$15 dollars an hour for the minimum wage?

[stamperben]

So the rest of us would have to pay more then?

Small business are going to have to raise prices more than a big box store like Wal-Mart. Wal-Marts and Targets have other areas they can make cuts to streamline to keep prices under control, "Average Joe's Grocery" isn't going to have that luxury.

More people are going to switch and shop at Wal-Mart which leaves the smaller grocery store hurting...hurting after they've just increased their labor costs on top of that. It'd be like a double whammy. The only way to keep their prices even somewhat competitive after a mandatory wage increase would be to fire 1/5 of their staff and have everyone else work extra to makeup the difference.

Is it safe to assume that these folks who demand a higher minimum wage are willing to increase the unemployment rate to get it?
(not to mention the increase like that is going to make outsourcing more tempting...but that's another topic)

Have you tried the sniff test?

There is no evidence to support the claim that a higher minimum wage will lead to less employment. Businesses can easily absorb a higher minimum wage—with a small price increase or a small reduction in already very high profits, for example. The argument that a higher minimum wage will be a job killer simply doesn’t pass the sniff test of basic economic arithmetic, and is contradicted by reams of serious economic research.

I don't know about you or anyone else here, but I'm more than willing to pay a slight bit more for what can be called the Common Good of society.

 

[MrLuther]

That depends on where you are. In small towns and rural areas, it is. In urban areas, it's borderline at best.

Then you do one of two things...or both:
1: You move
2: You get a better-paying job

Also: Are you going to start demanding different wages based on location? Demanding that some be paid more simply because of where they live? Their work is somehow worth more because of their place of residence?

(note that I do know that wages generally ARE higher in the cities, but that's not what we're talking about now. Now, we're talking about the legal minimum wage)

 

[1Sam15]

Then another greedy CEO who wants quality laborers will look at the more talented workers, and offer them a little more to jump ship and come work for him to improve his productivity numbers..

You DO realize that on a grand scale this isn't really how it works, right?

I work for a huge megacorp as a lower level research scientist. Our wages stagnated a while back and the corporate overlords told us that our wages were OK-fine because they were "benchmarked" against peer organizations.

So, in essence, if Company X stagnates their wages Company Y won't necessarily scoop up the disenchanted from X but rather stagnate their wages.

Yes there will be some mobility back and forth, but on a grand scale its jumping from one mess into another.

Meanwhile the C-suite is, regardless of profits of the company or stock price, raking in ever higher amounts of money.

The real telling issue is that in the past 30 years or so the rate of CEO compenstion/average worker compensation has skyrocketed. There is no reason for this regardless of how the company is doing.

Unless CEO's are now coming from a pool of super-beings who can do 300 times the amount of work of a line worker.

It's kind of odd, we would never have this conversation about a software company that pays a developer $70k instead of $80k...if a mediocre developer was in that situation, people would tell him "hey, either be happy with the $70,000, or work harder and get better at your job so you can get an offer from the place that pays $80,000.

This is an oversimplification of reality. The real workplace has a mix of competent people who are afraid to rock the boat and are kept stagnant but keep the boat afloat, "golden children" who simply because they are pretty or come from the right family get fast-tracked to a level of management that doesn't fit them, super-performers who actually DO get their just deserts and advance up the chain, and incompetent idiots who through inertia get moved into management positions.

Business politics are so noisy that to simplify it to this dream of what American USED to be is no longer meaningful.

It seems that the lower we go down the income totem pole, the more the conversation shifts from personal accountability to "what can the government do to get them more money?"

The reason for that is because the lower down the totem pole the less power the workers have. Someone needs to put a floor down because without it we return to the Gilded Age level of abuse of the disenfranchised and poor.

People also seem to focus more on the wage gap in situations where people are in lower level income jobs.

That's because from that perspective there's the most danger. You have a group of people unable to feed their families watching people who have so much money they literally cannot spend it in a single lifetime. History shows that that NEVER works out for those at the top.

And of course the FOMENT doesn't come from the top but rather the bottom.

You never hear anyone say "Hey, Bill Gates is raking in $3 Billion per year, but his software engineers only make $150k that's not fair!"

Because the $150K software engineer can probably live in his house or feed her family without having to get 2 other jobs just to stay alive.

...however, if the discussion were about a CEO who makes $1 million a year and his minimum wage workers, we'd be hearing about the wage disparity all day long. (even though the wage disparity between Gates and his engineers is much higher than the disparity between a $1M/year CEO and his minimum wage workers)

The difference being that almost no one can LIVE on minimum wage.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The obvious answer, then, is to not live in Boston, NY, or SF.

