Thoughts????

[rabbitcaebannog]

Should we be more concerned with policies that surround cheap prices for consumers or better wages for workers? Since most of us are both what do you think?


Snip: Is this disparity between productivity and pay a result of U.S. economic policy? The report contends so. Rather than supporting jobs, EPI says, economic policies have focused on the consumer. Policies deregulating the economy, weakening unions, and promoting globalization have succeeded in lowering prices. They’ve failed in providing workers with compensation worthy of their efforts. U.S. Wages Aren't Keeping Up With U.S. Productivity, EPI Says

I'm thinking I'd rather have the freedom to decide what to do with my wages whether that be to use them to buy stuff or use it on savings, investment etc....instead of having that decision made for me by policy makers that assume that i'd rather buy cheap stuff.

 

[douglas]

Should we be more concerned with policies that surround cheap prices for consumers or better wages for workers? Since most of us are both what do you think?


Snip: Is this disparity between productivity and pay a result of U.S. economic policy? The report contends so. Rather than supporting jobs, EPI says, economic policies have focused on the consumer. Policies deregulating the economy, weakening unions, and promoting globalization have succeeded in lowering prices. They’ve failed in providing workers with compensation worthy of their efforts. U.S. Wages Aren't Keeping Up With U.S. Productivity, EPI Says

I'm thinking I'd rather have the freedom to decide what to do with my wages whether that be to use them to buy stuff or use it on savings, investment etc....instead of having that decision made for me by policy makers that assume that i'd rather buy cheap stuff.

If you look at inflation adjusted median wage charts, it's been increasing (ever so slowly, but it's a little better each year). For minimum wage workers, their purchasing power has been decreasing since the 60's. I'm all for a plan that redistributes the profits from increased production to the workers who actually produced it. I don't mind an increase in product prices, because prices are mostly lowered by outsourcing, automation, and cutting corners. Unions are a natural response to exploitative employers, they're ineffective at forcing the employer to pay anything more than a market average. So, unions aren't completely ineffective and they certainly aren't exploiting the employers, but they can't really "force" the wages to move much higher than just an inflation adjusted average to the market.

The change that'll redistribute the wages is a social one; start buying local and from small businesses, buy less commercial/unnecessary goods, use bartering more, etc. Punish exploitative corporations by boycotting them. The one law I'd love to see is the requirement that a corporation post info about their payroll (namely the ratio of the top earners to the bottom earners, or something similar), in a public area; if I could just look at the paper in the window and say, "Oh wait, they have a inequality index of 200:1, I'm going to go to the guy down the street, he has an index of 30:1." We could solve the problem if more people knew about it.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

If you look at inflation adjusted median wage charts, it's been increasing (ever so slowly, but it's a little better each year). For minimum wage workers, their purchasing power has been decreasing since the 60's. I'm all for a plan that redistributes the profits from increased production to the workers who actually produced it. I don't mind an increase in product prices, because prices are mostly lowered by outsourcing, automation, and cutting corners. Unions are a natural response to exploitative employers, they're ineffective at forcing the employer to pay anything more than a market average. So, unions aren't completely ineffective and they certainly aren't exploiting the employers, but they can't really "force" the wages to move much higher than just an inflation adjusted average to the market.

The change that'll redistribute the wages is a social one; start buying local and from small businesses, buy less commercial/unnecessary goods, use bartering more, etc. Punish exploitative corporations by boycotting them. The one law I'd love to see is the requirement that a corporation post info about their payroll (namely the ratio of the top earners to the bottom earners, or something similar), in a public area; if I could just look at the paper in the window and say, "Oh wait, they have a inequality index of 200:1, I'm going to go to the guy down the street, he has an index of 30:1." We could solve the problem if more people knew about it.

Thank you for your well thought out post. You have some unique ideas, especially the last one.

 

[Captain America]

There are very talented minds in this world dedicated to the mission of streaming revenue towards their interests. That revenue has to come from somewhere. So it comes from you and I, the common worker. And they will argue that had it not been for them and their kind, (job creators, shakers/movers,) we would have no revenue to take to begin with and that we should be grateful to them.

Chicken/egg.

