quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: wnyThroatLover
I know my numbers weren't quite exact. I did a little rounding (down) with a couple of the figures to make the math a little easier to follow...
Granted Walmart made insane profits, can you honestly tell me that he did over 1000x the work of the individuals in the stores? I can't believe that to be true.
Not to mention, the biggest point of what I was trying to say there was simply this:
What in the hell could these CEO's possibly need (Insert ridiculous number of millions here) a year for?!? Does anyone really need 4 houses and 10 jets and 30 cars, especially when there are people around who bust their asses and can barely afford their small apartment and 1 or 2 (if it's a couple) cars and can barely pay their bills or buy food.
If I made 16 million in one year, I could easily retire and live VERY comfortably for the remainder of my days, and I'm sure any of you could as well!
There is this show called "Hoarders" where people fill their homes with things they are never going to do anything with. These people are doing the same thing with money.

How hard to the top CEO's work? How hard did Sam Walton work? How hard does an accountant work?

As far as what a CEO "needs" millions for? Doesn't matter. It's not up to you, me, or anyone else. Maybe that CEO is setting his/her kids up so they don't have to work as hard as he/she did. Maybe that CEO is setting up a foundation to help the less fortunate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The key point you don't seem to understand is that minimum wage is an entry level wage not a living wage.
Point two is that when you bring up the minimum wage everything else comes up, including the wages of many who have a higher pay that minimum. Many unions get a equal percentage wage increase whenever the minimum wage goes up.
In a year 15 an hour will get you the same amount the current minimum gets you today.
Finally the answer to all the problems you mentioned isn't raising the minimum wage, it is creating more jobs that pay better.

Not really.
Some one will always have to do menial labor. They are always going to get paid as little as possible. Some of those jobs are entries to other jobs but the fact is the workforce is pyramidal and most people are not going to advance very far up the ladder if they are starting at the bottom. Wal-Mart stores may have a hundred associates but less than a dozen managers.

Increasing the minimum wage has been shown over and over again to not affect hiring and to not have any significant impact on inflation. Continuing to insist that it does flies in the face of the evidence.

BTW why should taxpayers have to subsidize profitable businesses that pay so little their employees qualify for welfare?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wnyThroatLover

I have a VERY simple solution...

Salary Ratio Caps...

In 1965 the average CEO-to-employee salary ratio was 20:1
In 2012 the average CEO-to-employee salary ratio was 273:1

Walmart is a favorite of mine to pick on, as I despise their means of practice and the way they can knock out small competition simply by use of their size.

In 2012 the CEO-to-employee salary ratio of Walmart was MORE than 1000:1 (I rounded down to make the math easier, it was actually 1034:1)
In 2012 the mean pay/hour of a Walmart employee was $8.81
That means that every hour the CEO of Walmart is making over $8810!! The vast majority of his employees don't even make that in a MONTH!
That means he makes about $352,400 a WEEK
Which is $1,409,600 a MONTH
And finally $16,915,200 A YEAR!!! Seriously...I can be a very extravagant person when I want to be, but what the hell does he need all that money for EVERY YEAR?!?

If we cap the ratio at 1965 values, that means for every hour the CEO would make $176.20.
Over a 40 hour week that's $7048...a WEEK! (Still more than the vast majority of his employees make in a month)
$28,192 a MONTH (more than his average employee currently makes in a year)
$338,304 a YEAR!!!

Let's assume that's not enough for him (which it obviously isn't).
Lets raise his employee's pay to 20$ and hour.
Working within the 1965 salary cap the CEO would now make $400 an hour.
$16,000 in a 40 hour week.
$64,000 a MONTH!!!
$768,000 a YEAR!!!

His employees make more than enough to have a liveable wage.
He makes more than enough for all of his expensive toys.
There is more than enough money left over in company profit to be able to provide healthcare, dental, and vision coverage (for those who don't know, these are typically separate in the US) and STILL be able to pay the company's fair share in taxes!

quote:

ORIGINAL: MerlynEmrys

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The key point you don't seem to understand is that minimum wage is an entry level wage not a living wage.
Point two is that when you bring up the minimum wage everything else comes up, including the wages of many who have a higher pay that minimum. Many unions get a equal percentage wage increase whenever the minimum wage goes up.
In a year 15 an hour will get you the same amount the current minimum gets you today.
Finally the answer to all the problems you mentioned isn't raising the minimum wage, it is creating more jobs that pay better.