That's great. Now, what to do with the employers in those areas who want to pay minimum wage?

So the rest of us would have to pay more then?

Yes.

Small business are going to have to raise prices more than a big box store like Wal-Mart. Wal-Marts and Targets have other areas they can make cuts to streamline to keep prices under control, "Average Joe's Grocery" isn't going to have that luxury.

I am skeptical of this claim - it may be true, but it may not be. Big stores like WM and Target already operate at a high level of efficiency. WM is rather notorious for it. The small businesses I've seen actually have MUCH more room to improve efficiency than do the big businesses - whether or not they have the skill to identify those inefficiencies and act upon them is another matter.

The only way to keep their prices even somewhat competitive after a mandatory wage increase would be to fire 1/5 of their staff and have everyone else work extra to makeup the difference.

How does that save much money when the staff is paid hourly?

Is it safe to assume that these folks who demand a higher minimum wage are willing to increase the unemployment rate to get it?

I can't speak for others, but for me, it depends on what the impact on the unemployment rate will be.

(not to mention the increase like that is going to make outsourcing more tempting...but that's another topic)

Outsourcing is going to be tempting one way or another. Frankly, I'd rather not have slave wages here just so we can get our unemployment number low. That doesn't really fix anything.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Then you do one of two things...or both:
1: You move
2: You get a better-paying job

Again, that completely ignores that there are businesses in these areas offering low wages.

It also ignores the fact that moving can be incredibly difficult and expensive. Many people who live in cities don't have cars, and there are a lot of up front costs in renting an apartment. First month's rent + security deposit is the typical minimum amount. I've seen plenty that require first + last + security deposit (1 month's rent) + realtor fee (0.5-1 month's rent), which means that the renter could have to pony up 4 months' rent just to move in. Most people working on minimum wage aren't going to be able to float that.

Also: Are you going to start demanding different wages based on location? Demanding that some be paid more simply because of where they live? Their work is somehow worth more because of their place of residence?

(note that I do know that wages generally ARE higher in the cities, but that's not what we're talking about now. Now, we're talking about the legal minimum wage)

States already set their own minimum wages, and I've heard of a couple cities toying with doing the same thing.

But I'll be honest - I don't know what the best way to approach this is. The thing I worry about is mobility and wage hikes in the city pushing jobs outside the city limits.

But if we're going to talk about state-wide minimums, I am ok with state legislators setting their state-wide minimums based more on what it costs to live in the cities (where most of the people are) than on what it costs to live in the country.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You DO realize that on a grand scale this isn't really how it works, right?

I work for a huge megacorp as a lower level research scientist. Our wages stagnated a while back and the corporate overlords told us that our wages were OK-fine because they were "benchmarked" against peer organizations.

So, in essence, if Company X stagnates their wages Company Y won't necessarily scoop up the disenchanted from X but rather stagnate their wages.

Yes there will be some mobility back and forth, but on a grand scale its jumping from one mess into another.

I may depend on the field a person works in. I don't work in the field of research science...I can, however, say with certainty that in fields like tech, sales, medical, and marketing cherry picking via competing offers between orgs is regular occurrence.

The fields in which the cross stagnation could occur would be fields where companies that aren't in direct competition with other companies.

Speaking as someone who works in the tech field, I've seen companies roll out the red carpet for prospects (offer them what they currently make + 20K, offer to cover their moving expenses, etc...)...and having family & close friends in the medical and sales fields, the same can be said about those realms as well.

Meanwhile the C-suite is, regardless of profits of the company or stock price, raking in ever higher amounts of money.

The real telling issue is that in the past 30 years or so the rate of CEO compenstion/average worker compensation has skyrocketed. There is no reason for this regardless of how the company is doing.

Unless CEO's are now coming from a pool of super-beings who can do 300 times the amount of work of a line worker.

When you own something (whether it be your home or a company) you have a right to run it as you wish. This notion that physical working harder entitles you to someone else property (or a bigger piece of it) is inaccurate.

If you hire a contracted crew of workers come in to put an addition on your home are they entitled to come in and do whatever they want since they're technically "working harder on the project than you are"? I think not...

To your other comment about c-level wages increasing regardless of stock prices and company revenues...well if that's the case, then what you describe is a situation that will take care of itself. If numbers are down and the c-levels keep raising their own salaries, the company will either A) go under - leaving the C-level folks without a job ...or B) they'll hit the break point where they have no choice but to cut their own salaries to keep above water.