I think the re-routing of revenue from the lower and middle classes to the rich, as it has been done now for over 30 years, is a suck idea. But I don't think America will ever turn that around. It's too big. It is not sustainable. When the top 5% own more than the lower 95% something is bound to implode/explode.

 

[iguanaman]

Should we be more concerned with policies that surround cheap prices for consumers or better wages for workers? Since most of us are both what do you think?


Snip: Is this disparity between productivity and pay a result of U.S. economic policy? The report contends so. Rather than supporting jobs, EPI says, economic policies have focused on the consumer. Policies deregulating the economy, weakening unions, and promoting globalization have succeeded in lowering prices. They’ve failed in providing workers with compensation worthy of their efforts. U.S. Wages Aren't Keeping Up With U.S. Productivity, EPI Says

I'm thinking I'd rather have the freedom to decide what to do with my wages whether that be to use them to buy stuff or use it on savings, investment etc....instead of having that decision made for me by policy makers that assume that i'd rather buy cheap stuff.

How about neither? The trend now is for higher prices AND lower wages. That's how to squeeze blood out of stones.
http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pg5T3mWUw2cKJEczARywFxliH9BND6f20I4fOhmlorgqgH4JeqBI1AxL7dUMMEXmcKYnJurB8Ldno0fpY7agQKE2zXi1VU9xZil7XXOWbHuirPBL30b00ipkZXKmiQ5jYG167E1qFou6dVB0590wJ8jA==&campaign_id=129&instance_id=30677&segment_id=48693&user_id=558ba203d7c37d7d039b5abfccbdd443&regi_id=28152600

 

[YoungConserv]

Does that look at wages vs productivity take into account increasing automation and overtime?

 

[iguanaman]

Does that look at wages vs productivity take into account increasing automation and overtime?

The Corporate profits do. And that "great sucking sound" you hear is the income taken from workers and transferred to CEO's

 

[Captain America]

The Corporate profits do. And that "great sucking sound" you hear is the income taken from workers and transferred to CEO's

Ding. Ding. Ding.

It goes beyond the CEO, IMO. I mean, take away their extreme salaries and bonuses and that would still be just a drop in the bucket. The investors, often the same rich CEO's and people like them, want their greedy profit as well. Add graft, and the protection from graft, liabilities, tort (ie:insurance, legal fees, etc.) regulation fees, the list goes on, as the man made expenses to do proper business, and it all adds up. I think the general attitude must change from the top but there is no incentive for them to change whatsoever.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Should we be more concerned with policies that surround cheap prices for consumers or better wages for workers? Since most of us are both what do you think?


Snip: Is this disparity between productivity and pay a result of U.S. economic policy? The report contends so. Rather than supporting jobs, EPI says, economic policies have focused on the consumer. Policies deregulating the economy, weakening unions, and promoting globalization have succeeded in lowering prices. They’ve failed in providing workers with compensation worthy of their efforts. U.S. Wages Aren't Keeping Up With U.S. Productivity, EPI Says

I'm thinking I'd rather have the freedom to decide what to do with my wages whether that be to use them to buy stuff or use it on savings, investment etc....instead of having that decision made for me by policy makers that assume that i'd rather buy cheap stuff.

Those policy makers who assume you'd rather buy cheap stuff are basing their decisions on consumer demand. Whenever you buy cheap stuff, you are, in effect, casting a vote for more cheap stuff. Buy quality, and you're casting your vote for quality. Buy made in America (good luck with that any more), and you're casting your vote for made in America.

Retail business has to follow consumer demands or go out of business. Wholesale business has to provide retail business what it can sell, or they'll go out of business. Manufacturers have to provide wholesale business what they can sell, or go out of business. It all boils down to consumer demand.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Should we be more concerned with policies that surround cheap prices for consumers or better wages for workers? Since most of us are both what do you think?


Snip: Is this disparity between productivity and pay a result of U.S. economic policy? The report contends so. Rather than supporting jobs, EPI says, economic policies have focused on the consumer. Policies deregulating the economy, weakening unions, and promoting globalization have succeeded in lowering prices. They’ve failed in providing workers with compensation worthy of their efforts. U.S. Wages Aren't Keeping Up With U.S. Productivity, EPI Says

I'm thinking I'd rather have the freedom to decide what to do with my wages whether that be to use them to buy stuff or use it on savings, investment etc....instead of having that decision made for me by policy makers that assume that i'd rather buy cheap stuff.

