Correct me if I'm wrong....

[jorno67]

But wouldn't a lot of our budget/tax issues go away if there were fair wages in the US? Why is it that the 1% is allowed to hoard vast amounts of legal tender while the working class struggles to get by? Wouldn't there be drastic cuts in social programs if people got paid enough to live on? Why is no one talking about this?

[riverbendviewgal]

1. Yes, also I know because I have seen it.

Many of the rich pay cash or barter for their big purchases so they don't pay taxes.


When visiting in the US I saw many people working for about $ 2 - 5 an hour.

with no benefits.

pitiful.

[zzaapp]

2. Good question, but who would decide what a "fair" wage is?

[DoBotherMe]

4. $75,000/year

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2019628,00.html

[zzaapp]

5. DBM Thanks for the link....Excuse me if I question

Time Magazines' economic acumen. lol

[jorno67]

7. It was reporting on a Princeton University Study

[zzaapp]

10. ooops sorry, missed that part. Thanks.

[slackmaster]

45. It's pretty hard to justify paying everyone $75,000/year

Imagine how expensive it would be to eat out at a restaurant if every employee was paid that much.

[Liberal Veteran]

6. I don't see how it would be difficult.

Other than republican/libertarian obstructionism, it wouldn't be too complex to come up with a formula for fair wages (average national wage for job title adjusted for regional cost of living, etc...).

Unfortunately, any attempt to do so would result in the inevitable cry of government interference.

My mind still reels at the notion that things like minimum wage are holding back business. If you can't afford to pay your workers a fair wage (or minimum wage) for their work, your business is already a failure.

[zzaapp]

9. Understood completely, and I agree, to an extent.

But lets say that a formula like that were to be implemented.
What would happen in the following scenario.

1. Small company - employs 20 people
2. Pays them X amount of dollars per year
3. Formula requires that they be paid Y dollars per year.
4. Company cannot afford Y dollars per year
5. Formula says " I don't care, you must pay Y dollars.

Here's where it gets sticky. What are the company owners
options. Let's say that he really CAN'T pay Y dollars.
He either
1. PAYS the employees Y dollars, goes broke,
shuts the business down, 20 people lose their jobs.
2. Refuses to pay Y dollars, business is forced to shut down.
20 people loose their jobs.

I guess I'm just saying that I agree with your premise,
but when you try to actually apply to real world scenarios
well, you get it.

[nichomachus]

14. If you can't pay your employees a living wage

you have a lousy business model and maybe you shouldn't be in business.

What other supplier would take a markdown because your business doesn't make enough money? If you can't afford to pay your rent, you're out. If you can't afford to pay for electricity, they shut you off. If you don't make enough money to pay your suppliers, they don't supply. The situation we have now is that the workers have to bear the brunt of a poorly run business.

[zzaapp]

16. Agreed, but explain that to the 20 people who lost their jobs

who might have been very happy there. Like throwing the baby out with the bath water IMHO.

[nichomachus]

22. You've just perfectly described the corporatist plan for America

keep balancing the books on the backs of the workers, cutting their wages, increasing their workloads, and telling them "Hey, at least you have a job. Shut up and accept your $4 an hour."

[zzaapp]

24. Not my intent at all,

Again, what about the 20 people who might lose their means of support?

[Dreamer Tatum]

19. Funny how people decry WalMart but have no problem dictating wages

that would destroy most mom and pop businesses.

If you want the WalMarts of the world to pay more, that's one thing. Requiring mom and pop to pay the same
amount is a death sentence, but then again, that's OK with you, since you think they shouldn't be in business
to begin with.

[Liberal Veteran]

20. Wal-Mart gets a lot of flack because they choose to pay low wages....

....when they could pay much better.

If Wal-Mart followed the philosophy of Costco where employees are concerned, they would likely get less criticism.

[zzaapp]

26. Hi LV....not trying to be pushy...but I was really

Looking forward to your thoughts on my post #9 before all of the crazies come out of the woodwork. Thanks in advance.

[nichomachus]

23. Well, if WalMart paid more than mom and pop

where would mom and pop find workers? You'd have to be crazy to take a job with mom and pop when you could make a lot more at WalMart

[zzaapp]

25. DT....you're trying to inject logic into a very emotional subject.

Shame Shame.

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. At least YOU get it.

A minimum income of $75K per year?

Some people are smoking crack.

