"The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats"

[printcraft]

Henry Ford certainly thought so. He paid enough that his people could be his, and other peoples customers. ............

Another way to look at that.....
That was not necessarily a good thing if you look at Detroit today. That place grew too fast.
It was out of pace with the rest of the economy and it crashed hard.

 

[Leadeye]

Interesting article even though it smacks of condescension, just because I'm not one of the top 1% doesn't make me some sort of illiterate "pitch fork" clamoring "Bourbons to the scaffold".

The new "trusts" don't have anything to do with manufacturing these days, the big drivers of inflation are things like the education/industrial complex, the legal/insurance industrial complex and the big pharma medical/industrial complex. Being old, having put two sons through school and paying my insurance bills like every other citizen I see these as the big inflation drivers in recent years. All these groups are connected with government at many levels and while it would be great for working people to earn more money I don't see how they will ever be able to keep up.

There has to be another solution other than just making the government a national union that has guns to enforce it's version of a labor contract based on what it considers expedient, because that's exactly what minimum wage laws are.

 

[jamil]

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.

My comments are for the posters who complain that their wages are low and think the solution is to mandate a minimum wage. Companies voluntarily paying employees more is a different issue.

I agree that companies get better employees by paying them more. But not all jobs are "living wage" worthy. In some industries the margins are very tight. And the value of labor isn't that high.

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.

By the way, do you ever post comments on Economics Policy Journal?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-political-discussion/348044-seattle-city-council-votes-phase-%2415-hr-minimum-wage-2.html#post5081922

 

[MisterChester]

My comments are for the posters who complain that their wages are low and think the solution is to mandate a minimum wage. Companies voluntarily paying employees more is a different issue.

I agree that companies get better employees by paying them more. But not all jobs are "living wage" worthy. In some industries the margins are very tight. And the value of labor isn't that high.

How about incentivizing companies to raise wages? The govt could give them tax breaks, and they'd just make it back in income taxes as long as they could prove they raised wages. Companies aren't forced here, they still have a choice.

 

[jamil]

How about incentivizing companies to raise wages? The govt could give them tax breaks, and they'd just make it back in income taxes as long as they could prove they raised wages. Companies aren't forced here, they still have a choice.

How about the government just stays out of it? Although I do favor paying as little tax as possible, I do not favor regulating social behavior through the tax code. I think everyone should pay a flat tax rate and I'm open to businesses paying no income taxes.

If paying employees higher wages has a net benefit then teaching that in business education classes seems appropriate.

 

[MisterChester]

How about the government just stays out of it? Although I do favor paying as little tax as possible, I do not favor regulating social behavior through the tax code. I think everyone should pay a flat tax rate and I'm open to businesses paying no income taxes.

If paying employees higher wages has a net benefit then teaching that in business education classes seems appropriate.

I would see it as less people on govt assistance, and that's always a plus.

 

[hooky]

How about getting the .gov out of all of it? Our tax system incentivizes companies to move jobs overseas and keep money offshore. Elimination of income taxes would be a great start. The resulting increase in economic activity here in the US would make the entire min wage argument a footnote. Look at the oil boom in ND as an example. There's no such thing as a min wage there right now.

This whole thing is just the .gov trying to fix the last problem it created when it tried to fix the problem it created before that, which is due to trying to fix the previous problem it created and on and on and on.

If they can mandate a living wage, then what stops them from mandating a maximum wage. "I do think at some point, you've made enough money" Screw that.

 

[KG1]

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.

Would a deal proposing tax incentives in exchange for higher wage jobs be a viable option to lure new businesses in or keep existing businesses from leaving?

 

[MisterChester]

Would a deal proposing tax incentives in exchange for higher wage jobs be a viable option to lure new businesses in or keep existing businesses from leaving?

It would never get through congress. The GOP back in 2012 blocked a bill giving tax incentives to companies who insource rather than outsource, that's the closest thing that's in the same ballpark of what you said.

 

[level.eleven]

Interesting. Everyone agrees with the article but propose magic as a solution.

*Poof*

 

[CathyInBlue]

I don't agree with the article at all. As Jamil said, not all jobs are "living wage" worthy. Those are the starter jobs, the jobs designed and meant to be part time, filler, pocket money jobs for teenagers just getting their feet wet in the world of work. Every time the MW goes up, those jobs shrink. We already have most gas stations acting as automatic refueling stations with attached bathrooms. Swipe the card, pump the gas, replace the nozzle, drive on. Once upon a time, a crew would descend upon a car driving up to the pump. Someone would pump the gas for the driver. Someone would clean the driver's windshield and wipers. Someone would check under the hood. Those jobs are gone. There are some places, like NJ, where vestiges still exist, but that's because the State has prohibitted drivers from pumping their own fuel.

