Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Zero2Cool  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6:57:26 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 25,628
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,833
Applause Received: 1,986

Apparently there are some rumblings about the President wanting to raise minimum wage. I feel this is one of the most stupid ass things that could be done. Raising minimum wage never fixes any economical issue. It can also inhibit small businesses opportunity to get going.

If an employer has to pay more to its employee's for menial work, that means they will have to charge more for their services and/or products. How does this solve any economical issue?

If they raise minimum wage, are they going to force these employers from raising prices?


Take a look at Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. He tells his employees they would not get raises because of the bank’s multi-billion-dollar legal fees. Guess who nailed a 74% raise? If you said Jamie Dimon, you were right.

Minimum wage isn't the problem. It's the greedy ass corporate pricks raking in millions and millions while they already have hundreds of millions in the bank.

CEO's deserve to be heavily compensated, not disputing that. But if I have $200 million in the bank, my family and great grand-kids are covered. I'll be damned if you'd catch me NOT giving my employee's raises and then accept any kind of raise that same year.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
thanks Post received 2 applause.
Wade on 1/28/2014(UTC), wpr on 1/28/2014(UTC)
Sponsor
Offline Wade  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:11:40 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,762
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 629
Applause Received: 647

How's this for a proposal? A public corporation can pay its executives whatever it wishes. However, put a maximum on the amount of that salary ($5 million/year, say) that the executive can save.

That way, even though the greedy bastard gets to be a conspicuous consumer, it puts the money back into the economy. It may not help the poor schmuck who works for that corporation, but it helps the other sellers and the people who work for them.

Then, at the same time, limit to that same $5 million amount the executive compensation per person that said corporation can treat as a tax-reducing "expense". Or perhaps not allow expensing of any compensation of vice presidents and above.

Finally, make the benefits of incorporation (i.e., limited liability, unlimited life, separate personhood) only available to public companies. If you want to run your own business and build your wealth to the size of Nathan Rothschild's or Andrew Carnegie's, you can only do so if you are willing to forego those benefits. If those benefits matter to you, then you deal with the compensation restrictions.



None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 1/28/2014(UTC)
Offline wpr  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:19:08 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 12,329
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,734
Applause Received: 1,310

Min wage rates contribute to unemployment.

IL has the 6th highest min wage and the 3rd highest unemployment.

edit- Rhode Island and Nevada have some of the highest min wages and employment rates too.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

thanks Post received 1 applause.
Wade on 1/28/2014(UTC)
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:24:08 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Posts: 2,527
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 388
Applause Received: 224

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
How's this for a proposal? A public corporation can pay its executives whatever it wishes. However, put a maximum on the amount of that salary ($5 million/year, say) that the executive can save.

That way, even though the greedy bastard gets to be a conspicuous consumer, it puts the money back into the economy. It may not help the poor schmuck who works for that corporation, but it helps the other sellers and the people who work for them.

Then, at the same time, limit to that same $5 million amount the executive compensation per person that said corporation can treat as a tax-reducing "expense". Or perhaps not allow expensing of any compensation of vice presidents and above.

Finally, make the benefits of incorporation (i.e., limited liability, unlimited life, separate personhood) only available to public companies. If you want to run your own business and build your wealth to the size of Nathan Rothschild's or Andrew Carnegie's, you can only do so if you are willing to forego those benefits. If those benefits matter to you, then you deal with the compensation restrictions.



For being a Libertarian, you sure come up with some damn creative government regulations. Don't you think the investors who own the corporation should have the right to pay their employee - the CEO - whatever the hell they please? Why would they go against the financial interest of the corporation they own by paying the CEO more than they think his talent is worth? And who are we to complain about it? Do we even have a dog in the hunt?

As for minimum wage, indeed it does increase unemployment - thereby harming a lot of the people it is supposed to help. I would expect there to be a slight Keynesian positive effect, however, as increased money in the hands of those who would be likely to use it on consumer goods would multiply. That would outweigh the lost income of those losing jobs, as sooner or later, they would be employed again, in addition to receiving unemployment compensation. The overall benefit of increasing the minimum wage, therefore, would be pretty much a wash, maybe slightly beneficial.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Rockmolder  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, January 29, 2014 4:16:35 AM(UTC)
Rockmolder

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2010

Netherlands
Posts: 6,359
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 147
Applause Received: 237

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
Min wage rates contribute to unemployment.

