The Watering Hole

Hookbender — Sep 12, 2014You've bitched at me because I put a emphasis on education and now you say you agree with me. Damn man.

I'm not sure it's a good thing for people to spend every dime they make.

What choice do they have?

Hookbender — Sep 14, 2014[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1404776484/225#238 date=1410654121][quote author=Fenderbender link=1404776484/225#237 date=1410623718]It's not like he's going to cut his own salary to offset that cost.

I think a more realistic solution is to take the money at the top and reduce it.  Let's say I'm a $300 M a year CEO.  To go from that to $150 M a year would seem crazy.....but I still have more disposable income than 95% of America.  But by ME taking the pay cut I can easily afford the price of labor and I don't have to raise prices of my product to do so.  Which stops the ridiculous cycle.  

?????

Why would they take a pay cut?  How would this help the middle class?

Who said anything about the middle class? One of 2 things will have to happen if the min wage is raised to $15 per hour. The owners will have to cut their profit/income to afford the higher payroll, or the prices will go up on the product they sell and the owner maintains their profit/income. What do you think will happen? Duhhh

I think thats what you were getting at FB, excuse me for guessing what you meant by your post.

Have you ever considered this? The owners don't need Walmart anymore. They shut the doors and the good ole middle class, whats left of them, gets 2 million more folks to take care of. To big to fail is going through your mind, right? Well, they achieved the American dream legally. How much harder are you going to make it for business? Government is fucking every business owner in America as we speak with stupid bullshit. So, you want to give government the power to dictate at will, anytime they want, how much they have to pay employees? Get real.

It's painfully obvious that you and Charger have never run a business.


You guys seriously believe all this?  That they would just raise prices until no one could afford stuff?  No, they are always going to price their stuff so they can sell all of it.  It's called supply and demand, and they understand it well.  If that means they reduce corporate profit, or executive pay, well, here's the world's smallest violin playing for them.



Sure, you accuse me of not knowing how to run a business, but you don't even understand supply and demand, so I guess we're even. If WalMart did close, there would be a retail gulf to fill, and someone would fill it.  Realize, of course, that there is already a a massive supply chain in China building all the crap WalMart sells... those people would be hungry to keep selling.  And some company could very easily come in and sell at Walmart's price, without having the requirement of making the Walton family more rich, and without being beholden to the stock market.  When's the last time a massive cut-rate retailer went out of business and it sunk the US economy?

Hookbender — Sep 15, 2014[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1404776484/225#248 date=1410804863]Am I having tunnel vision or discussing the premise of the article?  It's the only solution that has been brought up.  I believe Charger asked you for alternative ideas, you came up with none.  Can you show me where raising the min wage has resulted in problems before?  Would you be in favor of a less "drastic" increase?

Ok. How was earth formed? God made it. Oh, ok.  ;D That must be true then.

I don't have any obligation to provide solutions. None.

I can't prove a negative.

If evidence was provided that showed a increase was a viable solution, yes. However, I doubt this one tactic would have much effect. I think it will take multiple things done at the same time to fix this problem. I would focus on the current laws first. Then study the tax situation with Walmart and tax law period. That's where I would start, probably. I surely wouldn't just blindly, on a whim, raise the min wage to $15 per hour without considering the consequences. Not just because i dislike Walmart.



Kinda straw filled?  Maybe you have tunnel vision where it comes to the merit of low wage jobs and whether min wage has kept up with the cost of living.  It seems like you think it's good where it is and that decisions are the problem.  It seems like you look at the issues brought up in the article on an individual level which didn't seem like the main thrust of the peice.  It seemed like the article was addressing using a large group of people who spend all of their money back into the system to support parts of the system that support the middle class which the small percentage of people at the top can't and won't do.

They are my answers to your questions. Can't help it if you don't like em.

At least I answer yours.

charger — Sep 15, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/225#241 date=1410661725][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1404776484/225#238 date=1410654121][quote author=Fenderbender link=1404776484/225#237 date=1410623718]It's not like he's going to cut his own salary to offset that cost.

I think a more realistic solution is to take the money at the top and reduce it.  Let's say I'm a $300 M a year CEO.  To go from that to $150 M a year would seem crazy.....but I still have more disposable income than 95% of America.  But by ME taking the pay cut I can easily afford the price of labor and I don't have to raise prices of my product to do so.  Which stops the ridiculous cycle.  

?????

Why would they take a pay cut?  How would this help the middle class?

Who said anything about the middle class? One of 2 things will have to happen if the min wage is raised to $15 per hour. The owners will have to cut their profit/income to afford the higher payroll, or the prices will go up on the product they sell and the owner maintains their profit/income. What do you think will happen? Duhhh

I think thats what you were getting at FB, excuse me for guessing what you meant by your post.