Not really.
Some one will always have to do menial labor. They are always going to get paid as little as possible. Some of those jobs are entries to other jobs but the fact is the workforce is pyramidal and most people are not going to advance very far up the ladder if they are starting at the bottom. Wal-Mart stores may have a hundred associates but less than a dozen managers.

Increasing the minimum wage has been shown over and over again to not affect hiring and to not have any significant impact on inflation. Continuing to insist that it does flies in the face of the evidence.

BTW why should taxpayers have to subsidize profitable businesses that pay so little their employees qualify for welfare?

If increasing the minimum wage will not have any effect on hiring or impact on inflation - why are we stopping at 15 dollars an hour. I want minimum wage to be 150 dollars an hour so I get a raise too.

Yes, I started at minimum wage many years ago flipping burgers for an ice cream store - now I don't think I make enough money as a high tech worker - the only way I see to better myself is to get minimum wage raised enough that it gets me a raise too. My boss won't mind the government mandated raise and it won't affect anyone inflation if everyone in the economy makes at least 300,000 dollars a year.

Right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

I don't want to get into some daft maths argument, but there has to be a problem here re. you saying that "everyone can't be a success" is not factual and that there will always be a lowest 10% unless you are suggesting that even the lowest 10% are going to be successful but just slightly less successful than the top 10%.

Given that seems unlikely it still doesn't answer the question of how to deal with the people at the bottom.
You may care, and give, but America as a whole doesn't seem to care or give

quote:

ORIGINAL: wnyThroatLover

I have a VERY simple solution...

Salary Ratio Caps...

In 1965 the average CEO-to-employee salary ratio was 20:1
In 2012 the average CEO-to-employee salary ratio was 273:1

Walmart is a favorite of mine to pick on, as I despise their means of practice and the way they can knock out small competition simply by use of their size.

In 2012 the CEO-to-employee salary ratio of Walmart was MORE than 1000:1 (I rounded down to make the math easier, it was actually 1034:1)
In 2012 the mean pay/hour of a Walmart employee was $8.81
That means that every hour the CEO of Walmart is making over $8810!! The vast majority of his employees don't even make that in a MONTH!
That means he makes about $352,400 a WEEK
Which is $1,409,600 a MONTH
And finally $16,915,200 A YEAR!!! Seriously...I can be a very extravagant person when I want to be, but what the hell does he need all that money for EVERY YEAR?!?

If we cap the ratio at 1965 values, that means for every hour the CEO would make $176.20.
Over a 40 hour week that's $7048...a WEEK! (Still more than the vast majority of his employees make in a month)
$28,192 a MONTH (more than his average employee currently makes in a year)
$338,304 a YEAR!!!

Let's assume that's not enough for him (which it obviously isn't).
Lets raise his employee's pay to 20$ and hour.
Working within the 1965 salary cap the CEO would now make $400 an hour.
$16,000 in a 40 hour week.
$64,000 a MONTH!!!
$768,000 a YEAR!!!

His employees make more than enough to have a liveable wage.
He makes more than enough for all of his expensive toys.
There is more than enough money left over in company profit to be able to provide healthcare, dental, and vision coverage (for those who don't know, these are typically separate in the US) and STILL be able to pay the company's fair share in taxes!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MerlynEmrys

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The key point you don't seem to understand is that minimum wage is an entry level wage not a living wage.
Point two is that when you bring up the minimum wage everything else comes up, including the wages of many who have a higher pay that minimum. Many unions get a equal percentage wage increase whenever the minimum wage goes up.
In a year 15 an hour will get you the same amount the current minimum gets you today.
Finally the answer to all the problems you mentioned isn't raising the minimum wage, it is creating more jobs that pay better.