IL has the 6th highest min wage and the 3rd highest unemployment.

edit- Rhode Island and Nevada have some of the highest min wages and employment rates too.


So how about Vermont or Montana?

I can imagine that there's a correlation between minimum wage and unemployed, but so many thing factor in that it seems rather silly to keep the minimum wage at a level where it's next to impossible to live on.

That raising the minimum wage would result in a one-on-one raise in costs doesn't fly for me, either. Firstly, it's only the companies who bank heavily on underpaid employees. If you're making just a couple of bucks an hour right now, you shouldn't be worried about McDonald's raising its prices on hamburgers by a couple of cents, you should cook some regular food for yourself.

I somewhat like your proposal, Wade, but the government coming in and telling you how much money you can put aside and save for yourself per year seems like a bigger encroachment on your freedom than raising minimum wage. I know this sounds rather double, but I'd rather see it taxed more effectively.

UserPostedImage
Offline wpr  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:48:14 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 12,329
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,734
Applause Received: 1,310

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder Go to Quoted Post
So how about Vermont or Montana?

I can imagine that there's a correlation between minimum wage and unemployed, but so many thing factor in that it seems rather silly to keep the minimum wage at a level where it's next to impossible to live on.

That raising the minimum wage would result in a one-on-one raise in costs doesn't fly for me, either. Firstly, it's only the companies who bank heavily on underpaid employees. If you're making just a couple of bucks an hour right now, you shouldn't be worried about McDonald's raising its prices on hamburgers by a couple of cents, you should cook some regular food for yourself.

I somewhat like your proposal, Wade, but the government coming in and telling you how much money you can put aside and save for yourself per year seems like a bigger encroachment on your freedom than raising minimum wage. I know this sounds rather double, but I'd rather see it taxed more effectively.



I knew someone would comment on my post. Rocky i am sorry I don;t have time to do a state by state annalist. If you would have read my post closely I said it contributes not that it is the sole reason. If you run the whole list you will see in general the states with higher min wages tend to be the ones with higher unemployment. It is a generalization.

ILL has a lot of things that make for unemployment. The state government is run by the Democrats and unions and they have screwed up so many things for 20 + years business is fleeing to the South and Southwest in droves leaving the people looking for work.

Workers Compensation premiums and benefits are some of the highest in the nation.
We have the 2nd highest flat rate income tax.

The 10th highest sales tax rate.

The State run pensions are so bad even the legislators are admitting something has to be done about them. They don't know what to do but they have to make some harsh cuts.

The state pays child support to children who live in other states. The list goes on and on.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

thanks Post received 1 applause.
Wade on 1/29/2014(UTC)
Offline Wade  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:51:19 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,762
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 629
Applause Received: 647

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
For being a Libertarian, you sure come up with some damn creative government regulations. Don't you think the investors who own the corporation should have the right to pay their employee - the CEO - whatever the hell they please? Why would they go against the financial interest of the corporation they own by paying the CEO more than they think his talent is worth? And who are we to complain about it? Do we even have a dog in the hunt?


Technically, I'm an anarchist not a libertarian, but the point is made.

Sure, the investors can do what they want. I didn't prohibit larger salaries (the more usual proposal). I merely limited the amount of a deduction for those salaries. The investors can do what they want, but they aren't "entitled" to a tax deduction.

[One might argue that they shouldn't be taxed at all, but that's another debate for another day.]

Personally, I would entirely get rid of the grant of extra legal rights that come with use of the corporate organizational form (limited liability, etc.) that ultimately enables such excesses. But no one will ever go for that.

But the real social problem with executive salaries is not the amount, and its not that no one should earn income that high for what they do (as you say, if shareholders think its worth it, it's worth it). The real social problem is the excessive distribution of wealth that occurs as a result. Every dollar that an executive consumes ensures that part of his/her income gets shared with the producers of the goods he/she consumes. While that also happens when the executive buys more capital assets, the capital investment also serves to further skew the wealth distribution by virtue of compound interest. My proposal would merely limit the amount of new wealth that the executive could gain the whole of that compounding gain to the return on investment from $5 million a year. If the executive wants to get a bigger compounding gain, he's going to have to risk his own pre-existing wealth not shift that risk to the shareholders who employ him or the people who the shareholders shift their risks to via the corporate form.