Have you ever considered this? The owners don't need Walmart anymore. They shut the doors and the good ole middle class, whats left of them, gets 2 million more folks to take care of. To big to fail is going through your mind, right? Well, they achieved the American dream legally. How much harder are you going to make it for business? Government is fucking every business owner in America as we speak with stupid bullshit. So, you want to give government the power to dictate at will, anytime they want, how much they have to pay employees? Get real.

It's painfully obvious that you and Charger have never run a business.


You guys seriously believe all this?  That they would just raise prices until no one could afford stuff?  No, they are always going to price their stuff so they can sell all of it.  It's called supply and demand, and they understand it well.  If that means they reduce corporate profit, or executive pay, well, here's the world's smallest violin playing for them.



Sure, you accuse me of not knowing how to run a business, but you don't even understand supply and demand, so I guess we're even. If WalMart did close, there would be a retail gulf to fill, and someone would fill it.  Realize, of course, that there is already a a massive supply chain in China building all the crap WalMart sells... those people would be hungry to keep selling.  And some company could very easily come in and sell at Walmart's price, without having the requirement of making the Walton family more rich, and without being beholden to the stock market.  When's the last time a massive cut-rate retailer went out of business and it sunk the US economy?



I'm not really accusing you in a mean way, it just my take from reading your comments. What evidence do you have that suggest I don't understand supply and demand? I'm wowed by your ability to predict the future with such certainty. What if Target just sucked them up. Thats a possibility, right?

Hookbender — Sep 15, 2014They are my answers to your questions. Can't help it if you don't like em.

At least I answer yours.

What I mean is that you keep going to a personal attack on Walmart which is a non issue.  You have said that the concept of increasing the min wage would be in reaction to a personal dislike for Walmart.  That's silly.  Is that one of those "punishing the successful" kinda trips?

BINGEWOOD — Sep 15, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/250#253 date=1410810326]They are my answers to your questions. Can't help it if you don't like em.

At least I answer yours.

What I mean is that you keep going to a personal attack on Walmart which is a non issue.  You have said that the concept of increasing the min wage would be in reaction to a personal dislike for Walmart.  That's silly.  Is that one of those "punishing the successful" kinda trips?

Thats the basis for you and Charger wanting to raise the min wage. It discounts any lagit stance you may have had. IMO. And, there has been no evidence presented to show that as even a viable part of a solution to the problem. Chargers throwing up bullshit 80% figures of Walmarts employees being on government assistance, I've ask you for evidence that shows raising the min wage will even have a small impact and I get nothing. Instead of getting answers I get a weak attempt to put me on the defensive against your and his false claims against me.

I'll just consider the opinion to raise the min wage to $15 per hour a mistake.  

You consider it a mistake that we think the working poor should make more money?

Why are you even involved in a discussion about making the lives of the working poor better?  All you show is love and respect for the rich, and disdain for the poor, even the working poor.  What credentials do you bring to this discussion?  That you understand how hard it is to be a rich, flourishing business that needs to protect its wealthy owners and healthy corporate profits?  What interest do you have in making the lives of the working poor better?  Is it, as I suspect, NONE?

It's abundantly clear that there are already enough people looking out for the interests of the rich.  They are called "the Republicans in Congress".  And they've been doing just fine.  What I think we need is someone to look out for the poor.  There is either a reason for the minimum wage or there isn't.  Seems like you think there isn't. Is there?

Here you go, from the company themselves. They say "475,000 employees make more than 25k a year." What they don't say is, therefore, 925,000 do not.  That's 66%, 2/3 of employees, making less than 25k a year.  For a family of three, that income (actually, 25,400) qualifies for federal food assistance.  I am amending my numbers, therefore, to say more than 66% of Walmart workers qualify for federal assistance if they have a family of three.  And there are other numbers that are worse, for example, the medicaid eligibility threshold is even lower, and aid to women and dependent children is even lower than that.  But since the only numbers I have are that 34% number, that's what I'll stick with.

Feel better?  66% of Walmart workers would qualify for food stamps, as a family of three.  And even more would qualify for other programs.  If I could get a clearer number than the 25k number, I could go further with it.

http://az204679.vo.msecnd.net/media/documents/bill-simon-goldman-sachs-2013-presentation_130233858314846907.pdf

Hookbender — Sep 16, 2014[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1404776484/250#255 date=1410811821][quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/250#253 date=1410810326]They are my answers to your questions. Can't help it if you don't like em.

At least I answer yours.

What I mean is that you keep going to a personal attack on Walmart which is a non issue.  You have said that the concept of increasing the min wage would be in reaction to a personal dislike for Walmart.  That's silly.  Is that one of those "punishing the successful" kinda trips?

