Elizabeth Warren Proposes $22/Hour Minimum Wage
Well Massachusetts, when you elected the socialist self-proclaimed mother of Occupy Wall Street to the Senate, what did you expect?
Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions last week asked why the current federal minimum wage rate is only $7.25 and not $22 an hour.
The obvious effects of raising the minimum wage are increased unemployment, increased bankruptcy, higher prices, and inflation. Given that these are all apparent objectives of hard leftists like Warren and Obama, maybe they should really inflict some social justice and raise the minimum wage to $100 per hour.
Congratulations to Al Franken. He is no longer the most preposterous clown in the Senate.
On tips from IslandLifer and Sam Adams.
$22/Hour Minimum Wage would mean only communist jerks like this bitch would be able to afford the newly priced $15 Big Mac and $13 cup of Starbucks coffee.
My GOD liberals are STUPID!
That would be a nice $14.75 raise (minimum) for all the union thugs and slugs.
Only $22 an hour? Why is she being so stingy? As long as we can just legislate wealth, why not raise it to $500 an hour? That way, anyone who works 40 hours a week is a millionaire.
Why don’t we just copy the minimum wage level of Zimbabwe?
One hundred million Beelzebub Bucks per hour of loafing and sending bogus emails.
You can then buy a monkey meat Big Mac about, oh, once every three years or so.
When will we stop with “these clowns” and “they’re so stupid”?
THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY’RE DOING. The goal IS to bring down the economy, collapse it, have social chaos, then come forth in a god-like manner and proclaim “We have a solution”…and BINGO, socialism is finally the law of the land.
Fauxcahontas is simply following orders.
[...] to what my right-wing friends will tell you, Senator Warren did not suggest or promote the idea of the federal minimum wage being [...]
Another way of looking at the issue is if they keep devaluing the USD via QE schemes, in less than 10 years that $22 per hour minimum wage will have the buying power of what 2 cents will get you today.
Fauxcahontas is a perfect example of what happens when a crazed liberal is educated well beyond their ability to reason.
I’m once again offering apologies on behalf of the Mass residents that did not vote for this buffoon.
If you have seen the video, you’ll notice her expert is a UMass professor. The only way she would get the answers she wanted would be if she put a mirror on the chair. UMass is a major source of anti-capitalist moonbattery.
Warren was elected because of the full court press SEIU put on her campaign. They brought in millions of dollars and to be sure, plenty of paid voters.
But, she hasn’t disappointed me – she’s proven what an asshat she truly is.
Im sure these DUMB-O-CRATS only mean loyal union hoods and illegal aliens
I don’t blame her. I blame the tuck fards that elected her. If she was really elected. I would like to see every vote validated. But thats just a fantisy.
I hope they do it.Be great to see a “socialist paradise”collapse into n korea.Who doesn’t want 25.00 a loaf bread?
.
How about if the politicians raise the minimum wage to $22/hour in *Taxachusetts*, and then let us know how that works out for them.
.
My GOD, do we ever need strict, airtight voting controls. More than ever.
Skyfall +1000
A 22.00 per hour min. wage would be great in Massachooshits. Go for it lady, but leave the rest of the states alone to take up the slack. “Wisconsin…, we’re open for business – your escape from the $22 per hour labor rates back home.”
The City of San Jose just went to $10.00 an hour. The effects have not been in the leftists news but I know of at least two entry level businesses that have gone else where.
Squaws should just hush and chew on rawhide.
Thank you, Wilber.
Yeah, for now there is no stopping this. The left is in total control at the moment, including almost all of the RINO top brass in the GOP. Fox News is getting squishy as well, what with “THE NUMBER ONE RATED PRIME TIME SHOW IN ALL OF CABLE FOR 13 YEARS RUNNING”, Bill A’Llagory…excuse me…O’Reilly. He’s all about “…well, I’m sure the President is a patriotic American who…” blah blah.
It’s going to take something huge to change things. I don’t think it will come from the political sphere.