Quote:


As for minimum wage, indeed it does increase unemployment - thereby harming a lot of the people it is supposed to help. I would expect there to be a slight Keynesian positive effect, however, as increased money in the hands of those who would be likely to use it on consumer goods would multiply. That would outweigh the lost income of those losing jobs, as sooner or later, they would be employed again, in addition to receiving unemployment compensation. The overall benefit of increasing the minimum wage, therefore, would be pretty much a wash, maybe slightly beneficial.



I don't like minimum wage laws, and I think increasing it is a bad idea all around, for the reasons you and Zero and wpr have put forth.

Nor am I bothered by anyone getting paid all that they can get from a willing buyer, whether it's a CEO or a movie actor or a college/pro football player. Employment contracts are voluntary. No one has to pay if they don't want to, and if they pay, presumptively they see the benefit being greater than the amount paid.

On the other hand, I think there is a real danger that comes as the distribution of wealth becomes more and more skewed. That way lies feudalism and its bastard children, mercantilism and fascism. And those, to my mind are worse by orders of magnitude for the long run growth of economic prosperity, because with feudalism and mercantilism and fascism, economic success depends on on productivity but on power.

I'm not so naive that I believe that power can be taken out of the equation. That's why I'm a minarchist rather than a full-blown anarcho-capitalist. But I do believe it is possible to limit the importance of power.

And I believe that you don't limit power by direct regulation and prohibition. You do it by constitutional-type rules of the game that detach the incentives to pursue power and control from the incentives to increase productivity.

(I forgot to say that I would make my proposal one of constitutional amendment rather than mere statutory enactment. That would constrain both legislative action -- which is shaped by the degree of power to influence it, which the wealthy always have more of) and judicial action (the powers of corporations in America can be traced in significant part to the Supremes decision in Dartmouth College v Woodward way back in 1817). Changing tax rules just reinforces the importance of having the power to influence those who make tax rules. And the wealthy, who can always afford more $1000/hour lawyers and lobbyists are always going to have more of that power.)

None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline digsthepack  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:37:10 AM(UTC)
digsthepack

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 624
Joined: 8/11/2008(UTC)

Applause Received: 7

The minimum wage was never designed to provide a "liveable wage" to anyone, so the current argument/debate surrounding the issue is invalid in its confusion of the two. The minimum wage was designed to provide entry level incentive for new workers who enter the marketplace with the understanding that it is not where they would stay if incentive and dedication to one's task was displayed.

At best, and historically, the minimum wage was designed to allow teenage boys (and girls) the resources to buy gas for cruising around town on the weekend, beer for shits and giggles, and condoms that will rot in their wallets before they ever get used.

Raise the minimum wage, and there will be a reduction in entry level jobs. Kinda counter intuitive to the goals stated for raising the minimum wage
State Motto: "Wisconsin, our serial murderers eat their kill!"
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 1/29/2014(UTC)
Offline wpr  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:10:02 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 12,329
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,734
Applause Received: 1,310

Originally Posted by: digsthepack Go to Quoted Post
The minimum wage was never designed to provide a "liveable wage" to anyone, so the current argument/debate surrounding the issue is invalid in its confusion of the two. The minimum wage was designed to provide entry level incentive for new workers who enter the marketplace with the understanding that it is not where they would stay if incentive and dedication to one's task was displayed.

At best, and historically, the minimum wage was designed to allow teenage boys (and girls) the resources to buy gas for cruising around town on the weekend, beer for shits and giggles, and condoms that will rot in their wallets before they ever get used.

Raise the minimum wage, and there will be a reduction in entry level jobs. Kinda counter intuitive to the goals stated for raising the minimum wage


It reminds me of Social Security and its evolution. Originally it was never meant to be the retirement plan that people lived off of. Now people and the Govt moan and groan about the benefits all the time.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error



Recent Topics
21m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

4h / Random Babble / Pack93z

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

21h / Random Babble / DakotaT

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / musccy

22-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Wade

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dulak

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Jul / Random Babble / dhazer

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Tezzy


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.