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.
I just don't buy it. My brother owned a Domino's Pizza franchise for a few years and I've done a few tours of duty as one of his drivers. He paid us minimum wage, plus a certain amount for every address that we visted. It's been a long time...I don't remember what that amount was. I think it was something like 75 cents. (When I first started, he paid us MILEAGE. His accountant advised against that because he was taking a beating on it, and he went to the per-address thing.)
And of course, any tips that we made were ours.
It was extremely unusual for me to work a full night and walk out with less than $80 in cash in my pocket (between tips and run-money). A typical night was $80 in cash; a good night was $100 in cash. Then we'd get a paycheck once a week for our actual wage.
I realize that gas is more expensive now than it used to be but so what? These drivers KNOW what the current conditions are. And Pizza Hut and the others aren't in the business to make the DRIVERS rich. If they don't like what they're getting paid for delivering pizzas, they can go get another job.
I'd also be interested to know if any of the drivers who are getting on-board with these lawsuits report their tips to the government as income. They're supposed to. It's income, and the government (state and federal) want their fair share of that money. But I bet those drivers DON'T report their tips. I wonder if that will come back and bite them in the bum if they put their names down on these lawsuits.
I have no sympathy with these lawsuits.
Quote:
And yeah anyone who's done it can tell you that the "nicest" houses were *ALWAYS* the ones who tipped the least (if at all) *AND* made the most onerous demands for their orders.
This is sooo incredibly true. Of course there were exceptions, but in general, the obviously middle-class folks tipped the best, the lower-class folks tipped as much as they could, and the upper-class folks would let you keep the 15 cents in change they had coming to them.
Last edited by Niftybergin; 07-23-2009 at 09:54 PM..
the Pizza has already increased in price a lot over the past few years, over here they also charge a delivery fee of $2 in addition to the tip you pay the driver.
First of all, who said that all pizza delivery drivers are all teens living at home? I am a Navy vet and business school graduate who now delivers pizzas. Before I landed my pizza delivery gig I was the lead electrical engineer for a robotics firm until the automotive industry crashed. Now I have to deliver pizzas to try to keep my family fed and a roof over their heads because I can't find work in the my field. As far as minimum wage cutting our own throats, I would be surprised that the "educated" on this thread actually believe that, because if they had paid attention in college economics they would have seen that all studies into minimum wages have shown that the overall effect on the economy is negligible, some prove it increases economic efficiency, while others prove it mildly reduces economic efficiency, but the one thing that both sides agree on is that an increase in the minimum wage dramatically improves the lives of those who are paid minimum wage. Even if the minimum wage does midly negatively affect economic efficiency, people who cannot make the simplest sacrifice for their fellow Americans are unpatriotic to say the least. I served during Desert Storm to protect US interests, I put my life on the line for the same Americans who whine in utter agony when the minimum wage increases. For me, a living minimum wage can make the difference bewteen defaulting on my mortgage, or not being able to take my child to the doctor. Pizza delivery does not require a doctorates degree its true, but does that mean that pizza drivers should be the sole exclusion to minimum wage? Not only that, pizza delivery drivers face a higher odds of being murdered on the job than do police officers, but I get the sense that those who protest businesses following minimum wage laws would have no empathy for the "worthless" pizza delivery driver losing his/her life in the line of duty. When I was making good money, I always overtipped my pizza delivery drivers, wait staff, and hair stylist, because I know that low paying jobs make it difficult to provide economic and physical security. I even gave $2000 to an Afrian village to dig a community water well to prevent the high death toll from Cholera. I know, how disgustingly liberal of me. As a patriotic veteran, I support and defend my fellow Americans regardless of socioeconomic status. It might be impossible for the neocons on this board to fathom, but I view all humans as equals, with the same rights to exist, same rights to be happy as anyone else. We were not created equal, which means those who were gifted should demonstrate their thanks by helping those less fortunate. As far as the work your way up, that is not always