[zzaapp]

17. Thanks DT.......That's what I thought also.

[Recursion]

21. Productivity has nearly tripled since 1980

why shouldn't real wages have nearly tripled since 1980? That would be something like 90k median.

[Dreamer Tatum]

27. Not my problem

But if you try to make small businesses pay 90k per year, there won't be any small businesses.

[DoBotherMe]

28. Never have smoked crack

Why not provide services and wages that emulate the $75,000/year threshold for comfort. What's wrong with having a happy citizenry? Why should some squander while others scrape? Dana ; )

[Dreamer Tatum]

29. Um, because the value of labor for all jobs isn't $75K? Let's start with that nt

[DoBotherMe]

31. Sorry, I think all honest work is equally valuable

to society. So you and I will just have to disagree. Dana ; )

[Dreamer Tatum]

32. clearly false

Brain surgeon >>>ditch digger.

[Liberal Veteran]

30. Where does one draw the line on that?

That would be the same case for a sweatshop. It really isn't much different from the argument made about minimum wage. If we don't apply some standards, it becomes a race to the bottom and is a hallmark of the kind of predatory capitalism that companies like Wal-Mart engage in.

As an aside to that, jobs that pay crap have a ripple effect. They have less money to put into the local economy. They likely have to work other jobs to bring in enough money to live. That makes it even harder for a person in that position to look for better work.

[zzaapp]

33. Granted, here is the bottom line, and I know it won't be popular.

If Jobs are what we are REALLY REALLY after, and not
just wanting to punish the evil company owner, then a climate
where business can thrive is ESSENTIAL.

If we DO want to punish the evil company owner, then you do so at the risk of peoples jobs. That is not some "talking point"
It is REAL LIFE. And if someone has never owned a business,
then it is nearly impossible to keep a steady compass on this issue. (not that all opinions have some merit)

To the opinion police : Please keep your petty posts about
my being a corporate troll to yourself. This is a meaningful
polite, civil exchange of ideas.

[Liberal Veteran]

34. Sweatshop jobs are still jobs. It isn't just about number of employed.

As an extreme example, if I were allowed to pay a penny a day for an employee and had 10000 employees picking vegetables or something, would it be considered a boon to the economy? You could say, "Hey look! We created 10000 jobs! And the unemployment rate has fallen to 1%", but in the final analysis, the economy would be devastated.

What good are those 10000 jobs if they do nothing to raise the standard of living for the people who are working?

[zzaapp]

35. of course, you are correct

That is an extreme example and I understand why you used it.
Please don't get me wrong, I believe completely in workers rights
and don't want to see ANYONE abused for someone else's greed.

That being said, I think you would have to agree that imposing punitive measures on companies doesn't help the job market at all, and we all hope that the figures are better come November.

[Liberal Veteran]

36. Perhaps the measure might factor in the wages at the very top?

If the total compensation given to the CEO (and top executives) of a company is 1000 times the total compensation of the average employee of that company, then it might be indicative of a problem.

Perhaps a maximum wage would be in order as well as a minimum.

One of the problems we have now is an environment that puts no burden on the accumulation of vast amounts of wealth.

Progressively punitive measures for hoarding of wealth would go a long way toward fixing the imbalance that permeates our economy.

The republican and libertarian philosophy screams that lower burdens (particularly tax burdens) on the upper class leads to job creation and increases the overall standard of living. The fact is that the burden on the wealthy is now at the lowest point since the Great Depression, but it certainly isn't doing our economy any favors.

We come back to the ripple effect. Is a corporation still a good thing if the very top is pocketing the profits and the workers are barely making enough to put food on the table? We are looking for solutions to fix the imbalance in our economy that is leading to stagnant wages and no job growth. We should look at the top and the bottom to figure out what is wrong.

[zzaapp]

37. Agreed, but at the same time

I would be careful not to penalize initiative and success, while rewarding complacency. The drive to succeed is a very ingrained
Human character trait, discounting the ones still living in Mom's basement.

[jorno67]

38. My Dad worked for a small company

in the 60's he was an auto mechanic for a local garage. He went to work at 8am and was home by 5pm Monday thru Friday. He bought a home and 2 cars (station wagon for Mom and a beat up Ford Falcon for him). Mom stayed at home because she could. Dad earned everything he had - there was no head start/boost up like an inheritance. We weren't rich but we had everything we needed. So, how did we get here? and how can we fix it? Your other arguments in this thread seem to suggest that Dad was over paid back then and Mom should've been out working so that the Garage owner could maximize his profits. You know, as a reward for being successful and all...

