You still didn't answer if my assumptions were correct.
Umm, what does job security, living wages or health care have to do
with a discussion about minimum wage? Minimum wage is what is paid to
those who have no experience, no skills and often no higher education
to perform an entry level job. Those entry level jobs are where one
begins their career path. If one wants a living wage, health care,
job security, paid vacations, stock options, a company car, an expense
account and other perks that come with a NON entry level job one must
work hard, get promoted, get more education, get promoted again while
they are climbing the corporate ladder.
If one is not willing to make those sacrifices to climb the ladder one
is not entitled to the rewards that bring. I would think your pixie
dust would have explained that to you.
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:21:18 PM UTC-5, NorMinn wrote:
Where exactly do you think living wages, healthcare, etc appear
from, if not from corporations? That's where countless Americans
have found good paying jobs, health care, vacation, sick days,
retirement plans, etc. The libs are the ones spreading out the
pixie dust in the form of record numbers of people on food stamps,
unemployment insurance that never ends, welfare, etc. The corporations
actually pay employees out of real money. The libs pay it out of
the govt printing press and pile it on to the national debt.
Extremely wrong. On more than one count. Opinions are very often based on
almost nothing BUT facts. Many people have been sentenced to death because
the "opinion" of a forensic pathologist was persuasive enough to sway a
jury. That opinion is usually based on the detailed examination of evidence
and using scientific tests to draw conclusions. When such witnesses are
qualified by the court as experts in their field, their "expert opinion" is
considered factual, especially when compared to say the musings of
self-qualified internet expert. (-:
Secondly, there are now dozens of well-designed studies that support your
observation that raising the minimum wage *cuts* dependency on food stamps
and other government handouts.
It has a pretty easy to understand description (with graphics) of those
studies with a nice summation of the most important work in the field like
The gist? Yes, some jobs may be lost but the benefits far outweigh the
negatives. The article concludes with:
<<As many economists have argued, the minimum wage "substantially 'held up'
the lower tail of the U.S. earnings distribution" through the late 1970s,
but this effect stopped as the real value of the minimum wage fell in
subsequent decades. This gives us an empirical handle on how the minimum
wage would help deal with both insufficient low-end wages and inequality,
and the results are striking.
Charles Darwin once wrote, "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the
laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." One of the key
institutions of the modern economy, the minimum wage, could dramatically
reduce the misery of the poor. What would it say if we didn't take advantage
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:24:29 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
This whole thing is a crock. The vast majority of people who are
earning minimum wage are not supporting a family. They are young,
under 25, many are teenagers in part-time jobs. That's the way the
world works. You get an entry level job that requires no skills.
A lot of people do that when still in high school, or summer jobs
during college. Then you move up to a better, higher paying job.
The libs want to pretend the world is static and that there are 50 year
olds out there that are supporting a family of 4 on min wage. Raising the
min wage will solve nothing. There are about 1.5 mil people earning
min wage, but that group isn't static. People start there and move
up. It's just another read herring instead of fixing the real problems
with the economy. The solution to better wages for *everyone* is
economic policies to grow the economy. Instead, we have a president
who chooses to divide, engage in class warfare. Now he's saying he's
gonna ignore the constitution and try to go it alone. We'll see how
far that gets him.
If you look at the performance based pay issues, you will note that
these tax things were put in place in the mid-80s (by strong bipartisan
majorities, BTW) because Congress at the time actually wanted to reign
in what they THEN viewed as widely outrageous executive pay.
In order to fight this Evil, they effectively capped executive salary
(what they are paid to actually run the company) by making nothing more
than $1 million deductible. (If you look at the proxy filings for most
publicly held companies, a large %age of them still top actual salaries
at that point).
Then, in an attempt to "align the interests of the shareholders and the
executives", tax-favored performance based things such as stock options,
etc. So, instead of paying someone for actually running the company,
they paid them to run the books. I don't think it was coincidence that
first book-cooking scandal took place within the next two years after
Over the long haul, all sorts of things occurred. In no apparent order
1). Executive pay rose substantially (although interestingly enough if
you look at many of the indicators they rise and fall with the stock)
and execs were paid orders of magnitude more than even the most captive
board would have had the balls to pay them before.
2)> The concentration of wealth starts the spike around the same time.
3). The marker people like to point to, ratio between exec pay and the
average on the shop floor, ballooned. After bouncing around 30X or so
during the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, it took off cresting north of 300x
before falling back with the stock market.
So to those clamoring for Congressional action I point to the above and
suggest they be damn careful what they wish for.
(Actually if I were in charge, I'd make dividends tax-favored. You can't
restate a dividend, if you reinvest you get you the advantages of
compounding, and the main metrics (%age of cash flow used to pay the
dividends and whether the dividend grows) are much easier to understand,
figure, are not as susceptible to accounting games as the current
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.