Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
we don't need either. They get paid what they're worth, just like those at the other end of the scale.
So the CEO of Boeing who was running the company during the two 737 Max plane crashes that killed 346 people - and could have been responsible for more deaths if his appeal to Trump had succeeded - deserves the $62 million he's getting in spite of being fired? And the thousands of folks working for Boeing suppliers who are being laid off ... I wonder what they'll get.
Boeing still faces unresolved legal claims from family members of those who died. The company has already set up a $100 million compensation fund for them.
But Muilenburg’s own compensation package is nearly as large as what the company offered families. His $62 million in stock and pension benefits is accompanied by additional stock options worth $18.5 million. He could have received even more, but forfeited a $14.6 million severance package.
we don't need either. They get paid what they're worth, just like those at the other end of the scale.
Keep raising the middle wage and these low-income jobs will attract seniors back to work. Those at the bottom, will still be out out of work.
If I put a gun to your head and demand your wallet, is my work "worth" the contents of your wallet?
What if the CEO of WalMart puts a gun to your rural community's employment prospects and demands that you work for minimum wage while he rakes in massive profits? What's the difference, except his leverage is laundered through wealthy privilege?
If I put a gun to your head and demand your wallet, is my work "worth" the contents of your wallet?
That is poor analogy because it is not an agreed upon wage for the given work. If I hired a gunman for $100 to go rob someone for me, he completed the work, then yes his work was worth $100.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
What if the CEO of WalMart puts a gun to your rural community's employment prospects and demands that you work for minimum wage while he rakes in massive profits? What's the difference, except his leverage is laundered through wealthy privilege?
How can the CEO of Walmart demand I work for minimum wage?
That is poor analogy because it is not an agreed upon wage for the given work. If I hired a gunman for $100 to go rob someone for me, he completed the work, then yes his work was worth $100.
How can the CEO of Walmart demand I work for minimum wage?
Simple, you compete out all the other firms in the area, and then local workers can accept your minimum wage or they can live on the street.
You seem to be operating under the absurd Libertarian notion that people mutually agree on wages. Most workers a forced to take whatever they can get. That's why minimum wage exists, otherwise firms like WalMart would be cornering people into working for a dollar a day.
Simple, you compete out all the other firms in the area, and then local workers can accept your minimum wage or they can live on the street.
You seem to be operating under the absurd Libertarian notion that people mutually agree on wages. Most workers a forced to take whatever they can get. That's why minimum wage exists, otherwise firms like WalMart would be cornering people into working for a dollar a day.
There's so much fail in your logic it's tough to know where to begin.
For one WalMart pays no one current US minimum wages.
Oh God... I zone out the moment someone uses "gun to the head" analogies.
Minimum wage is the only tool government has to put upward pressure on wages, short of socialist-style interventions. That's why we need to raise it faster that we currently have been. It should be done every 7-10 years, we are now overdue.
We live in a monetary world in which the lords of finance (Fed) intend the money supply to inflate by 2% per year.
Why is it such a tragedy then, to increase pressure on wages? How is it sound economic policy to encourage inflation in the cost of all goods, but demand that wages NEVER rise? In what world is it fair to increase low-end workers' costs 2% per year and never give them a corresponding raise?
People against raising the minimum wage act like we are on a gold standard and the money supply does not continuously inflate!
That is poor analogy because it is not an agreed upon wage for the given work. If I hired a gunman for $100 to go rob someone for me, he completed the work, then yes his work was worth $100.
How can the CEO of Walmart demand I work for minimum wage?
Through monopsony. If Walmart forces enough local businesses to fold, then they become the only buyer for labor, as such they name the price they want to pay for labor.
Simple, you compete out all the other firms in the area, and then local workers can accept your minimum wage or they can live on the street.
What firms, you mean like the Mom&Pop hardware store or pharmacy that goes out of business? Do you think those cats were paying their stockboy $60,000 per year plus benefits for stocking shelves but now he's forced to accept min wage at Walmart? Of course not, you're working under the assumption that Walmart pays worse wages than small local business for similar labor and it's just not true, if anything they pay more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
You seem to be operating under the absurd Libertarian notion that people mutually agree on wages.
Can you point out an example of someone in this country who has a job for a wage they didn't agree to accept? Didn't think so.
By this logic anyone in a house that isn't perfect because they couldn't afford a nicer house didn't mutually agree to buy that house. They had no other choice, since they were only approved for that size loan by the bank. Sally is wearing clothes she didn't agree to buy, but dammit her allowance doesn't afford her that $90 pair of jeans so the $30 Old Navy jeans were forced on her without her consent. Jim is banging some chick that he didn't mutually agree to bang, he would prefer to be hooking up with Sports Illustrated models and she with Prince Harry but oh well he's a 5'2 choad that is forced to sleep with the pudgy chick since he has no choice. Dan is eating a fillet-o-fish he was forced to eat, he didn't mutually agree upon it with McDonald's but the lobster tails he prefers are out of his price range so that sandwich is being forced upon him without his consent, he did not agree to that fillet-o-fish.
Through monopsony. If Walmart forces enough local businesses to fold, then they become the only buyer for labor, as such they name the price they want to pay for labor.
So how much does Walmart pay versus Mom&Pop stores?
I worked in a couple when young, they paid exactly min wage. There was no way Walmart was paying less, and in fact I'm pretty sure Walmart pays well above natl min wage.
What firms, you mean like the Mom&Pop hardware store or pharmacy that goes out of business? Do you think those cats were paying their stockboy $60,000 per year plus benefits for stocking shelves but now he's forced to accept min wage at Walmart? Of course not, you're working under the assumption that Walmart pays worse wages than small local business for similar labor and it's just not true, if anything they pay more.
Can you point out an example of someone in this country who has a job for a wage they didn't agree to accept? Didn't think so.
By this logic anyone in a house that isn't perfect because they couldn't afford a nicer house didn't mutually agree to buy that house. They had no other choice, since they were only approved for that size loan by the bank. Sally is wearing clothes she didn't agree to buy, but dammit her allowance doesn't afford her that $90 pair of jeans so the $30 Old Navy jeans were forced on her without her consent. Jim is banging some chick that he didn't mutually agree to bang, he would prefer to be hooking up with Sports Illustrated models and she with Prince Harry but oh well he's a 5'2 choad that is forced to sleep with the pudgy chick since he has no choice. Dan is eating a fillet-o-fish he was forced to eat, he didn't mutually agree upon it with McDonald's but the lobster tails he prefers are out of his price range so that sandwich is being forced upon him without his consent, he did not agree to that fillet-o-fish.
Low-wage labor does not have equivalent leverage to capitalist employers, so there is not fair wage negotiation possible. Laborers have to take whatever they can get or they go hungry and homeless; employers just work their other employees a little harder until they find someone willing to play ball. It's not like people can just opt out and fend for themselves homesteading or hunting and gathering in the wilderness, because capital controls the usable land. Labor can only equalize their leverage through collective bargaining via unions or labor laws; one-on-one negotiation is infeasible.
Your counterexamples are actually further evidence of my argument. None of them were situations where people picked what they wanted to spend money on, but rather "sorry you're a lower-class turd-person so take your gruel and shanty and burlap t-shirt and like it". That's why home prices are spinning out of control, there's a wealthy elite bidding up the prices to keep the poors out. There's no free market here, there's a monetarily-enforced class system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang
So how much does Walmart pay versus Mom&Pop stores?
I worked in a couple when young, they paid exactly min wage. There was no way Walmart was paying less, and in fact I'm pretty sure Walmart pays well above natl min wage.
Pretty sure Mom and Pop were earning more when they owned the store.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