Companies have a finite amount of monetary resources so the notion that CEO will keep giving themselves raises forever even if their revenues are going down is a mathematical impossibility.

This is an oversimplification of reality. The real workplace has a mix of competent people who are afraid to rock the boat and are kept stagnant but keep the boat afloat, "golden children" who simply because they are pretty or come from the right family get fast-tracked to a level of management that doesn't fit them, super-performers who actually DO get their just deserts and advance up the chain, and incompetent idiots who through inertia get moved into management positions.

Business politics are so noisy that to simplify it to this dream of what American USED to be is no longer meaningful.

While the golden children and cases of nepotism still exist and always will, to say that those situations are common enough to ruin it for everyone else is an exaggeration.

In the US, 80% of millionaires are first generation wealthy. And in that 80% that are first generation, the average income is $247,000/year (close to 10% of those first generation millionaires have incomes over $500,000/year)
(This info provided by an article from the NY Times)

...so to say that nepotism undermines hard work and ingenuity wouldn't be true if looking at the majority of those in the workforce.

The reason for that is because the lower down the totem pole the less power the workers have. Someone needs to put a floor down because without it we return to the Gilded Age level of abuse of the disenfranchised and poor.

How much power should a person with no education and limited skills expect to have? Incomes, in almost all cases, are based on the rarity and/or complexity of the skill you bring to the table. If you're one of very few that can perform a certain task, you have leverage in the market. The flip side, if your skillset is such that you're no more qualified to do a job than an average 16 year old, you don't have much leverage.

The difference being that almost no one can LIVE on minimum wage.

Why is there an expectation that every job should pay enough to be considered a living wage? The harsh reality is that not every job is worth that much money. If we're talking fast food & retail jobs, people are in competition with teenagers and retired elderly looking to pass the time (who don't have the necessity for $40k/year)...so we're supposed to pay 16 year olds $40k/year just because a person of age 30 might end up working there?

People try to skew this fact by posting the average age of a fast food employee being 29...while this may be the average age, the large number of retirees who were there to pass the time skews the average.

When you walk into a McDonalds in the morning, you see a lot of people over 60 working, when you go in the evening, a large number of teenagers.

So while the average is technically 29, to use this average to try paint the picture that fast food & retail are flooded with 29 year olds making minimum wage is false. Are there a few? sure...but that's definitely not the majority.

Here's an article that may have some interesting discussion points.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Most of the rich people I know are MDs, not CEOs. I'd estimate that MDs outnumber large company CEOs by at least 10 to 1. You think doctors make too much?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Most of the rich people I know are MDs, not CEOs. I'd estimate that MDs outnumber large company CEOs by at least 10 to 1. You think doctors make too much?

Who are you talking to?

Either way, most doctors aren't really rich. Most are certainly upper middle class; some are beyond that. But I don't know too many doctors driving around in new Bentleys.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Who are you talking to?

Either way, most doctors aren't really rich. Most are certainly upper middle class; some are beyond that. But I don't know too many doctors driving around in new Bentleys.

What is your criteria for defining "rich"?

Heck, I could afford the payment on a Bentley if I really wanted to (I'm single with no kids, no real debt to speak of, and my rent payment is only $1079/month). If I really really wanted to, I could put $30k down and make a $2000/month car payment for the next six years...of course, I wouldn't have much leftover at the end of the month and I'd be eating canned tuna

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Who are you talking to?

Either way, most doctors aren't really rich. Most are certainly upper middle class; some are beyond that. But I don't know too many doctors driving around in new Bentleys.

No one in particular. The general theme in the last dozen or so posts is implying that the CEOs are the ones who are rich. In fact, there are many more highly paid MDs than CEOs in the US. Ever look up what an average neurosurgeon or orthopedic spine surgeon make in salary per year?

1. Orthopedic surgery — spine: $714,088
2. Neurological surgery: $701,927
3. Cardiovascular surgery — pediatric: $681,408
4. Neurological surgery — pediatric: $656,282
5. Cardiology — electrophysiology: $601,111
6. Orthopedic surgery — hip and joint: $589,267
7. Cardiology — invasive-interventional: $586,765
8. Dermatology — Mohs surgery: $586,083
9. Cardiovascular surgery: $567,171
10. Orthopedic surgery — trauma: $562,688
11. Cardiology — invasive: $550,000
12. Orthopedic surgery — sports medicine: $550,000
13. General orthopedic surgery: $526,398
14. Radiology — diagnostic-invasive: $513,000
15. Pediatric surgery: $505,281
16. Anesthesiology — pain management: $502,775
17. Orthopedic surgery — pediatric: $489,500
18. Radiology — diagnostic-noninvasive: $485,334
19. Anesthesiology — pediatric: $482,299
20. Radiation oncology: $477,807
21. Thoracic surgery: $475,708
22. Orthopedic surgery — hand: $475,370
23. OB/GYN — maternal and fetal medicine: $473,227
24. Orthopedic surgery — foot and ankle: $469,492
25. Dermatology: $465,543

http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...sician-specialties-by-hospital-ownership.html