possible, especially in this post Bush economy. The US suffers from cronyist capitalism, so badly that its much more about who you know and much less about what you know. There are far less jobs than there are people who need them, so that obviously means that employers are have the upper hand in driving wages down. The CEO of Exxon said that he is worth every penny of his 450 million dollar per year salary, the average wages of almost 13,000 heads of households at 35K per year, that the CEO is just that productive. If he was as productive as 13,000 ordinary people, then he should be able to provide all services and products for at least 13,000 people. How could he deliver a pizza, sew an alteration, sell a pack of smokes, fix an electric line, plumb the sink, pick up garbage curbside, prescribe medicine, build cars, bake bread etc... at the same time? He could not. Its a lie. He is not worth anywhere near 13000 American workers. 13,000 people could create a self sustaining community living off the land, while Exxon's CEO could not even take care of himself,(ie provide his own medical, electricity, water, etc)much less take care of thousands of people. He got his job through his cronyist connections. Some people were very highly paid to crash the US economy using shady investment vehicles and outright fraud, but let's whine about those making minimum wage instead. The theft by Bernie Madoff, Enron and Worldcom totals over 100 billion dollars. Imagine if that money were paid to ordinary citizens for work, it would pay almost 3 million people 35,000 dollars each. 3 million people is a big enough population to support an economy big enough and diverse enough to send satellites into space, verses 4 or 5 rich neocons who actually stole the money who can barely put their own pants on without help from an undocumented worker. That is the epitome of the problem in the US economy, inefficiency and neptism at the highest levels, where your golf score matters more than your work. You know something is wrong when 90% of the household income in the US comes from 1% of the population. To even suggest that the one percenters are worthy of 90% of the money made, that they have the same productivity per dollar, shows a complete disconnect from reality. You should be paid for what your worth, right? I am all for paying people what they are worth, and clearly a pizza driver is at least one ten-thousandth as productive as the CEO for exxon (CEO of exxon cant deliver 10,000 pizzas in a year much less a day), so lets pay the pizza delivery driver a minimum of one ten-thousandth of the pay of Exxon's CEO, bringing our pizza driver up to 45,000 dollars per year. Now the pizza delivery driver can afford to buy a home, a car, a new TV made in the USA, (all of which improve the economy) instead of keeping all the money within a very small elite group of rich neptists throwing 90% of the US income back and forth between themselves, playing keep-away from the US citizens striving for the American dream. Doctor Jonas Salk saved millions of human babies' lives with the polio vaccine and got paid less than 1/1000 of the money Exxon's CEO makes, while Exxon's CEO is doing everything in his power to pollute the planet with CO2 until the oceans boil away killing all life on earth. You tell me who was more productive between Salk and Exxon's CEO, and tell me the fantasy that in America people are paid by their level of productivity. God forbid that we have to pay $16.50 for pizza rather than $16, to offer a liveable wage to millions of pizza delivery drivers, rather than pay an extra $1.00 per gallon of gas to pay Exxon's CEO his 450 million per year to pump poisonous gas into Earth's atmosphere.
On a related note, I'm generally not a huge fan of anything Euro, but one thing I do admire about the French is that they just don't put up with that BS there. More and more, you are starting to see it: Over there, if a CEO (or any other Plutocrat) sells a few thousand people down the river to make that extra percent on the stock values, those people are being held for ransom. And now, being killed. You'd think that would be a wake up call to the same Fortune 500 CEO's and Wall Street casino players....I mean stock traders here.
I guess that's why, despite all this talk about a second "Stimulus" (what happened to the first one? Oh yeah. Every freaking dollar of it went straight to Wall Street.), it's highly unlikely to happen. Because this time, Obama and Co would HAVE to implement it in the form of direct cash payouts to the citizens. Because if Wall Street gets bailed out again, all bets are off. You would be all but assured of seeing mass rioting a-la 1968 culminating with those 500 CEO's getting clipped down to about 200 by the time it's over. Frankly, I'm surprised that the American people have put up with this much. No doubt because we are collectively sedated with Paris Hiltons latest trysts and "American Idol".