Not really.
Some one will always have to do menial labor. They are always going to get paid as little as possible. Some of those jobs are entries to other jobs but the fact is the workforce is pyramidal and most people are not going to advance very far up the ladder if they are starting at the bottom. Wal-Mart stores may have a hundred associates but less than a dozen managers.

Increasing the minimum wage has been shown over and over again to not affect hiring and to not have any significant impact on inflation. Continuing to insist that it does flies in the face of the evidence.

BTW why should taxpayers have to subsidize profitable businesses that pay so little their employees qualify for welfare?

If increasing the minimum wage will not have any effect on hiring or impact on inflation - why are we stopping at 15 dollars an hour. I want minimum wage to be 150 dollars an hour so I get a raise too.

Yes, I started at minimum wage many years ago flipping burgers for an ice cream store - now I don't think I make enough money as a high tech worker - the only way I see to better myself is to get minimum wage raised enough that it gets me a raise too. My boss won't mind the government mandated raise and it won't affect anyone inflation if everyone in the economy makes at least 300,000 dollars a year.

Right?

Taking something to the extreme is supposed to prove something?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You may doubt all you want, but if you can't back up that allegation, you'll be even less relevant in your ravings. Any proof of them "routinely" forcing workers to work off the clock?

Yes
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/business/24walmart.html?_r=0
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wal-mart-loses-unpaid-overtime-case/

Nothing recent, though?
I know they did that in the past. They lost. They paid. That's how "justice" is done in these here States.
Is WalMart always going to be the target of ire for things that have happened in the past?

Those are settled suits. there are similar suits ongoing. I assume you'd handwave those away as unproven but here you go:
http://aulaborlawforum.org/2011/08/25/wal-mart-forces-employees-to-work-off-the-clock/
http://www.warehouseworkersunited.org/walmart-sued-for-massive-wage-theft-at-california-warehouses/

quote:

“Walmart employs a network of contractors and subcontractors who have habitually broken the law to keep their labor costs low and Walmart’s profit margins high,” said Michael Rubin, attorney for the plaintiffs. “We believe Walmart knows exactly what is happening and is ultimately responsible for stealing millions of dollars from the low-wage warehouse workers who move Walmart merchandise.”

After months of discovery, including key depositions of Walmart managers with detailed knowledge of the warehouse operations, attorneys made the decision to add Walmart as a defendant.

...

About 85,000 workers labor in warehouses in the Inland Empire, San Bernardino and Riverside counties, loading and unloading goods that enter through our nation’s busiest ports in Long Beach and Los Angeles en route to major retailers like Walmart. The majority of workers are hired through temp agencies, paid low wages, receive no benefits, and have no job security.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie
A big part of the problem is that in general, the CEOs are too often an abysmal failure before being traded off to the next 'team' to artificially inflate some more numbers.  Look at the 'geniuses' that took turns running JC Penney, Allstate, Sears, and finally K-Mart. Or, read Warren Bennis  'Why Leaders Can't Lead'.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You may doubt all you want, but if you can't back up that allegation, you'll be even less relevant in your ravings. Any proof of them "routinely" forcing workers to work off the clock?

Yes
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/business/24walmart.html?_r=0
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wal-mart-loses-unpaid-overtime-case/

Nothing recent, though?
I know they did that in the past. They lost. They paid. That's how "justice" is done in these here States.
Is WalMart always going to be the target of ire for things that have happened in the past?

Those are settled suits. there are similar suits ongoing. I assume you'd handwave those away as unproven but here you go:
http://aulaborlawforum.org/2011/08/25/wal-mart-forces-employees-to-work-off-the-clock/
http://www.warehouseworkersunited.org/walmart-sued-for-massive-wage-theft-at-california-warehouses/

quote:

“Walmart employs a network of contractors and subcontractors who have habitually broken the law to keep their labor costs low and Walmart’s profit margins high,” said Michael Rubin, attorney for the plaintiffs. “We believe Walmart knows exactly what is happening and is ultimately responsible for stealing millions of dollars from the low-wage warehouse workers who move Walmart merchandise.”

