

 

[The Mark]

My post just above about privately owned companies - Cargill is the #1 private company in the US (Koch is #2), from the post above.

Didn't we have anti-trust / anti-monopoly laws?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Just check the cumulative inflation rate versus wages since 1972. That is the key to understanding why the increase in median income has been around 120% but inflation is four times that.

That is the problem that needs solved.