It is not so simple to implement this plan. In order to compete while paying higher US wages requires placing tariffs on imports to allow the increased US product/service costs to remain marketable, and will also reduce the competitiveness of many US exports. What typically results is that it still takes working the same number of hours, even at the higher wage, to buy the same goods/services due to the resulting price inflation. To assume that increased US labor costs will not affect the prices of US goods/services ignores reality. As Elizabeth Warren points out, to keep pace with US productivity increases the US minimum wage would now be $22/hour.

Take it to the bank: Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to raise minimum wage to $22 per hour - Washington Times

Elizabeth Warren Hints At $22 Minimum Wage: Why That's a Bad Idea

 

[ttwtt78640]

If you look at inflation adjusted median wage charts, it's been increasing (ever so slowly, but it's a little better each year). For minimum wage workers, their purchasing power has been decreasing since the 60's. I'm all for a plan that redistributes the profits from increased production to the workers who actually produced it. I don't mind an increase in product prices, because prices are mostly lowered by outsourcing, automation, and cutting corners. Unions are a natural response to exploitative employers, they're ineffective at forcing the employer to pay anything more than a market average. So, unions aren't completely ineffective and they certainly aren't exploiting the employers, but they can't really "force" the wages to move much higher than just an inflation adjusted average to the market.

The change that'll redistribute the wages is a social one; start buying local and from small businesses, buy less commercial/unnecessary goods, use bartering more, etc. Punish exploitative corporations by boycotting them. The one law I'd love to see is the requirement that a corporation post info about their payroll (namely the ratio of the top earners to the bottom earners, or something similar), in a public area; if I could just look at the paper in the window and say, "Oh wait, they have a inequality index of 200:1, I'm going to go to the guy down the street, he has an index of 30:1." We could solve the problem if more people knew about it.

A good suggestion, but why trust the gov't to "properly educate" consumers? If you wish to shop based on your "social justice" values then nothing in the world is stopping you, or anyone else, from doing this on your own. If a socially correct item costs $10 and a comparable socially incorrect item costs $6, are you going to pay $4 per item more simply to make your point?

EDIT: Sounds a lot like those old "look for the union label" commercials.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

There are very talented minds in this world dedicated to the mission of streaming revenue towards their interests. That revenue has to come from somewhere. So it comes from you and I, the common worker. And they will argue that had it not been for them and their kind, (job creators, shakers/movers,) we would have no revenue to take to begin with and that we should be grateful to them.

Chicken/egg.

I think the re-routing of revenue from the lower and middle classes to the rich, as it has been done now for over 30 years, is a suck idea. But I don't think America will ever turn that around. It's too big. It is not sustainable. When the top 5% own more than the lower 95% something is bound to implode/explode.

I'm thinking it's more of an attitudinal type thing. I mean when the head honcho of a company back in the late 70s made around 29 times the pay as his average worker in the company and then just 20 years later that same head honcho is making 107 times more, and then today you get some making 1000 times its average worker in itself speaks volumes. Then you get the people that will try and justify it. You are jealous because your wages in the company have stagnated while the boss is living high off the hog. Well, yeah, kinda not thinking something is quite right no matter what you call it. Anyway, I'm pretty sick of it.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

How about neither? The trend now is for higher prices AND lower wages. That's how to squeeze blood out of stones.
http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pg5T3mWUw2cKJEczARywFxliH9BND6f20I4fOhmlorgqgH4JeqBI1AxL7dUMMEXmcKYnJurB8Ldno0fpY7agQKE2zXi1VU9xZil7XXOWbHuirPBL30b00ipkZXKmiQ5jYG167E1qFou6dVB0590wJ8jA==&campaign_id=129&instance_id=30677&segment_id=48693&user_id=558ba203d7c37d7d039b5abfccbdd443®i_id=28152600

Great article! Yes, the switching of our economy from being one of production to financialization coupled with deregulation has really put the nails in the coffin so to speak. Pretty scary stuff. I really don't see our future looking so bright because of these policies literally being written by wall street and the banks.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Does that look at wages vs productivity take into account increasing automation and overtime?