Could you explain to me though why a teenager *needs* to be earning $10+/hour when not only do they provide limited skills, but their own bills are typically limited because most are living w/ parents still? In fact, oftentimes, the people that are on minimum wage are there because they have little or no skills and *cost* a business a large amount of money to train. By a business taking on an unskilled/underskilled worker, they are taking on a HUGE risk. They risk that by putting money into that employee for things like training, that that employee will only soon leave to find better pay somewhere else because the next business doesn't have to invest as much to train them. This is just a single example of the cost of hiring the type of people that typically apply for those minimum wage jobs.
Why should someone that has little or no work experience be paid nearly the same as someone that's worked for 10 years and added to their list of skills and knowledge every year, thus making them *more* valuable as an employee?
Why do people think $10 an hour is a lot of money? It really isn't. They must be living in the past. I was earning $3.35 an hour back in the early 80's. You would think the cost of living would have meant a salary increase during the last 20 years. After all a pizza pie in the 80's cost about $5.00 and today it's $12.
First of all, who said that all pizza delivery drivers are all teens living at home? I am a Navy vet and business school graduate who now delivers pizzas...
Let me start by saying that I hope you don't for one second think that I'm one of those "unpatriotic Americans." My husband is in the US Army, has been for 10 years, 4 tours, and even after suffering a brain hemorrhage on tour, demanded to stay active duty because, by army standards, he recovered 100%. He is a lifer, and I stand behind him completely. Second only to actually serving in the military, being married to it is one of the most patriotic things one can do.
The point with minimum wage paying jobs are that they're not meant to be forever held by one person. The point behind them is that people move on and up. It's a stepping stone. Obviously people have used these as a crutch in many circumstances (albeit not all) and now because many are too lazy to get jobs that require a higher skill set, they want more pay just to keep doing what they've always been doing. Target, Walmart, Best Buy, Burger King, McDonalds, etc etc. they're all hiring. And I know for fact that Walmart hires a base wage of $7/hr in all states. Some states they pay hirer than that. Target also hires above minimum wage. There is always be another company hiring at a higher wage than the last. It may not be that $5.15 to $10/hr wage jump people are expecting, but if someone isn't happy making minimum wage, then (while retaining that job) they should look for other jobs that pay more, as opposed to complaining that they don't make enough. Why do we have to continue to give handouts to people that want one, simply "because." Not because they've earned it, not on merit...but we continually give hand outs just because people demand it. Because they're unhappy or they've been "wronged." Why can't people work to change their situations in this country anymore? Why, because everytime someone turns their hand out, we give them what they want.
And what about all the workers that are making it possible for people like delivery drivers to even make what they make in the first place? What about the farm workers that are picking the produce and working in the factories that supply these pizza companies with their products, who aren't even making but 2 dollars an hour? (if they're lucky). If the pizza company had to pay them more, then their other workers would surely be getting even less. Everyone seems to forget that cost is passed on somewhere along the line. Businesses don't just eat cost increases out of the generosity of their own hearts. You'll see it in the form of increased product costs to the consumer, decreased wages, lay offs, hiring freezes, etc.
And, when we as a country continue to demand lower costs for all consumable goods, a company has to deliver that to them or lose the sales. If they lose sales then they have to begin closing doors. So, in order to keep costs down to the consumer to keep sales up, they are going to inevitably cut those other things listed above and then some.