BLS statistics
Teenage unemployment
24 percent
Black teenage unemployment
43 percent
Effects of past unemployment increases on teenage unemployment
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/02/lets-review-the-adverse-effects-of-raising-the-minimum-wage-on-teenagers-when-it-increased-41-between-2007-and-2009/
Effects of an increase to $22 ?
Permanent dependency
WARREN LENDS MORE SUPPORT FOR THE MOST ANTI-BLACK LAW ON THE BOOKS IN AMERICA
No one trounces the commie’s sympathy argument of raising the minimum wage better than old Uncle Milton, counter-Moonbat emeritus:
“The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That’s what the law says. The law says that here’s a man who has a skill that would justify a wage of $5 or $6 per hour (adjusted for today), but you may not employ him, it’s illegal, because if you employ him you must pay him $9 per hour. So what’s the result? To employ him at $9 per hour is to engage in charity. There’s nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in the position to engage in that kind of charity. Thus, the consequences of minimum wage laws have been almost wholly bad. We have increased unemployment and increased poverty.
Moreover, the effects have been concentrated on the groups that the do-gooders would {purportedly} most like to help. The people who have been hurt most by the minimum wage laws are the blacks. I have often said that the most anti-black law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law.
There is absolutely no positive objective achieved by the minimum wage law. Its real purpose is to reduce competition for the trade unions and make it easier for them to maintain the higher wages of their privileged members.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/02/milton-friedman-responds-to-president-obamas-proposal-to-raise-the-minimum-wage-the-most-anti-black-law-in-the-land/
Pocahontas is on a tear fighting against the man, too bad she didn’t build that.
The point that’s being missed here is that Warren’s proposal makes sense to a lot of people.
That’s the bad part. The good part is that there are at least two solutions to the redistributionary minimum wage: –pay people by the job as contractors —with 1099′s.
Or as you like, without 1099′s.
We do that with Mexicans. The same “under the mesa” model is transferable to Americans and the advantage is that citizen workers can’t be deported.
.
….Just keepin’ one step ahead of our duly-elected imbeciles.
Skyfall, Fox News is well on its way to joining the rest of the liberal media. Bill Really is simply unwatchable.
I highly recommend “The Blaze.” It is on channel 212 on Dish Network and you can watch it on line. Fox Business is the next best thing to watch.
BTW….why is it that liberals never make the connection between wages and prices? Pay a minimum wage of $22.00 per hour and you will have a hard time feeding your family at McDonalds for $100.00
It is a little alarming to see a number of left wing blogs and websites praise Senator Warren for debunking “right-wing talking points”, like the laws of economics.
I watched the Senator talking at the hearings. Her point was that if you increased the minimum wage to match the increase in productivity then the American worker would be earning $22 an hour. This is compared from 1960 to now.
Instead of increasing pay to the workers the corporations took the increase in productivity and kept the money.
.
Fauxahontas faked an Indian Heritage to get hired as a Professor of Law at Harvard. Not bad for a Rutgers grad.
All the biggest Moonbats seem to have spent some time inside the Nexus at Harvard Law. And, like Fauxahontas, others like the wonderchild, for instance, seem to have gotten access based on a claimed ethnicity bonus rather than actual achievement.
So of course it stands to reason that people like Fauxahontas and Obama would say that:
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. … You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
Because neither of them – and many others like them – ever held a real job or produced anything of value, besides raising the ratings on the Oprah Winfrey Show.
Just because THEY got Affirmative Action help all their lives with THEIR careers doesn’t mean that the rest of us also did!!!!
.
Canadian Observer says:
March 20, 2013 at 4:01 am
–
Oh yes the EEEEEEVIL corporations! They invested in better machines and automation and signed NAFTA and all the other garbage which enabled other countries which rely on cheap labor to flood our markets with incredibly cheap – albeit often shoddy – products.
So you libs want to pay workers in the US $22/hr while importing goods from countries where workers are paid $22/mo.
WOW. Liberal Logic 101.
Looks like Fauxahontas has passed you a peace pipe full of medical marijuana..
.