 

[[serious]]

No one in particular. The general theme in the last dozen or so posts is implying that the CEOs are the ones who are rich. In fact, there are many more highly paid MDs than CEOs in the US. Ever look up what an average neurosurgeon or orthopedic spine surgeon make in salary per year?

1. Orthopedic surgery — spine: $714,088
2. Neurological surgery: $701,927
3. Cardiovascular surgery — pediatric: $681,408
4. Neurological surgery — pediatric: $656,282
5. Cardiology — electrophysiology: $601,111
6. Orthopedic surgery — hip and joint: $589,267
7. Cardiology — invasive-interventional: $586,765
8. Dermatology — Mohs surgery: $586,083
9. Cardiovascular surgery: $567,171
10. Orthopedic surgery — trauma: $562,688
11. Cardiology — invasive: $550,000
12. Orthopedic surgery — sports medicine: $550,000
13. General orthopedic surgery: $526,398
14. Radiology — diagnostic-invasive: $513,000
15. Pediatric surgery: $505,281
16. Anesthesiology — pain management: $502,775
17. Orthopedic surgery — pediatric: $489,500
18. Radiology — diagnostic-noninvasive: $485,334
19. Anesthesiology — pediatric: $482,299
20. Radiation oncology: $477,807
21. Thoracic surgery: $475,708
22. Orthopedic surgery — hand: $475,370
23. OB/GYN — maternal and fetal medicine: $473,227
24. Orthopedic surgery — foot and ankle: $469,492
25. Dermatology: $465,543

25 Highest-Paid Specialties: Salaries for Hospital-Employed Physicians

Those looked high to me, so I checked it against other sources. These are pretty inflated, not sure why. It could a mean/median thing, could be that your list is a specific subset of doctors.

Medscape: Medscape Access

The underlying argument that doctor pay is on par with CEO pay isn't supported by either list though. Average CEO pay is around 10 times higher than doctor pay.

CEO Pay by Industry

 

[stamperben]

Those looked high to me, so I checked it against other sources. These are pretty inflated, not sure why. It could a mean/median thing, could be that your list is a specific subset of doctors.

Medscape: Medscape Access

The underlying argument that doctor pay is on par with CEO pay isn't supported by either list though. Average CEO pay is around 10 times higher than doctor pay.

CEO Pay by Industry

It's just that there are more doctors than there are CEOs.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Those looked high to me, so I checked it against other sources. These are pretty inflated, not sure why. It could a mean/median thing, could be that your list is a specific subset of doctors.

Medscape: Medscape Access

The underlying argument that doctor pay is on par with CEO pay isn't supported by either list though. Average CEO pay is around 10 times higher than doctor pay.

CEO Pay by Industry

Sure, CEO pay is high for some of the S&P 500 companies, but that is 500 CEOs. If you go to the Russell index you have 1000 companies. It isn't like the CEO of small or mid size business makes this. I'm in an S&P 500 company, and our CEO makes $350,000 in salary.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Sure, CEO pay is high for some of the S&P 500 companies, but that is 500 CEOs. If you go to the Russell index you have 1000 companies. It isn't like the CEO of small or mid size business makes this. I'm in an S&P 500 company, and our CEO makes $350,000 in salary.

And what's he make in various stock-related perks? That's where most of an executive's compensation comes.

 

[[serious]]

Sure, CEO pay is high for some of the S&P 500 companies, but that is 500 CEOs. If you go to the Russell index you have 1000 companies. It isn't like the CEO of small or mid size business makes this. I'm in an S&P 500 company, and our CEO makes $350,000 in salary.

And I heard Ellison takes only a $1 salary! When looking at CEO pay, you've got to look at all compensation. Salary is only a very small part of CEO pay. Saying their salary is only $350,000 when they've also received a $1,500,000 bonus is kind of disingenuous.

Those aren't just S&P 500 companies either. There is a option that you can check to only display S&P 500 companies, but it's unchecked by default.