But, for everyone that wants to demand minimum wage increases, you remember what the cost of that increase is next time you shop at Walmart (or ANY other big box retailer for that matter). If there's a single person in here that can honestly tell me they've *never* set foot in a chain store, then I might see your plight for increased wages, but we all save where we can, and that means shopping stores like Walmart and such. But is it fair for those factory workers in India to be paid .50/week and forced to live in squalor just so they can feed their families meager portions? We have it really good here, and cost of living is not that high comparatively speaking. The reason so many people are in trouble right now is because of irresponsible spending. Right now, my husband and I are living on his salary alone (a military salary, which really isn't all that much) and we manage to pay all our monthly debts, our mortgage and put food on the table. Yet, because of our smart spending, we're able to enjoy occasionally going out for dinner or movies, etc. And I have school debt because I'm trying to finish my degree...which also requires me to drive back and forth from classes. It's a matter of living within your means. Not very many people in this country do that, regardless of their claims to do so or not. There are, granted, some people that genuinely do and still struggle, but those families are few and far between. I hardly see it as a need for higher minimum wages, but more of an issues of spending responsibly the money they get in the first place.
And, fr33domhawk, a few of your statistics are grossly wrong. I'm not sure where you got your stats from but here is a quote directly from the Tax foundation on the ACTUAL numbers for income earners:
Quote:
The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.
As for delivery driver jobs being more dangerous than police officers, that's a bunch of bullocks. I did my research just now and did a LOT of reading. All the statistics you'll currently find that people want to claim makes pizza delivering rank 5th most dangerous job are neglecting that it's a GENERALLY inclusive category "driver/sales workers." Everyone is neglecting that this ALSO includes TRUCK drivers, which is ranked every year as the job with the highest fatalities (ie. highway accidents). It also includes taxi cab drivers in that category. Along with any other type of job that requires an employee to be on the road for more than 50% of their paid time.
This is an older article (although it is DIRECTLY from the BLS) and you'll see that delivery drivers aren't even listed on there. I'm giving this older article as an example because it's the most recent one that I can find at the moment that actually lists out EVERY job category that ranks. Newer published articles list them classified with higher ranking categories, mainly truck driving.
And mind you (i read this in another article on the BLS but can't find it now and will work on bringing it up to post again), not even 25% of delivery driver fatalities are from robberies or assaults. The majority are from traffic accidents. So, to even compare the dangers of this type of job to that of a police officers is ludicrous and an insult to police officers (my husband being one).
You can look here to view police fatalities from ANY year (I've started w 2008) and see that the % of traffic accidents that were the cause of fatalities are MUCH lower. So, I'm not buying the bit of "delivery drivers have a more dangerous job than police officers."
So, please check your facts before you throw numbers around. All that does is cause people to get up in emotional arms for the wrong reasons.
In respect to your comment about CEO's and their earning - to a VERY small extent I agree with you. I agree that worthless CEO's shouldn't be paid what they're receiving. Like the pension that the former RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) CEO is pulling now after running the company into the ground. There are many more examples of companies like that where the CEO's don't deserve their payouts. But, CEO's are rewarded for making a company successful. Plain and simple. If your company is profitable, you should be too. You want your company to be profitable to keep shareholders happy. The more money you make for your shareholders, the more money you should be entitled to earn. That is a CEO's job. So, I see no problem with rewarding CEO's *appropriately.* I find it amusing how people at the bottom always complain about the people at the top...until they're they one's working their way to the top...then suddenly there are no more complaints about the high salary they are beginning to draw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stac2007
Why do people think $10 an hour is a lot of money? It really isn't. They must be living in the past. I was earning $3.35 an hour back in the early 80's. You would think the cost of living would have meant a salary increase during the last 20 years. After all a pizza pie in the 80's cost about $5.00 and today it's $12.
I never said that $10/hr was a LOT of money. But, I don't see the need for a federally enforced minimum being $10/hr. (I use that number arbitrarily and you'll understand if you read any of my previous posts). People aren't seeming to get the concept of supply and demand which affects the job market also.