Canadian Observer:
Submorons buying into the “corporations are evil” meme, constantly perpetuated by liberals, would naturally buy into Fauxcahontas’ economics.
Its the culture of stupidity in which we have been forced to live.
There is no room for Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand philosophy as long as we get to substitute the BO/Kenseyan talking points of “you didn’t build that.. ”
Corporations are the economy, idiot.
Canadian Observer says:
March 20, 2013 at 4:01 am
–
What other countries besides Japan were producing cheap goods sold in the USA in 1960, MORON?!
Bill CLINTON [ D ] signed NAFTA.
.
.
“Failure to raise the minimum wage is the cause of more misery and unemployment than anything since the Great Depression.”
- Ronald Reagan
Yeah. Just sayin.
The real reason the socialists insist on raising minimum wage has diddly to do with those who make minimum wage. . . and EVERYTHING to do with their union goon squads who’s contracts are tied to minimum wage.
@as always lying,
The quote comes from Mr. Walter Mondale, Dem, who supposedly heard it from Reagan. It has been “quoted” a number of times since then. But the only “source” for the quote was Mr. Walter. The New York Times since then “verified” the quote. But we know Democrats and NYT always tell the truth… always. (sarc off).
@Canadian Observer,
You should take with a grain of salt the words of a Senator who claimed to have Indian ancestry, but was exposed to be a fraud and protested even by the Indians, from who she hid and refused to meet with. In fact her ancestors killed Indians and sent them on trail of Tears. There is a reason she’s called Fauxcahontas.
Here are the real life affect of min wage-poverty and unemployment.
This is the bit I do not understand (maybe one of you super-intelligent individuals can help).
Members of the Walton family (of Wal-Mart fame) represent 5 of the 10 wealthiest people in America. Yet they pay their workers so little that we (taxpayers) have to make up the difference, in terms of food stamps, healthcare, etc. WalMart provides none of that… we pay for that. When you get that TV a buck cheaper at WalMart… you aren’t actually getting that TV a buck cheaper.
So – here’s the bit that makes no sense – if we force WalMart (and the rest) to pay what amounts to a living wage… we would actually save a shitload of cash for the rest of us. We might have to pay a little more for a McDonalds cheeseburger or a crappy TV, but that is more than made up for by the massive decrease in government dependency. The cost throughput really is minor – a dime on a cheeseburger or a buck on a TV is easily worth it to get people self-sufficient.
Are we in favor of decreased government dependency? I kinda thought that was the entire goal of the modern conservative ‘thing’. Government dependency bad, self-sufficiency good.
Historically, when the minimum wage was high relative to its current level, the middle class thrived, the economy grew, and a much smaller subset of Americans needed government benefits. All of which seem like… good things.
I visited Walmart three times and that was three times too many. On the last occasion, I stood at the jewelry counter for ten minutes and was ignored. Two employees behind the counter were engaged in conversation and both looked directly at me but never lifted a finger to ask if they could help. No, there were no other customers at the counter (understandably). The way I hear it, jobs at Walmart are meant to be entry level. Hopefully, one learns some basic work ethic then moves on to a better paying job and more responsibility. Nobody is going to pay $22.00/hr to slugs like those I encountered at Walmart. In fact, in my opinion those deadwoods are not worth the minimum wage they are being paid. Who gives a damn what the Waltons are worth? If you don’t like Walmart, don’t shop or work there.
Having been spanked on one topic, ‘as always lying’ moves on to another. The latter having been already answered does not deter the troll from repeating it. One is tempted to blame public education for producing such lack of comprehension. But then once again, how else will the likes of Obama get votes if not from the humans turned into mindless sheepies?
“Who gives a damn what the Waltons are worth?”
Um… me. And you should, too. Because your ass is paying for healthcare and food stamps and whatever else for those fools. And you are apparently OK with that set of circumstances. I am not. I want the WMs and McDonalds of the world to pay a living wage and get those people on the Walton’s bill instead of mine. And I am less concerned with the ‘welfare’ of the richest people on earth making still more money.