Young conservative you will have to expand on what you mean by overtime. Automation has been a small factor.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Those policy makers who assume you'd rather buy cheap stuff are basing their decisions on consumer demand. Whenever you buy cheap stuff, you are, in effect, casting a vote for more cheap stuff. Buy quality, and you're casting your vote for quality. Buy made in America (good luck with that any more), and you're casting your vote for made in America.

Retail business has to follow consumer demands or go out of business. Wholesale business has to provide retail business what it can sell, or they'll go out of business. Manufacturers have to provide wholesale business what they can sell, or go out of business. It all boils down to consumer demand.

I'm thinking that if all you can afford is cheap stuff because of watered down wages it's a vicious cycle.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I'm thinking that if all you can afford is cheap stuff because of watered down wages it's a vicious cycle.

It is a catch 22 in a way. Low wages limits the ability of the consumer to buy quality, which then promotes low wage jobs.

 

[douglas]

A good suggestion, but why trust the gov't to "properly educate" consumers? If you wish to shop based on your "social justice" values then nothing in the world is stopping you, or anyone else, from doing this on your own. If a socially correct item costs $10 and a comparable socially incorrect item costs $6, are you going to pay $4 per item more simply to make your point?

EDIT: Sounds a lot like those old "look for the union label" commercials.

I didn't say anything about the government "educating" consumers. People would be working towards their own best interest if they took the matter into their own hands; the government is never going to help us level out wages, that isn't in their best interests. I'm proposing a citizens movement, not a government agency. The indexing law I proposed only gives the consumer more information, not less choices.

When it comes down to "how much" does social correctness cost? I think that's up to the individual. If you're asking me personally as to whether I'd pay more for an item just due to this issue, I say absolutely. I do it all the time. But, I think that example is a bit of a false dichotomy; buying vegetables at a farmer's market is cheaper than buying them at Walmart. Buying most goods directly from the local producers is cheaper than going through a middle man, no matter how much that middle man can buy in bulk. Buying with a social conscience and with wealth distribution in mind is not necessarily expensive; you can have your cake and eat it to.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

It is not so simple to implement this plan. In order to compete while paying higher US wages requires placing tariffs on imports to allow the increased US product/service costs to remain marketable, and will also reduce the competitiveness of many US exports. What typically results is that it still takes working the same number of hours, even at the higher wage, to buy the same goods/services due to the resulting price inflation. To assume that increased US labor costs will not affect the prices of US goods/services ignores reality. As Elizabeth Warren points out, to keep pace with US productivity increases the US minimum wage would now be $22/hour.

Take it to the bank: Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to raise minimum wage to $22 per hour - Washington Times

Elizabeth Warren Hints At $22 Minimum Wage: Why That's a Bad Idea

How about our at home domestic markets like restaurants where things are being catered to the US consumer? Why not offer those US service employees more in wages and even if a burger goes up in price the consumer can decide if the burger is worth their pay check or if something else is more worthy? I understand places want to be competitive so they will not raise that burger cost too high if they want to stay in business but they don't have to undercut their employee's wages either. Also, I don't Elizabeth Warren was saying to raise the minimum wage that high. I think she was making a point about how wages have stagnated over time which is absolutely correct.

 

[Neomalthusian]

The Corporate profits do. And that "great sucking sound" you hear is the income taken from workers and transferred to CEO's

"Taken from workers and transferred to CEOs?" The chart you posted shows how incorrect your own statement is. See how closely executive pay follows the stock market? That displays that the issue around CEO pay is simply that it is equity-based. Whereas you're talking about it as though they (companies) rake in a bunch of money (revenue), and then the CEO takes most of it and leaves table scraps for everyone else. Further, your notion that business income belongs first and foremost but it's stolen. This is a socialistic tenet, but our private sector is not socialist. Is it really your goal to mislead people to think it works that way?

I didn't say anything about the government "educating" consumers. People would be working towards their own best interest if they took the matter into their own hands; the government is never going to help us level out wages, that isn't in their best interests. I'm proposing a citizens movement, not a government agency. The indexing law I proposed only gives the consumer more information, not less choices.