I hear a lot of people unhappy with the current status quo on minimum wages (for pizza drivers particularly in this thread), but I've not really seen any feasible solutions provided to make a change for those people that are unhappy. What change can be provided, what agreement reached, without upsetting another part of the system? And where does it end? Why not have a minimum wage set at $20/hr? $50/hr? $100/hr? What are people willing to give up in return for this increase, for those people that seem to think that increasing the minimum wage will solve their problems? Has anyone thought about the fallout in other areas as a result?
Let me start by saying that I hope you don't for one second think that I'm one of those "unpatriotic Americans." My husband is in the US Army, has been for 10 years, 4 tours, and even after suffering a brain hemorrhage on tour, demanded to stay active duty because, by army standards, he recovered 100%. He is a lifer, and I stand behind him completely. Second only to actually serving in the military, being married to it is one of the most patriotic things one can do.
The point with minimum wage paying jobs are that they're not meant to be forever held by one person. The point behind them is that people move on and up. It's a stepping stone. Obviously people have used these as a crutch in many circumstances (albeit not all) and now because many are too lazy to get jobs that require a higher skill set, they want more pay just to keep doing what they've always been doing. Target, Walmart, Best Buy, Burger King, McDonalds, etc etc. they're all hiring. And I know for fact that Walmart hires a base wage of $7/hr in all states. Some states they pay hirer than that. Target also hires above minimum wage. There is always be another company hiring at a higher wage than the last. It may not be that $5.15 to $10/hr wage jump people are expecting, but if someone isn't happy making minimum wage, then (while retaining that job) they should look for other jobs that pay more, as opposed to complaining that they don't make enough. Why do we have to continue to give handouts to people that want one, simply "because." Not because they've earned it, not on merit...but we continually give hand outs just because people demand it. Because they're unhappy or they've been "wronged." Why can't people work to change their situations in this country anymore? Why, because everytime someone turns their hand out, we give them what they want.
And what about all the workers that are making it possible for people like delivery drivers to even make what they make in the first place? What about the farm workers that are picking the produce and working in the factories that supply these pizza companies with their products, who aren't even making but 2 dollars an hour? (if they're lucky). If the pizza company had to pay them more, then their other workers would surely be getting even less. Everyone seems to forget that cost is passed on somewhere along the line. Businesses don't just eat cost increases out of the generosity of their own hearts. You'll see it in the form of increased product costs to the consumer, decreased wages, lay offs, hiring freezes, etc.
And, when we as a country continue to demand lower costs for all consumable goods, a company has to deliver that to them or lose the sales. If they lose sales then they have to begin closing doors. So, in order to keep costs down to the consumer to keep sales up, they are going to inevitably cut those other things listed above and then some.
But, for everyone that wants to demand minimum wage increases, you remember what the cost of that increase is next time you shop at Walmart (or ANY other big box retailer for that matter). If there's a single person in here that can honestly tell me they've *never* set foot in a chain store, then I might see your plight for increased wages, but we all save where we can, and that means shopping stores like Walmart and such. But is it fair for those factory workers in India to be paid .50/week and forced to live in squalor just so they can feed their families meager portions? We have it really good here, and cost of living is not that high comparatively speaking. The reason so many people are in trouble right now is because of irresponsible spending. Right now, my husband and I are living on his salary alone (a military salary, which really isn't all that much) and we manage to pay all our monthly debts, our mortgage and put food on the table. Yet, because of our smart spending, we're able to enjoy occasionally going out for dinner or movies, etc. And I have school debt because I'm trying to finish my degree...which also requires me to drive back and forth from classes. It's a matter of living within your means. Not very many people in this country do that, regardless of their claims to do so or not. There are, granted, some people that genuinely do and still struggle, but those families are few and far between. I hardly see it as a need for higher minimum wages, but more of an issues of spending responsibly the money they get in the first place.