Instead of concerning yourself with others business why don’t you start your own company and pay whatever you want. I’m not stopping you. Good luck, I hope it works out for you.
Constructive. Way to really contribute to the conversation.
I am still correct. You… are an idiot. Nothing new there.
This is what a insane Communist looks like!
jarhead – you are suggesting that the minimum wage itself equals communism? The “greatest generation”, Eisenhower, Reagan, all the rest… communists?
Do you ever listen to yourself talk and wonder at the crazy that comes out?
Picking up a box and running it across a laser scanner is not a skill worthy of $22 per hour… unless you reduce the value of $22. As has been suggested before Always, spend less time whining about the Waltons, open a store and start paying people your “living wage”. If you are so concerned about people on assistance, shut-up and do something about it.
.
Hey, lib! One of our guys just straightened u out on that purported “Reagan Quote” being from Mondale.
As for Walmart, I had no problems with their employees at their Toms River store.
Interesting the libs is worried about the food stamps Walmart employees may or may not be getting, while no such huffing is heard about ILLEGAL ALIENS getting food stamps and MUCH MORE.
Hey lib, when u start bellyaching about ur government ADVERTISING food stamps in Mexico, come back and see us.
Till then..
.
as always,
Let me give this a try (I’ll generously assume you haven’t overstated the issue):
Suppose all WalMart employees are subsidized on their jobs by the state (confiscatory taxation) to pay for healthcare and food stamps.
The problem does not then simply redirect to WalMart (loathsome as the company is). Rather the problem is with the government providing those subsidies (paid for through confiscatory taxation).
Businesses are in the business of making money and to do so they are also in the business of solving problems that impede that goal. So if the state comes along and says, ‘here’s a pot of money’, then WalMart is going to use that pot of money. (duh)
And then yes, the money they save on those subsidies (stolen money) are now in the form of revenues that can be used to reduce the charge for your disgusting bacteria-collecting plastic Gator shoes.
But if the subsidies to WalMart were ended, you are not automatically going to get a boat-load of money from tax-savings.
When WalMart starts to pay their employees more–you are going to get charged more AND have taxes taken from you for the next socialist government project.
The problem is with a government that takes money and then redistributes it in order to grow a dependent class of submoronic voting leeches.
This means that the WalMart employee is just another state-dependent tattooed mouth-breather who happens to be making money from the government (taxes) but which are in effect, being administrated by WalMart. If in fact, instead of sopping up state funds, it would be better for the leech to get a different job.
Your problem isn’t with WalMart; it is with government providing a budget line item for a business.
No.
Let me rephrase: you do I think, have a problem with WalMart —ie., its owners.
Otherwise known as class envy.
However, you should keep in mind that it isn’t class envy that makes you stupid.
Its stupidity that makes you envious.
Fiberal –
So you want a society that is just a free-for-all? No taxes, no social safety net of any sort? Starve in the streets, and go fuck yourself?
I disagree. I kinda like what we have. Even though I pay more than twice the tax rate of Mittens and his ilk, I don’t see senior citizens dying in the streets or poor people starving in the gutter. Which from my point of view is actually a positive.
So here’s the bit you aren’t getting: WM can easily afford to increase the wage they pay. People could live on the money they make from working. The issue is that since we don’t have any disincentive (in the form of those ‘confiscatory taxes’ you decry) to prevent truly insane greed, the Waltons of the world keep it all – and get the GOP to prevent anyone making them pay a living wage. Imagine if you will a world where the Waltons only had 1 billion dollars, and every WM employee shared the 19 billion. Is that world really so awful to you? Yet they do not. Altruism is not real. Therefore, we have to make a choice – 1) we let people starve in the streets, or 2) we provide food stamps and such… on the backs of the rest of the taxpayers.
If there were a living wage mandated (as has often been the case – I find it unlikely that you would call postwar America a communist collective) WalMart could not raise prices much without hurting their bottom line, so the money would simply come from the gigantic profits of the parent company. Maybe the Waltons wouldn’t make $100 million a month, but they would still be doing ok (I promise)… and hordes of people would suddenly have the ability to feed and house themselves without the government. Plus, spending increases, consumer demand increased… an upward spiral. Which you see as… bad?