[zzaapp]

39. Wow, are YOU way off. I meant nothing of the kind.

[jorno67]

40. Ok...my question to you then...

Is it OK for a blue collar job like auto mechanic to pay enough to cover the expenses for a family of five with a mortgage in a middle class mid-western neighborhood? And why is it not OK today?

[zzaapp]

42. It's very ok. My hats off to the mechanic.

Wish that everyone had that kind of work ethic.

[jorno67]

43. What? Work Ethic? Are you serious?

tons of people would love to make a living wage for just 40 hours of work.

[zzaapp]

44. What we have here is a failure to communicate

I was complimenting your Father on his work ethic.

[jorno67]

46. Thank you...but the point isn't that my Father worked hard

The point is he got paid for his work - Enough to support his family. So...why is it not OK to pay people the same living wage? Please, explain it to me.

[zzaapp]

47. Hey, I'm on your side

People SHOULD earn a wage based on their ability and chosen field.

[jorno67]

48. Really...cause it comes off like you'd rather

protect higher profits than raise wages.

[zzaapp]

49. Not at all,

I was simply pointing out that without businesses there wouldn't be jobs. It doesn't get any more logical than that. I think that you might be reaching a little bit.

[jorno67]

50. No - I was reading (your posts) not reaching.

Of course there would be no jobs without businesses...how did that even come up? Did some nut job suggest there should be no businesses?

[zzaapp]

51. Not that I know of.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. Pfft! That sounds entirely too logical to me. It must be wrong.

Rec'd!

[lastlib]

8. yes, but the one-percenters aren't interested in making our budget problems go away...

...still less in paying fair wages that cut into their sacred profits. They want those problems to protect themselves from the 99%.

Millions of us are talking about it, but the one-percenters use their vast resources to stifle the debate in the forums where it counts. They control the forums, thereby the debate.

[jorno67]

11. I know that "we the people" are talking about it, but the only

politician who ever consistently talked about it was John Edwards - and since his digressions the issue seems to be as dead as his political career. When is someone else going to pick up the cause? And who might that be?

[tk2kewl]

12. less need for spending and more taxes collected

[lunatica]

13. The Democrats talk about it all the time

The 1% buy politicians who will pass laws that let them steal. They pass laws full of loopholes that the 1% can use to their advantage.

You and I? We're not anywhere near important enough to allow them to do anything. The laws are stacked against us.

[HopeHoops]

18. At least WE are!

[YoungDemCA]

41. Because politicians of both parties are beholden to multinational corporations...

...who get dirt-cheap labor from "developing" countries and make obscene profits from those laborers' work.

Keeping wages down in the U.S. not only is a necessary part of corporate globalization-it's also a way to control the American masses. Keep them desperate and divided.

[patrice]

57. CA Dem???? Please see House Bill 6211 linked below, sponsored by Rep. Miller, Dem, CA 7.

[patrice]

52. Increase in minimum indexed to cost of living. Credo's link supporting Sen Harkin's bill

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/harkin_minimum_wage/

I'll go see if I can find this bill in thomas.

Back in a bit.

[patrice]

53. Here's the current Senate version:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:6:./temp/~bdQoGe::|/home/LegislativeData.php|

[patrice]

54. Here's the House version. It has over 100 co-sponsors:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:4:./temp/~bdQoGe::|/home/LegislativeData.php|

[patrice]

56. Show of hands in this thread how many actually do something about this besides bitch about Dems?

Two parties bad!

The people can do NOTHING as long as there are only 2 parties.



Guess what, "the people" aren't interested in doing anything for themselves. Bitching about the 2 party system is the PERFECT cop-out.

And it's pretty fucking Randian, in my opinion.

[jorno67]

58. I don't want to start a third party...

I want my party to talk about it/work on it more. I am pissed that the guy who really talked about and talked about very well - committed political suicide.

[patrice]

59. Dean? Wellstone? Eugene Debs? Whoever. We NEED to go into the streets. Not as somekind of zoo.

Somekind of spectacle.

We have to go find the people, ALL of them, and get to know them personally for real and help them take themselves into the halls of power, locally, and nationally, and all points in between.

Don't depend upon anyone else to do it, especially OWS, it's doing its own thing, whatever that is.