Thats the basis for you and Charger wanting to raise the min wage. It discounts any lagit stance you may have had. IMO. And, there has been no evidence presented to show that as even a viable part of a solution to the problem. Chargers throwing up bullshit 80% figures of Walmarts employees being on government assistance, I've ask you for evidence that shows raising the min wage will even have a small impact and I get nothing. Instead of getting answers I get a weak attempt to put me on the defensive against your and his false claims against me.

I'll just consider the opinion to raise the min wage to $15 per hour a mistake.  




So what was the basis for raising the min wage that the author of the article going on?  That's what I thought we were discussing.

BINGEWOOD — Sep 16, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/250#256 date=1410867448][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1404776484/250#255 date=1410811821][quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/250#253 date=1410810326]They are my answers to your questions. Can't help it if you don't like em.

At least I answer yours.

What I mean is that you keep going to a personal attack on Walmart which is a non issue.  You have said that the concept of increasing the min wage would be in reaction to a personal dislike for Walmart.  That's silly.  Is that one of those "punishing the successful" kinda trips?

Thats the basis for you and Charger wanting to raise the min wage. It discounts any lagit stance you may have had. IMO. And, there has been no evidence presented to show that as even a viable part of a solution to the problem. Chargers throwing up bullshit 80% figures of Walmarts employees being on government assistance, I've ask you for evidence that shows raising the min wage will even have a small impact and I get nothing. Instead of getting answers I get a weak attempt to put me on the defensive against your and his false claims against me.

I'll just consider the opinion to raise the min wage to $15 per hour a mistake.  




So what was the basis for raising the min wage that the author of the article going on?  That's what I thought we were discussing.

"We" were discussing that. However, Hookbender didn't read the article so he has no ideas what the other arguments are, he just knows I dislike WalMart.

The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That’s why you’ve got John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment higher, you get less of it. Really?

Because here’s an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers. These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and more of them.

Please respond. This is from the article you didn't read, btw.

charger — Sep 16, 2014Here you go, from the company themselves. They say "475,000 employees make more than 25k a year." What they don't say is, therefore, 925,000 do not.  That's 66%, 2/3 of employees, making less than 25k a year.  For a family of three, that income (actually, 25,400) qualifies for federal food assistance.  I am amending my numbers, therefore, to say more than 66% of Walmart workers qualify for federal assistance if they have a family of three.  And there are other numbers that are worse, for example, the medicaid eligibility threshold is even lower, and aid to women and dependent children is even lower than that.  But since the only numbers I have are that 34% number, that's what I'll stick with.

Feel better?  66% of Walmart workers would qualify for food stamps, as a family of three.  And even more would qualify for other programs.  If I could get a clearer number than the 25k number, I could go further with it.

http://az204679.vo.msecnd.net/media/documents/bill-simon-goldman-sachs-2013-presentation_130233858314846907.pdf

Again, what percent of Wa;mart employees... ARE... on government assistance? I don't care what your guess is, I don't care what you think it may be, I don't care how close you think that % may be. That number doesn't mean anything. No, I don't feel better.

charger — Sep 16, 2014The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That’s why you’ve got John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment higher, you get less of it. Really?

Because here’s an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers. These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and more of them.

Please respond. This is from the article you didn't read, btw.

Ok. What about it. I read the article already. This certainly doesn't qualify as evidence to raise the min wage to $15 per hour.

Hookbender — Sep 17, 2014[quote author=charger link=1404776484/250#258 date=1410891892]Here you go, from the company themselves. They say "475,000 employees make more than 25k a year." What they don't say is, therefore, 925,000 do not.  That's 66%, 2/3 of employees, making less than 25k a year.  For a family of three, that income (actually, 25,400) qualifies for federal food assistance.  I am amending my numbers, therefore, to say more than 66% of Walmart workers qualify for federal assistance if they have a family of three.  And there are other numbers that are worse, for example, the medicaid eligibility threshold is even lower, and aid to women and dependent children is even lower than that.  But since the only numbers I have are that 34% number, that's what I'll stick with.

Feel better?  66% of Walmart workers would qualify for food stamps, as a family of three.  And even more would qualify for other programs.  If I could get a clearer number than the 25k number, I could go further with it.

http://az204679.vo.msecnd.net/media/documents/bill-simon-goldman-sachs-2013-presentation_130233858314846907.pdf

Again, what percent of Wa;mart employees... ARE... on government assistance? I don't care what your guess is, I don't care what you think it may be, I don't care how close you think that % may be. That number doesn't mean anything. No, I don't feel better.

I never said "on".  I said "qualify for."  It goes without saying that if your full time job pays you so little that you qualify for federal aid, you're not making a living wage.

Hookbender — Sep 17, 2014[quote author=charger link=1404776484/250#261 date=1410903733]The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That’s why you’ve got John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment higher, you get less of it. Really?