I can see that you are not going to ‘get’ this, which is fine… but keep in mind that the insanely wealthy genuinely don’t give a shit about you, or me, or the US economy at large. They care only about themselves, and are leaving us to pick up the pieces. And they have somehow brainwashed you and the rest of the GOP to carry their water. Seriously… which of these seems healthier: a large and prosperous middle class, or twelve people with all the money and 300 million with nothing, dependent on government? We can fix it. Really can. All we have to do is do what we have done before and mandate a living wage.
as always,
You are making two big mistakes here:
1. I don’t need the insanely wealthy to give a s**t about me bc I am one of those insanely wealthy.
(But I am philanthropic— I understand how the destitute want the government or someone to take care of them).
.
2. The other mistake you’re making is the one that all economically-illiterate people make.
Which is to say that you work under the illusion that there is a finite pool of money. That’s simply not the case. Money is fluid. Corporations come and go; wealthy individuals lose their money. People without money can make money (in a capitalist system).
Money becomes even more fluid with a growing economy.
But the idea of a growing economy is not particularly understandable to those laboring under liberalism which teaches that wealth is only the product of conspiracies between the powerful.
Money represents a contract between individuals for goods and services exchanged. For liberals, money represents a resource to be shared.
Wealth is generally obtainable for problem solvers. It goes back to the fundamental principle of individualism. You become most capable when there are fewer obstacles. True. But there are progressively fewer obstacles when you start making money.
Its only when people wallow in a collective that no one even gets on the track.
And it doesn’t sound to me like you can even buy a pair of tennis shoes.
Fiberal –
There is a finite pool of money, in a very real way. WalMart (or whatever corporate entity) has revenues of X. That is a finite value. The way in which that X is allocated is what we are discussing. You seem fine with the idea that one person can take 99% of X, and leave the 1% remaining for everyone else… regardless of the social cost of that decision on the rest of us. Do you really not get that?
After all, if a gigantic pile of money is the only way you measure your value, you will naturally make all decisions based on your own interest. If that means you have everything, and I have to pay for the food stamps while you take a private jet to the Ferrari store… what do you care? If people really are actually going hungry – like 3rd world hungry … what do you care? You got yours. If a man can work a 40-hour week and not afford to feed and shelter himself… what do you care? You got yours. And then the government has to step in (or, we let people actually die in the streets. Because when I think “America” I naturally think starvation in the streets. Right?)
It is that ‘i’ve got mine and i don’t care about the rest of you’ attitude that gives capitalism a bad rap.
(Aside: I am from an insanely wealthy family. I work on Wall Street. I have degrees in math and economics. I am not remotely an uneducated consumer. You are just the exact definition of self-interested capitalist douchebag who cares not at all about a healthy society as long as you personally get whatever you want. I disagree with that worldview. Just sayin’.)
ass always:
Wages are determined by the market. If you flood the country with, let’s say 11 million workers of basically Zero skill; Wal-Mart can pick and choose, they can pay next to nothing, but because people need jobs -they will work for those wages. Dry up that pool of inexpensive labor and wages will Have to rise, as Wal Mart has to offer more competitive wages in order to attract workers. Simple.
Next: If you force Wal Mart to pay workers far more than they are worth, what happens? Wal Mart simply passes the additional cost on to the customers, in the form of higher prices -more inflation = less purchasing power for those ‘extra’ dollars per hour. Even worse; those of us who worked very hard to get into the upper level wage brackets of the blue collar industries are punished, because Our wages do not go up, but Prices sure in the hell will.
You have a degree in Economics?!?!? For the love of god, sue your professors and the schools you attended; you are an abyssmal, clueless failure as an economist.
A ‘giant pile of money’ -really? What builds those new stores? What builds the new widget stamping machines that increase productivity? What goes to pay workers and taxes during the 3/4 of a year when retailers and manufacturers Aren’t making money hand over fist?