And, fr33domhawk, a few of your statistics are grossly wrong. I'm not sure where you got your stats from but here is a quote directly from the Tax foundation on the ACTUAL numbers for income earners:
As for delivery driver jobs being more dangerous than police officers, that's a bunch of bullocks. I did my research just now and did a LOT of reading. All the statistics you'll currently find that people want to claim makes pizza delivering rank 5th most dangerous job are neglecting that it's a GENERALLY inclusive category "driver/sales workers." Everyone is neglecting that this ALSO includes TRUCK drivers, which is ranked every year as the job with the highest fatalities (ie. highway accidents). It also includes taxi cab drivers in that category. Along with any other type of job that requires an employee to be on the road for more than 50% of their paid time.
This is an older article (although it is DIRECTLY from the BLS) and you'll see that delivery drivers aren't even listed on there. I'm giving this older article as an example because it's the most recent one that I can find at the moment that actually lists out EVERY job category that ranks. Newer published articles list them classified with higher ranking categories, mainly truck driving.
And mind you (i read this in another article on the BLS but can't find it now and will work on bringing it up to post again), not even 25% of delivery driver fatalities are from robberies or assaults. The majority are from traffic accidents. So, to even compare the dangers of this type of job to that of a police officers is ludicrous and an insult to police officers (my husband being one).
You can look here to view police fatalities from ANY year (I've started w 2008) and see that the % of traffic accidents that were the cause of fatalities are MUCH lower. So, I'm not buying the bit of "delivery drivers have a more dangerous job than police officers."
So, please check your facts before you throw numbers around. All that does is cause people to get up in emotional arms for the wrong reasons.
In respect to your comment about CEO's and their earning - to a VERY small extent I agree with you. I agree that worthless CEO's shouldn't be paid what they're receiving. Like the pension that the former RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) CEO is pulling now after running the company into the ground. There are many more examples of companies like that where the CEO's don't deserve their payouts. But, CEO's are rewarded for making a company successful. Plain and simple. If your company is profitable, you should be too. You want your company to be profitable to keep shareholders happy. The more money you make for your shareholders, the more money you should be entitled to earn. That is a CEO's job. So, I see no problem with rewarding CEO's *appropriately.* I find it amusing how people at the bottom always complain about the people at the top...until they're they one's working their way to the top...then suddenly there are no more complaints about the high salary they are beginning to draw.
I never said that $10/hr was a LOT of money. But, I don't see the need for a federally enforced minimum being $10/hr. (I use that number arbitrarily and you'll understand if you read any of my previous posts). People aren't seeming to get the concept of supply and demand which affects the job market also.
I hear a lot of people unhappy with the current status quo on minimum wages (for pizza drivers particularly in this thread), but I've not really seen any feasible solutions provided to make a change for those people that are unhappy. What change can be provided, what agreement reached, without upsetting another part of the system? And where does it end? Why not have a minimum wage set at $20/hr? $50/hr? $100/hr? What are people willing to give up in return for this increase, for those people that seem to think that increasing the minimum wage will solve their problems? Has anyone thought about the fallout in other areas as a result?
I'm all for minimum wage to be set a $10 an hour. It’s about time also.
That's unfortunate that you think like that in that case. People obviously aren't grasping a lot of factors affected by an increase in minimum wages. And how it incentivizes people to NOT better themselves in their career placements. While we're at it, why don't we just hand over checks to everyone for several grand...oh wait, we've already done that.
The reason CEO's make a ton of money is their impact on stock price. If a famed CEO departs or switches companies it is very common for a stock to move 5-10% in either direction. For a company the size of RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) that is a 2-4 BILLION dollar change in value. For a company the size of MSFT (Microsoft) that is a 11-22 BILLION dollar change in value. So if the market says they are worth billions, then they are worth billions. Boards of directors and executives have a fiduciary duty to run companies in the best interest of shareholders, which often makes decisions like paying CEOs seemingly ridiculous sums of money their responsibility. CEO's are hardly "worthless."
Now, that said, if there was a populist protest against companies who paid their CEO's large sums of money to the point where (a) employees revolted or did something to cause a significant deterioration in productivity that negatively impacted the stock price or (b) customers stopped using products produced by companies that paid CEO's large sums of money, then maybe the market wouldn't value their services at billions of dollars.