After months of discovery, including key depositions of Walmart managers with detailed knowledge of the warehouse operations, attorneys made the decision to add Walmart as a defendant.

...

About 85,000 workers labor in warehouses in the Inland Empire, San Bernardino and Riverside counties, loading and unloading goods that enter through our nation’s busiest ports in Long Beach and Los Angeles en route to major retailers like Walmart. The majority of workers are hired through temp agencies, paid low wages, receive no benefits, and have no job security.

Why, yes, this is not yet proven. WalMart could have been added simply for having "deep pockets." I really loved the addition of the Bangladesh clothing factory fire being blamed on WalMart. That's certainly not a stretch. [8|]

And, yes, your other link isn't damning, either. How many companies get sued for bullshit lawsuits that end up having little or not merit? If WalMart is found guilty in either (or both) of these cases, they should be held accountable according to the law. I'm not against that by any stretch.

But, I won't be damning WalMart over not yet proven accusations. In case you forgot, our judicial system starts with innocent until proven guilty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie
A big part of the problem is that in general, the CEOs are too often an abysmal failure before being traded off to the next 'team' to artificially inflate some more numbers.  Look at the 'geniuses' that took turns running JC Penney, Allstate, Sears, and finally K-Mart. Or, read Warren Bennis  'Why Leaders Can't Lead'.  

None of that really matters, though. The question I have, in regards to the meat of your post, is: when are Boards of Directors going to come to and figure out that CEO's don't have to be paid the big bucks? I'm amazed at the shitty job many CEO's have done, and what golden parachutes they have been given, even when they are being given them to get rid of the bad CEO's. It's amazing.

But, in the end, that's up to the Board. That's not up to you. That's not up to me. Unless someone here is on a Board of Directors for some company, it's not up to any of us. At some point in time, a Board will wise up and see the light.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

Why not just tie it to the cost of living and be done with it. Even in the political arena it takes it out of the politicians hands once the legislation would be passed, the Democrats would have what they want, and the Republicans wouldn't be primaried for increasing it. I have no statistical basis to say what it should be today, and all federal legislation on the issue can be superseded (prevailing wage of the state of the federal laws already exist) by the individual states, so it would be reflective of the areas of the U.S. Of course the legislation that made the change would be contentious, and it would seem to be a sensible way of dealing with the issue, so therefore would never pass, but we are used to that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Yes
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/business/24walmart.html?_r=0

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

Why not just tie it to the cost of living and be done with it. Even in the political arena it takes it out of the politicians hands once the legislation would be passed, the Democrats would have what they want, and the Republicans wouldn't be primaried for increasing it. I have no statistical basis to say what it should be today, and all federal legislation on the issue can be superseded (prevailing wage of the state of the federal laws already exist) by the individual states, so it would be reflective of the areas of the U.S. Of course the legislation that made the change would be contentious, and it would seem to be a sensible way of dealing with the issue, so therefore would never pass, but we are used to that.

The present bill in the House does exactly that. It would raise it to $10.10/hour and then index it to inflation from now on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/business/10-minimum-wage-proposal-has-obamas-backing.html

This is one of those cases where the Democrats try to do what is best for the country that if it succeeds would hurt them politically. They are trying to give up the minimum wage as an issue forever when it is a consistent winner for them with the public. The Republicans are foolish not to jump on this proposal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I've just provided you a source to validate my comments. Please provide the same for your "supply side economics has destroyed the US economy" and "no legitimate economist even still consider it worth debating". Or are those, again, just derision used as argument on the left such as you "supply side stupidity" comment. Perhaps, you should, as Lucy says, get real, argue with something to back up what you say other than "all your friends believe the same thing" and don't expect derision to fly as reason.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2007/10/29/071029on_onlineonly_surowiecki?currentPage=1
http://www.itep.org/debunkinglaffer/
http://sharepoint.mvla.net/teachers/RobertF/Micro%20Economics%20AP/Documents/THE%20RISE%20OF%20SUPPLY%20SIDE%20ECONOMICS.pdf

You are also welcome to search academic economics journals where the subject is no longer even written about at all. Supply side economics is thoroughly disproven.