When it comes down to "how much" does social correctness cost? I think that's up to the individual. If you're asking me personally as to whether I'd pay more for an item just due to this issue, I say absolutely. I do it all the time. But, I think that example is a bit of a false dichotomy; buying vegetables at a farmer's market is cheaper than buying them at Walmart. Buying most goods directly from the local producers is cheaper than going through a middle man, no matter how much that middle man can buy in bulk. Buying with a social conscience and with wealth distribution in mind is not necessarily expensive; you can have your cake and eat it to.

This, and post #2, are excellent responses.

 

[ttwtt78640]

How about our at home domestic markets like restaurants where things are being catered to the US consumer? Why not offer those US service employees more in wages and even if a burger goes up in price the consumer can decide if the burger is worth their pay check or if something else is more worthy? I understand places want to be competitive so they will not raise that burger cost too high if they want to stay in business but they don't have to undercut their employee's wages either. Also, I don't Elizabeth Warren was saying to raise the minimum wage that high. I think she was making a point about how wages have stagnated over time which is absolutely correct.

You, or anyone else, is welcome to open a McHigherpay any time that they wish to do so. DC recently decided to dictate "wage fairness" by making Walmart pay a 51% higher minimum wage than existing big grocery stores, but only succeeded in having Walmart not open any stores in DC at all.

 

[Captain America]

A good suggestion, but why trust the gov't to "properly educate" consumers? If you wish to shop based on your "social justice" values then nothing in the world is stopping you, or anyone else, from doing this on your own. If a socially correct item costs $10 and a comparable socially incorrect item costs $6, are you going to pay $4 per item more simply to make your point?

EDIT: Sounds a lot like those old "look for the union label" commercials.

That IS a very valid point! We can whine about the fat cat's and their decadence but they are just giving society what it wants. Who is going to pay the top price, in the name of patriotic integrity, when the guy next to you goes for the cheap China version?

Attitudes would have to change from the top to the bottom and I guarantee you we will not see this change in our lifetimes.

If the world wants rally around me, as I lead the charge to buy American and expatriate the people responsible for sending American work overseas and not bringing them back, and close all the Walmarts, I say CHARGE!!!!

But, alas, I look around and find myself, yet again, all alone. Time for Plan B: Get what I can, wherever I can, however I legally can, and screw everybody else. I'm going to get mine.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Taken from workers and transferred to CEOs? The chart you posted shows how closely executive pay follows the stock market, which displays that the issue around CEO pay is simply that it is equity-based. Whereas you're talking about it as though they (companies) rake in a bunch of money (revenue), and then the CEO takes most of it and leaves table scraps for everyone else. Is it really your goal to mislead people to think it works that way?

Um, it's given to CEOs and then not as evenly distributed to its workers within the company pretty much because not many people are challenging this trend. Doesn't make it right.

 

[YoungConserv]

The Corporate profits do. And that "great sucking sound" you hear is the income taken from workers and transferred to CEO's

This is what you get from corporatism though the CEO and their connections becomes the most valuable assests to the company

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You, or anyone else, is welcome to open a McHigherpay any time that they wish to do so. DC recently decided to dictate "wage fairness" by making Walmart pay a 51% higher minimum wage than existing big grocery stores, but only succeeded in having Walmart not open any stores in DC at all.

The point is I rather not eat at McDonalds whether that burger is dirt cheap or a little more pricey. I would prefer to take the higher wages with the higher cost of the Mcburger and choose what I want to do with my money rather than have that choice already made for me. It's more about my priorities and not McWalmart's priorities.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Um, it's given to CEOs and then not as evenly distributed to its workers within the company pretty much because not many people are challenging this trend. Doesn't make it right.

It's "given" to CEOs? What is given? The revenue? Are you saying you have bought into the idea that companies rake in revenue and shovel it into the pockets of the CEOs first? Equity-based compensation does not really work that way. Do I believe there are problems inherent to equity-based compensation? Yes. But the oft-repeated insinuation that CEOs simply "steal all the revenue" and leave the workers with table scraps is misleading. That just isn't how it works.

It would be nice if people could kind of turn the volume down on their pay inequality activism for a moment and read some of the analytical papers about equity-based compensation and whether it even accomplishes what it's intended to accomplish. You can start with Google and search (maybe in Scholar) "equity-based compensation" and you'll get tons of intriguing material to read. Trust me, it won't leave you convinced equity-based compensation is inherently good. It will just provide a little more clarity about what its real downsides actually are.