You can't use the "market value" and "supply and demand" argument to justify paying someone below minimum wage and then go on to say that CEO's are "overpaid." If you pay front line workers less money and give them less benefits you simply increase the gap between the haves and the have nots. In my view the minimum wage should be set pretty simply to the poverty line for the average household size...meaning you need to work 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year at minimum wage to reach the poverty line. Having a min wage lower than the poverty line is ridiculous, IMO. The impact on the price of things will be negligible since the price of products are already set to an equilibrium point in most cases and the increase in wages will generally just go off investor's bottom line since products are normally priced at a certain point for a reason. Most corporations completely overblow the impact of an extra couple dollars in minimum wage. If you delineate an income statement or corporate balance sheet and truly analyze how much cost goes into a product or service, a rise in the minimum wage by $2 will be really tiny in terms of the overall corporate cost of producing products and services.
EDIT: by my calculations this calculation I have would put the minimum wage at $9.15. That's still pretty low but still almost 30% higher than it currently is.
The reason CEO's make a ton of money is their impact on stock price. If a famed CEO departs or switches companies it is very common for a stock to move 5-10% in either direction. For a company the size of RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) that is a 2-4 BILLION dollar change in value. For a company the size of MSFT (Microsoft) that is a 11-22 BILLION dollar change in value. So if the market says they are worth billions, then they are worth billions. Boards of directors and executives have a fiduciary duty to run companies in the best interest of shareholders, which often makes decisions like paying CEOs seemingly ridiculous sums of money their responsibility. CEO's are hardly "worthless."
Now, that said, if there was a populist protest against companies who paid their CEO's large sums of money to the point where (a) employees revolted or did something to cause a significant deterioration in productivity that negatively impacted the stock price or (b) customers stopped using products produced by companies that paid CEO's large sums of money, then maybe the market wouldn't value their services at billions of dollars.
You can't use the "market value" and "supply and demand" argument to justify paying someone below minimum wage and then go on to say that CEO's are "overpaid." If you pay front line workers less money and give them less benefits you simply increase the gap between the haves and the have nots. In my view the minimum wage should be set pretty simply to the poverty line for the average household size...meaning you need to work 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year at minimum wage to reach the poverty line. Having a min wage lower than the poverty line is ridiculous, IMO. The impact on the price of things will be negligible since the price of products are already set to an equilibrium point in most cases and the increase in wages will generally just go off investor's bottom line since products are normally priced at a certain point for a reason. Most corporations completely overblow the impact of an extra couple dollars in minimum wage. If you delineate an income statement or corporate balance sheet and truly analyze how much cost goes into a product or service, a rise in the minimum wage by $2 will be really tiny in terms of the overall corporate cost of producing products and services.
EDIT: by my calculations this calculation I have would put the minimum wage at $9.15. That's still pretty low but still almost 30% higher than it currently is.
I don't think CEO's are "worthless" (hence the quotes around the word the first time I used it also. I am of the personal opinion that CEO's that mismanage a company's money shouldn't be paid what they are, but you are completely correct in that the shareholders and consumers are essentially the ones that determine what a CEO is valued at. I just used RBS as an easy example of how a CEO can do completely wrong by the company they were entrusted to run properly and still leave with hundreds of millions of dollars. I was living in London at the time he left the board and if I recall correctly, the CEO had a rather heavy-handed say in his pension benefit though...which I found a bit appalling, but nonetheless, I was not an investor or consumer of their services, so it wasn't up to me in any way. I fully believe though that CEO's, under the assumption that they're doing their job, are entitled to the salary they draw.
Out of curiosity, where did you pull your numbers for what is considered the poverty line? I'm not debating your calculations, I'm just curious what you used for reference. You're the first person on this thread who seems to have actually given a solid reference for what you believe minimum wage should be.
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.
