"The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats"

[mrjarrell]

For arguments sake. Should this be the responsibility of the employer to keep the workers off the government dole? Do they owe it to taxpayers? or to their own bottom line on their investments?

Henry Ford certainly thought so. He paid enough that his people could be his, and other peoples customers. That's not the case these days. Many businesses benefit directly from the taxpayers in the form of tax abatements and other government business boosting plans. Government also makes low interest loans available when private banks won't lend money, so yes, many businesses do owe something to the taxpayers. And, some of us taxpayers are willing to pay a bit more to see these people get off the dole and stave off the pitchforks. I'd rather not see government step in to be the "remedy", but something has got to give at some point. Fair pay for a fair days work used to be a maxim of good business. Not so much anymore.

 

[actaeon277]

Henry Ford certainly thought so. He paid enough that his people could be his, and other peoples customers. That's not the case these days. Many businesses benefit directly from the taxpayers in the form of tax abatements and other government business boosting plans. Government also makes low interest loans available when private banks won't lend money, so yes, many businesses do owe something to the taxpayers. And, some of us taxpayers are willing to pay a bit more to see these people get off the dole and stave off the pitchforks. I'd rather not see government step in to be the "remedy", but something has got to give at some point. Fair pay for a fair days work used to be a maxim of good business. Not so much anymore.

I've seen a lot of workers that don't believe in the fair days work.
If the job don't pay, go somewhere else.
When the business can't get people, they will have to make a change, pay or benefit.

 

[mrjarrell]

I've seen a lot of workers that don't believe in the fair days work.
If the job don't pay, go somewhere else.
When the business can't get people, they will have to make a change, pay or benefit.

When times are desperate and folks are pressed, they'll take what they can get and many employers know this and take advantage of it. Bad employees are easy to deal with.

 

[KG1]

I think you need to step back and reevaluate there MG. There should be no minimum wage at all other than the least valuable job. If you want to earn more money from your employer, do something more valuable FOR your employer.

Your employer didn't just give you a job for the betterment of society, so that you will be employed. Your employer hired you to give labor or intellect worth more to him/her than the wages you're paid. If what you're giving your employer isn't worth what you're getting from your employer, why the hell should you stay employed?

I think the point trying to be made in the article and by some posters here is that an employer should invest in their employees for the betterment of society.

Paying a minimum living wage is for the betterment of society which in turn is a betterment for businesses in the long run because people will have more spendable income plus the added advantage is getting people off the government dole which in turn is a betterment for all taxpayers and should then theoretically reduce dependency on the government which we should all be in favor of.

I guess it could be looked at as a different kind of trickle down theory.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Seems to me that all other things being equal, the guy that is paying his employees more than his competitor puts himself at a competitive disadvantage. The average customer will not pay extra just so some guy/gal, he doesn't know, can get paid more for making equivalent products. In order for someone to earn more money, they have to be able to provide a greater value for it or there has to be some sort of rent-seeking aspect to whatever labor/services the person can provide.

The folks can get their pitchforks after the rich guys if they want. But they should know that by seeking their own self interests, paying as little as possible for whatever they buy, they are complacent in the position they find theirselves.

 

[ATM]

...plus the added advantage is getting people off the government dole which in turn is a betterment for all taxpayers and should then theoretically reduce dependency on the government which we should all be in favor of...

The government wants people on the dole, the design of our welfare state is to increase dependency on the government.

I doubt any self-imposed charitable increase of minimum wages (beyond the actual value an employee contributes to a business) will be able to compete with the government's monopoly of force and various methods of stealing from those who produce. The entitlement crowd will continue to grow and exhaust every means of living off others until they are cut off or nothing remains.

Let them bring the pitchforks. I'll bring marshmallows.

 

[KG1]

Henry Ford certainly thought so. He paid enough that his people could be his, and other peoples customers. That's not the case these days. Many businesses benefit directly from the taxpayers in the form of tax abatements and other government business boosting plans. Government also makes low interest loans available when private banks won't lend money, so yes, many businesses do owe something to the taxpayers. And, some of us taxpayers are willing to pay a bit more to see these people get off the dole and stave off the pitchforks. I'd rather not see government step in to be the "remedy", but something has got to give at some point. Fair pay for a fair days work used to be a maxim of good business. Not so much anymore.

But are not those tax incentives designed to lure businesses in or keep existing businesses from leaving? Is that not the businesses return on the taxpayers investment by staying in the commuity and providing jobs? Isn't that the whole give and take already?

 

[KG1]

The government wants people on the dole, the design of our welfare state is to increase dependency on the government.

I doubt any self-imposed charitable increase of minimum wages (beyond the actual value an employee contributes to a business) will be able to compete with the government's monopoly of force and various methods of stealing from those who produce. The entitlement crowd will continue to grow and exhaust every means of living off others until they are cut off or nothing remains.

Let them bring the pitchforks. I'll bring marshmallows.

I think the whole idea of the article is to cut the government out of the equation and for the business community to take the initiative themselves.

 

[ATM]

I think the whole idea of the article is to cut the government out of the equation and for the business community to take the initiative themselves.

With government out of the equation, there wouldn't be much need for initiatives such as this. The whole system would be allowed to adjust freely and naturally.

 

[Arthur Dent]

For arguments sake. Should this be the responsibility of the employer to keep the workers off the government dole? Do they owe it to taxpayers? or to their own bottom line on their investments?