Because here’s an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers. These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and more of them.

Please respond. This is from the article you didn't read, btw.

Ok. What about it. I read the article already. This certainly doesn't qualify as evidence to raise the min wage to $15 per hour.




But it is YOUR argument that raising wages will kill these companies, make everything more expensive, kill jobs.  Yet CEO and executive pay has gone up astronomically, without doing just that.  It's a direct refutation of your main point for saying we shouldn't pay low wage earners more.  However, your secondary point, that poor people are lazy and worthless, I still can't refute.

Here is a few problems I have.

We have shit loads of business that has moved to other countries because, in part, our labor cost are already extremely high. I think the min wage is what, $7.25 per hour or so? Now, you want to double that. What do you think the effect of raising min wage to $15 p/h will have on existing business in America? You think it will help, hurt, or have no effect at all?

Their is no reason to dream up all these bogus figures. I have agreed we have a problem. I have also agreed that if raising the min wage as part of the solution is fine as well. Maybe not as drastic as $15 per hour.

These top dogs you talk about, pay about 37% of the taxes. The top 10% pay 71% of taxes. 71%. Thats a significant contribution, if you ask me. How much more of a burden do you think is "fair"? Now you want to take profits from them as well, like a dictator or something.

If you've read my post, you've missed out on a very important point. Apparently, for me to wait for this realization to come to you, ain't gonna happen. I mentioned we need to look at the current laws, tax codes etc and try to find a solution, long term. If you looked at the current laws and realized that the min wage is $7.25 and after research determined that figure needed to be higher, then so be it. I've stated that several times. If the min wage is $7.25 today, then that's a law.... that may need to be changed as part of a solution to the problem we have.

Long story short, why the fuck are you arguing with me? We agree in principle, just not the details. You think their is only one solution, fuck Walmart hard as you can.  :D You think raising the min wage will fix everything. That just isn't a long term fix, it may even hurt more than it helps. Do we need to look at the min wage, yes.

So, whats the problem here?  

charger — Sep 17, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/250#262 date=1410959463][quote author=charger link=1404776484/250#258 date=1410891892]Here you go, from the company themselves. They say "475,000 employees make more than 25k a year." What they don't say is, therefore, 925,000 do not.  That's 66%, 2/3 of employees, making less than 25k a year.  For a family of three, that income (actually, 25,400) qualifies for federal food assistance.  I am amending my numbers, therefore, to say more than 66% of Walmart workers qualify for federal assistance if they have a family of three.  And there are other numbers that are worse, for example, the medicaid eligibility threshold is even lower, and aid to women and dependent children is even lower than that.  But since the only numbers I have are that 34% number, that's what I'll stick with.

Feel better?  66% of Walmart workers would qualify for food stamps, as a family of three.  And even more would qualify for other programs.  If I could get a clearer number than the 25k number, I could go further with it.

http://az204679.vo.msecnd.net/media/documents/bill-simon-goldman-sachs-2013-presentation_130233858314846907.pdf

Again, what percent of Wa;mart employees... ARE... on government assistance? I don't care what your guess is, I don't care what you think it may be, I don't care how close you think that % may be. That number doesn't mean anything. No, I don't feel better.

I never said "on".  I said "qualify for."  It goes without saying that if your full time job pays you so little that you qualify for federal aid, you're not making a living wage.



And does that factor in people simply wanting a part time job? Students, etc. No. The number is shit and you know it. Means nothing.

charger — Sep 17, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/250#263 date=1410959869][quote author=charger link=1404776484/250#261 date=1410903733]The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That’s why you’ve got John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment higher, you get less of it. Really?

Because here’s an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers. These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and more of them.

Please respond. This is from the article you didn't read, btw.

Ok. What about it. I read the article already. This certainly doesn't qualify as evidence to raise the min wage to $15 per hour.




But it is YOUR argument that raising wages will kill these companies, make everything more expensive, kill jobs.  Yet CEO and executive pay has gone up astronomically, without doing just that.  It's a direct refutation of your main point for saying we shouldn't pay low wage earners more.  However, your secondary point, that poor people are lazy and worthless, I still can't refute.



Conversation over. I'm not going to respond to personal attacks and straight up lies. To much wasted time.

The top 10% pay 70% of of taxes.  It's true.  Also true, the top 47% pay 97% of taxes.  Does that mean that the bottom 53% are then not worth representing?

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21631129-it-001-who-are-really-getting-ahead-america-forget-1

Pitchforks?  heh heh

Yeah maybe so.

BINGEWOOD — Dec 05, 2014http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21631129-it-001-who-are-really-getting-ahead-america-forget-1

Pitchforks?  heh heh

Read the section in this article called The really, really rich get much, much richer. That's the scary part.