Zero2Cool
11 years ago
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
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
11 years ago
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.




And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
11 years ago
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.
UserPostedImage
texaspackerbacker
11 years ago

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.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



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.
Rockmolder
11 years ago

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.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



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.

wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
11 years ago

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.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 



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.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
11 years ago

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?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 


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.



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.)


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
digsthepack
11 years ago
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!"
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
11 years ago

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

Originally Posted by: digsthepack 



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.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (6-Jun) : Semper fi !
Cheesey (6-Jun) : This is why I have so much respect for those that have gone through battles
Cheesey (6-Jun) : I can't even imagine what that would have been like
wpr (6-Jun) : "Come on, you sons of bitches. Do you want to live forever?"
wpr (6-Jun) : Facing a line of machine guns 2 time medal of Honor recipient, First Sergeant Dan Daly told his men,
wpr (6-Jun) : Another detachment went into the Belleau Wood.
wpr (6-Jun) : On the 6th the Marines took Hill 142 but suffered terrible losses.
wpr (6-Jun) : It’s time to remember dfoster’s Marine brothers in Belleau Wood. The battle went on from June 1-26. Nearly 10,000 casualties.
packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : Nick Collins and Morgan Burnett have signed with the PACK
packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : he won't be wearing #12, maybe he will wear number two
packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : He will fail this season, should have retired
Mucky Tundra (5-Jun) : Thus the cycle of Hall of Fame Packer QBs going to the Jets and then the Vikings is broken
bboystyle (5-Jun) : Rodgers to steelers on 1 year contract
Zero2Cool (5-Jun) : It's the cycle of civilizations. Get lazier, lazier, softer, softer and vanish.
Martha Careful (5-Jun) : great point. every aspect of society, including art, culture and sports has degraded.
dfosterf (4-Jun) : Green Bay sweep meant something to society about stopping pure excellence. We have the tush push now
dfosterf (4-Jun) : We old Martha.
Martha Careful (4-Jun) : *front four
Martha Careful (4-Jun) : Re frout four, I wish we had some Green "People Eaters" or a fearsome foursome
dfosterf (4-Jun) : *directions*
dfosterf (4-Jun) : Just don't ask him for driving direct
dfosterf (4-Jun) : Jim Marshall was an all-time great DE for the Purple People Eaters. Didn't like him. That's a compliment. RIP
Zero2Cool (3-Jun) : ooppppss
Zero2Cool (3-Jun) : “Kenny Clark played all of last season hurt by the way and got surgery to fix it in January”
Mucky Tundra (3-Jun) : @ByRyanWood How much did the injury affect him last fall? “A lot.”
Mucky Tundra (3-Jun) : @ByRyanWood Kenny Clark said he had foot surgery in January. Injured his foot in opener against Eagles and played through it all year.
Zero2Cool (3-Jun) : Golden is wearing guardian cap again. I bet he plays with it on too.
Mucky Tundra (3-Jun) : All the stuff I'm reading from Lions fans are pointing at his toe; he more or less has permanent turf toe in one of his big toes
dfosterf (3-Jun) : Kenny played through it, and a shame he gets little credit for that, imo
dfosterf (3-Jun) : Big men. I hope it's not the undoing of Kenny Clark
dfosterf (3-Jun) : Probably his toe. Pretty much a great center. Toe injuries are brutal to bigen
Mucky Tundra (2-Jun) : Lions All-Pro C Frank Ragnow retires
wpr (30-May) : It's all good.
beast (30-May) : Yeah, and I enjoyed your comments and just attempted to add to it. Sorry if I did it incorrectly.
wpr (30-May) : Beast I never said Henderson was the salt of the earth. Nor even that he was correct. Just quoting the guy.
Zero2Cool (29-May) : What did you do??
Zero2Cool (29-May) : Whoa
beast (29-May) : OMG the website is now all white, even some white on white text
beast (29-May) : Henderson, who admits to taking cocaine during the Super Bowl against the Steelers, might dislike Bradshaw as he lost two Superbowls to him
wpr (28-May) : Hollywood Henderson said Bradshaw “is so dumb, he couldn't spell 'cat' if you spotted him the C and an A.”
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : Cooper stock=BUY BUY BUY
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : Also notes he’s playing with more confidence.
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : @AndyHermanNFL MLF says there was a time last year where Cooper was at 220 pounds. Now he’s at 240 and still flying around.
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : And don't even get me started on Frank Caliendos "impersonations"
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : I got tired of them being circle jerks with them overlaughing at each others jokes.
Zero2Cool (28-May) : It used to be must watch TV for me. now it's "meh" maybe to hear injury update
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : I haven't watched the pregame shows in years and I don't feel like I've missed a thing
Zero2Cool (28-May) : Love says knee affected him all season, groin injury didn't help matters.
Zero2Cool (28-May) : I used to enjoy him on FOX Pregame. Now it's like a frat party of former Patriots.
Zero2Cool (28-May) : LaFleur on Watson: “Christian is doing outstanding. I would say he’s ahead of schedule.”
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
7-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

6-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

1-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

27-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

27-May / Random Babble / Martha Careful

24-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

23-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

21-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.