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.
This majority of actual wealth is held by relatively few individuals. That wealth includes the holdings of most U.S. billionaires.
A heck of a lot of folk never made enough to keep their head above water, let alone plan for retirement. And they certainly were not traveling the world or bailing out their kids, no different than the WW2 generation that preceeded them.
The big bankers hold all the wealth, our government borrows trillions from the banks, our politicians buy votes, pays off cronies and campaign donors thru deficit spending. Then those politicians tell us we need to pay our fair share in more taxes.... so they can turn right around and pay our debt interest to the banks, and then borrow more money from the banks, and....
I completely understand what you are saying, but the amount of people who are voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily lazy has nothing to do with productivity. Pick any given date in US history and productivity would have been at an all time high. Increasing productivity to maintain a constant standard of living is a essential function of a modern economy.
All you have illustrated is that productivity has increased exponentially in modern times. We agree on that. What you left out is that wages were also increasing exponentially until around 1980. Since 1980, wages were suppressed and did not keep pace with productivity (or inflation). You also did not illustrate is where are all of these lazy people? Where were they in the 90's when unemployment was virtually zero? Why did they suddenly decide to be lazy and not work in the 2000's? This is just a total myth.
The minimum wage stopped increasing around 1980 and has only been increased a few pennies since. Is it just a coincidence that wages have remained stagnant since 1980? Should we just keep doing nothing and let wages remain stagnant forever because a few lazy people (who you haven't proven exist) might be out there?
<SNIP>
Costco is doing great, and they pay their people a living wage. It's part of their business model to attract and retain quality employees. You're right--I'm sure Costco WOULD LOVE to see the minimum wage increase--after four years, a Costco cashier can be making as much as $43K a year, but they waste almost no money in staff retraining and reduced productivity for new hires because they keep and retain their employees. Their employees are LOYAL and experienced. I know a lot of small business owners who pay decent wages who feel the same way--they pay people decent wages because it helps them grow their business. Staff turnover is expensive and it reduces productivity. Better wages attract harder workers and more qualified staff. Why should Costco carry the weight for the real cost of their workers while Walmart has the government subsidize salaries through foodstamps, etc. because their wages are so low? It's CORPORATE welfare.
<SNIP>
I'm confused as to the path of your logic. You acknowledge that Costco pays a higher than minimum wage so they can attract and retain higher quality employees. You acknowledge that better wages attract harder & more qualified workers. Then you say that Costco would LOVE to see minimum wage increase. Please explain that to me. What would Costco gain by having the minimum wage increase. If that happens, and if Costco's competition is forced to pay wages more similar to what Costco already pays, does not Costco LOSE at least a major part of the competitive advantage is currently has in the quest to attract & retain those higher quality workers? Will Costco not be compelled to increase their own wage scale as well, so they can retain the advantage they currently have in the hiring market?
I like the way you framed this, Bill. I think many who advocate for increased minimums think, for example, the Walton family is going to take it out of their pocket, instead of increasing prices.
Until you cut a check to the US treasury for thousands of dollars more in taxes then you owed, then I don't see how you can criticize Walmart for raising prices.
I'm confused as to the path of your logic. You acknowledge that Costco pays a higher than minimum wage so they can attract and retain higher quality employees. You acknowledge that better wages attract harder & more qualified workers. Then you say that Costco would LOVE to see minimum wage increase. Please explain that to me. What would Costco gain by having the minimum wage increase. If that happens, and if Costco's competition is forced to pay wages more similar to what Costco already pays, does not Costco LOSE at least a major part of the competitive advantage is currently has in the quest to attract & retain those higher quality workers? Will Costco not be compelled to increase their own wage scale as well, so they can retain the advantage they currently have in the hiring market?
You are 100% right and that is exactly what would happen if the minimum wage was raised. If Wal-Mart is forced to pay their employees $9 per hour instead of $7.25, then Costco would be forced to raise the pay of their workers to an optimum level in order to retain higher quality employees. Or else there would be less incentive for someone to work for Costco instead of Wal-Mart, and the quality of Costco employees would decline.
The only thing you are missing is that I believe Costco gives their employees health benefits. So if Wal-Mart paid higher, Costco would still attract better quality employees due to them paying health benefits. I don't think Wal-Mart gives health benefits to average employees.
Cell phones for everyone in the family are a luxury.
A separate bedroom for each child is a luxury.
Satellite/cable TV is a luxury.
Granite countertops are a luxury.
Two bathrooms are a luxury.
More than 400 square feet of living space is a luxury.
Air conditioning is a luxury.
Sodas are a luxury.
Chips are a luxury.
Eating out is a luxury.
Coffee is a luxury.
That third set of underwear is a luxury.
Video games are a luxury.
A wedding band is a luxury.
I could go on but you get my point (not that I think you are disagreeing with it).
Of course people should be financially able to support children before they bring them into the world, but I would say that if a person is prepared to do without many luxuries that people take for granted, or expect as the bare minimum in today's society, more people could afford to raise their children in a perfectly healthy environment that may or may not include any or all of the above.
If anything, children are an investment. Sure, you pay to raise them for the first 18 years or so. But then they leave the nest, hopefully earn more then you did, and bring you wealth of love for decades to come. children bring grandchildren and great grandchildren, and take care of their parents and grand parents when they grow old.
Most of the other luxuries you listed will be long gone, and hopefully your children will last for your entire life, getting better with age.
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.
They say jump, and we in the states says how high.