Do you even know why the Friday after Thanksgiving is called Black Friday? Mr. Uber-Economist?
It is because Black Friday is the first day of the year in which retailers and manufacturers actually start to see a profit.
The first quarter, from Jan 1 until April 15, for every person who works and for every business -all of tht money earned goes straught to the Federal Reserve Bank through the IRS. The second and third quarters of the year cover wages, lihghts, rent, water, utilities etc.
All of these liabilities are (in theory) paid off by Thanksgiving, and from there until the end of the year is All the Profit Any Company can expect to actually Make for the year. For the WHOLE YEAR, only five or six weeks of profit actually go into this ‘big pile of money’ you imagine.
Like I said, sue your school and your professors, because you know NOTHING about economics.
TANSTAAFL
Oh and as for the assertion that you pay more than “Mittens and his ilk”; Really?
First off, he paid the highest tax bracket on his income in the first place; then he invested what was left and paid the taxes Again on any money That earned (the famous 15% you think is sooooo unfair.) But let’s just take the 15% number you are so fixated on. That still adds up to over 2.5 MIllion dollars every year. At a guess, that is about ten times what you, your family, plus all their friends and their families will pay. And he is just one person. How is that ‘fair’? He breathes the same air, has the same ‘freedoms’, yet pays many many hundred times more in taxes.
So, instead of sticking his money under the mattress (with No additional taxes paid, because he already paid the income tax, which in some states adds up to almost HALF of his initial earnings) he makes ‘evil’ investments -he picks companies he feels are being well run and Invests money into them, allowing improvements in machinery, hiring of new workers, buying of new truck fleets etc. His money goes out into the world and helps Improve the economy -for which he pays the additional millions in taxes.
Only leftist, brainwashed people with less mental ability than a retarded cockroach would look at a system where 10% of this country pays 90% of the taxes and demand that they pay MORE and claim it is their ‘fair share’.
as always,
I work on Wall Street. I have degrees in math and economics. —-you don’t have to apologize to me.
(BTW did you say “work” on Wall Street, or “occupy”?)
If it is your view that there is a finite pool of money, you should re-take some of your classes in economics. (But probably not at the same community college).
I say this as an interested party with the hope that your work on WS will someday become productive.
Here’s my gratuitous advice to help you understand the contemporary illusions under which you suffer: Always assume that the first principles of liberalism are wrong — bc they are.
If you start to question all your first principles and the core beliefs that defines your intellect (“People are dying in the street because of WalMart…AAaaah!!!”) you can’t go wrong.
.
Individualism has merit. When an individual works for himself, in his own interest, he manages to become a better person. He is able to focus energies on less mundane preoccupations — such as from where will my next cigarette come from?
The individualist, whether wealthy or not, comes to elevate life.
He is able to create a better civilization by freeing himself of vermin. Regardless of species. And in doing so sets the stage for others to follow as free thinkers, unshackled by the infinite concerns of parasitic groups.
And if defeated, he will drink the government-issued hemlock in the company of people who have benefited by his efforts.
Importantly, the individualist cannot become predatory in the way the state practices predation on whole populations. The individual cannot coerce whole populations. He cannot even coerce another individualist. In fact he cannot coerce anyone at all if all other persons are also individualists.
The individualist cannot use corporal power to diminish generations, as have governments done throughout history.
In contrast, were an individual so inclined, (through pathology), he can only succeed in coercing whole populations if the population is kept ignorant, miserable and diseased. And critically, he must have the complicity of a collectivist government to accomplish such predatory goals.
But that’s what governments do… they work to obtain and maintain power by repressing individualism.
Individualism has to be regulated.
The collective must convince the collectivist that his real interest is in the people (in the abstract) and that this is an imperative. His interest is only the good of the people – but the “people” become what philosophers refer to as the nonexistent “them”. Both collectivist and the people he collects must believe this.