So you didn't read the article.

 

[Arthur Dent]

With government out of the equation, there wouldn't be much need for initiatives such as this. The whole system would be allowed to adjust freely and naturally.

You honestly think that would happen? Why would it happen that way?

 

[KG1]

So you didn't read the article.

I surely have. That's not the only post I've made

 

[ATM]

You honestly think that would happen? Why would it happen that way?

Why wouldn't it? Are you of the opinion that people can't enter into mutually agreeable terms of wages/labor based upon supply/demand without the coercive force of government being applied?

 

[poptab]

Without the coercive force of government everyone would turn into raving mad men raping and pillaging the countryside. How else do you think government formed I the first place?
Wait Wut...

 

[Arthur Dent]

Why wouldn't it? Are you of the opinion that people can't enter into mutually agreeable terms of wages/labor based upon supply/demand without the coercive force of government being applied?

Why would it happen the way you claim? People enter employment under mutually agreeable terms everyday, however grudgingly. Crap pay gets you a crap worker. Then you whine about the crap worker. Using my employer as an example, I'm pretty much stuck where I'm at for a long time. Nowhere else in the world will pay the amount I get for the work I do. I get paid nearly three times what the guy I work with gets, no exaggeration. We do the same job, but I'm the more diplomatic when doing it. And I get it done right the first time or if I make a mistake it's made and lesson learned with the mistake to never be made again.

Contrast that with the average low wage worker. You don't care about him and how he is compensated beyond squeezing every last penny and you're going to get a guy that doesn't care about your business. He screws up, he doesn't care. Why should he? You show your respect for him by keeping him on the government tit. Respect is earned both ways. Sometimes you just have to swallow your pride and make the first gesture. As much as it pains you to stoop that low.

When I was a supervisor one of my guys was working mediocre, putting in some extra effort here and there. Not really outstanding, but not doing poorly enough to warrant firing him. Every so often work will do an equity raise for some of the guys getting lower pay than everyone else. I had the privilege of of giving him the notification that his yearly pay was getting bumped up nearly 20%. He nearly started crying right in front of me. I shook his hand and told him to keep up the good work. Now he's one of the superstars in the test lab. He knew he was underpaid compared to some other guys, now he's up there with most everyone else. No more screwing off, he goes out of his way to help other technicians, arrives early, leaves late. They are getting their money's worth out of him. From a borderline slacker to a superstar because of a $10k/year raise. That money helped his personal finances just as he was starting a family. He's gone from asking questions to solving problems on his own. Perfect example of investing in your employees.

Some of the newer guys come in, sell themselves short when offered a job. They are the slackers who don't cut it. I may be the highest paid shipping guy in the world. I show up early, bend over backwards to help people get their incoming material, help them send their stuff out, rabidly attacking the ever increasing amount of junk in the warehouse and dumping what can be dumped, taking care of pre-test material, inventorying post-test shreds, and getting other departments to be easier to deal with when they need something from the shipping group, and getting involved with the building operations. If I were paid what my partner gets that would be a different story. They'd be getting what they pay for which would be a recalcitrant ******* that nobody wants to deal with.

Instead of whining about how you think people making already low wages are overpaid because of the poor work they do, give them a reason to do better. Better employees equals happier customers which equals more customers which equals more revenue. You may make less per widget but you'll sell the hell out of those widgets and make even more than before.

Greed is for the short sighted idiots who think that once they have it all, they decide they need even more and honestly think the other 90% won't take everything you have in a rather violent manner. This country is just repeating history and is too arrogant to learn from history, thinking that we know better than the other 1%ers from the past when they suddenly found themselves shortened by a full head.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I surely have. That's not the only post I've made

I noticed that with your later posts. It makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

 

[ATM]

...

You never got around to explaining the government role or necessity of mandating artificial wage regulations. What you explained sounds more like free choice, with all the natural rewards/consequences of those decisions, which I never argued against.

 

[mrjarrell]

But are not those tax incentives designed to lure businesses in or keep existing businesses from leaving? Is that not the businesses return on the taxpayers investment by staying in the commuity and providing jobs? Isn't that the whole give and take already?

Depends on whether the relationship is actually beneficial to the community at large. Most big companies pay no real taxes into the community coffers, and not all of them pay enough to escape having their employees on the dole. If governments shouldn't be manipulating wages then they certainly shouldn't be using the tax codes in an attempt to lure businesses.

 

[findingZzero]

How about this;
An employer must pay a wage adequate to keeps the employee off the gov't dole. Let's call it a MW. If he can't do that, he doesn't have a viable business/ business plan, and survives at the expense of exploiting the worker, and the rest of the citizens/gov't. He is running a sweat shop. Another way to look at it is his product isn't good enough to pay its way, so he makes his employees subsidize it. W/o rules the 'free market' would be free only for the most powerful/wealthy. We are heading in that direction. That's the direction the article is pointing to. To think that folks do the right thing (free market) has been proven a utopian fantasy for Capitalism as well as Socialism.

 

[findingZzero]

Without the coercive force of government everyone would turn into raving mad men raping and pillaging the countryside. How else do you think government formed I the first place?
Wait Wut...

There's more truth in your sarcasm than you realize. Read Steinbeck's 'Grapes of Wrath'