The collective has to prevent the collectivist from realizing that he is actually a hypocrite passing off phony virtues, that are inevitably accompanied by fraud. This has to be taught until the collectivist comes to realize that phony virtues and fraud exist as the only path to power.
Then the collectivist makes his living by finding villains who have committed “greed”. Class warfare is noble. And passion substitutes for analysis. Whoever is the most “offended” wins.
.
(Personally, what concerns me is how easy it is for the collective to recruit its members by dangling cheap, petty baubles.)
Speaking as a Massachusetts resident sadly Elizabeth Warren is a much better representative of the majority of the moonbats that live in this backwards state than Scott Brown ever was. It’s ridiculous but that’s just how crazy people are here. Citizens that live in more moderate states just don’t understand, it’s like a different country.
And as this link fades into the archives, I will naturally take “as always’s” sudden silence as enlightened submission.
And another one down and another one gone and a moron bites the dust…bum, bum, bum…bum, bum bumty bum.
Volkswagen made 11.1 Billion in profit in 2012. they paid their emplyees a bonus of 7200 Euro each. They have 100,000 workers, and they are spending 10 percent of the profits for the year on bonuses linked to productivity.
http://www.carsession.com/car-news/volkswagen-to-pay-7200-euros-performance-bonus-for-every-employee.html
As an individualist, is this a bad decision? Should the stockholders complain that the board members are wasting money?
If businesses do not see themselves as having to pay a living wage to every employee, and the employees are forced to seek out assistance from the government for food stamps. What sort of society are you hoping to build? The “I got mine so don’t bother me.” seems a tad Darwinistic to me.
I’ve read that between 40 to 50 percent of american families now qualify as low income or in need of assistance at some point in the year. Romney’s 47 percent comment that they don’t pay income tax is because they don’t make enough to have to pay, that seems to be the point he is missing.
So if a business, be it Wal-Mart or a small store opened by an independent does not pay a worker enough to get by on, is that business not cheating everyone else out of tax money in order to subsidize their workforce?
Large companies are registering offshore in order to not pay taxes, others try not to pay state tax, despite benefiting from the roads and services those taxes would support.
I am all for making a profit, but reading the comments on this and other boards, it seems like some folks want a return to indentured servitude or worse.
Henry Ford paid high wages to reduce turnover in order to increase productivity. With the extra money his employees could afford to buy his cars, and he increased sales.
Today temp agencies are the standard in a lot of industries. Transient labour, short work terms, no benefits.
So in all. What is your vision of society? If half your workers are barely making ends meet. What do you want to do to fix that?
Canadian,
Do you read well in English?
Try again.
HAHAHA love all of the wannabe responses. I am still obviously correct. Not one of you managed to refute the central thesis – that We The People are picking up the tab for people who would be much more reasonably compensated from the profits of their parent companies. It is kinda not refute-able… because it is obviously true. Higher minimum wage = more middle class people = better economy at large = rising tide lifting all boats. This ain’t rocket science.
You act like somehow the accumulation of wealth is literally the only variable. You ignore any and all social costs underlying that foundation. And then have the balls to take your inability to do math and use it to defend your position. Awesome sauce.
So… who is the bad economist? The one who ignores all externalities and reaches the conclusion he decided on before thinking through the variables, or the one who actually thinks through the entire variable set and reaches a conclusion after thinking?
Yeah. I thought so. As always.
(Nice work CanadianObserver. Approve of your ability to think. You represent the ‘thinking about stuff’ subset that is wildly underrepresented around here.)
Ass always;
Maybe you are simply too obtuse to understand what I said, but if you raise minimum wage, EVERY OTHER DAMN PRICE GOES UP WITH INSTANT INFLATION. You Punish every other worker through higher prices, which (guess what) steals the VALUE of what THEY EARN. And within months if not days, those earning minimum wage end up with EXACTLY THE SAME BUYING POWER THEY ALREADY HAD WHILE EVERY OTHER PERSON IS PUNISHED WITH LOWERED BUYING POWER.
Like I said, sue your school; you obviously know NOTHING about economics, macro or micro.