Soon, we're gonna have convenience store/gas stations that are just huge vending machines with no human attendants whatsoever, because those jobs just don't have the value the State demands of employers to value human labour. Or maybe, we're converging on a world like the web comic Questionable Content, where sentient androids walk among us and work such jobs. A company can decide that the health care and unemployment and training and salary of a human being is too much year after year and will instead invest that same money into a one-time purchase of an android gas station attendant model.

There is nothing wrong with Capitalism that cannot be cured by what is right with Capitalism. Leavening Capitalism with Communism by getting the government more involved is not the solution. It's the antithesis of the solution. Getting government out of more and more aspects of the economy, reducing taxes, reducing regulation, will increase entrepreneurship and increase competition in both the marketplace of goods and services as well as the marketplace for good employees. That is what will insure that there are more "living wage" careers out there, not more "minimum wage" jobs.

Until the discussion turns from "minimum wage" jobs to "living wage" careers, which necessitates reducing government regulation and taxes, this discussion is going no where.

And as to the articles author, he admits himself to have no special education in this economic issues. He's just a guy who got lucky in the market and made a butt load of money. The conveyance of butt loads of money is almost never accompanied by the conveyance of butt loads of wisdom. Why doesn't he take his own advice and take the extra $2,997 a week clothing budget his money affords him that he can't use and spend that money clothing other people? It doesn't even have to be direct charity. He can partner with a basic clothing store in his own neighborhood and pay them to reduce their prices so that the clothing is more affordable for more people. As long as he's not, himself, in the business of selling lower and middle class clothing, I don't believe such a thing goes against any government regulations of the marketplace for clothing.

 

[KG1]

It seems to me that a number of years ago wages were decent and jobs were plentiful, so plentiful that you could quit one job and have another one lined up in no time. Jobs were even available for teens to make that pocket change. All this was done without a call for a minimum living wage.

What were the economic policies back then that made it all possible?

 

[MisterChester]

It seems to me that a number of years ago wages were decent and jobs were plentiful, so plentiful that you could quit one job and have another one lined up in no time. Jobs were even available for teens to make that pocket change. All this was done without a call for a minimum living wage.

What were the economic policies back then that made it all possible?

It wasn't much different policy-wise. Businesses after the crash felt the need to pay out the a** to the top dogs of the companies while stagnating wages and eliminating benefits of lower employees to pay for it. Back then business leaders actually believed in a strong middle class.

 

[mrjarrell]

It seems to me that a number of years ago wages were decent and jobs were plentiful, so plentiful that you could quit one job and have another one lined up in no time. Jobs were even available for teens to make that pocket change. All this was done without a call for a minimum living wage.

What were the economic policies back then that made it all possible?

Well, one major factor was that inflation wasn't rampant and the dollar was worth more. Even a lower wage job went a lot further. Wages have not kept up and people are suffering for it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It seems to me that a number of years ago wages were decent and jobs were plentiful, so plentiful that you could quit one job and have another one lined up in no time. Jobs were even available for teens to make that pocket change. All this was done without a call for a minimum living wage.

What were the economic policies back then that made it all possible?

It wasn't much different policy-wise. Businesses after the crash felt the need to pay out the a** to the top dogs of the companies while stagnating wages and eliminating benefits of lower employees to pay for it. Back then business leaders actually believed in a strong middle class.

Well, one major factor was that inflation wasn't rampant and the dollar was worth more. Even a lower wage job went a lot further. Wages have not kept up and people are suffering for it.

I'm sure I can do no more justice than the other posters did in answering this question because I'm sure it's complex, with no single cause but here are some thoughts: Governmental regulation that increases the price of manufacturing in the US had something to do with it; then rising labor costs and the rise of manufacturing ability in the lower labor cost places drained jobs away. Automation eliminated the need of for many labor intensive jobs (and has since moved on to eliminate a bunch of "white color" jobs). The American consumer cares less about his neighbor keeping his good paying job than about saving a buck or two filling his cart at Walmart--so companies that have to compete do what they have to do to lower costs. American labor doesn't have the leverage to demand the ever expanding benefit packages and gold-standard wages they did when the Europeans and Asians were still rebuilding from WW2 or experimenting with communism---which is why manufacturing unions have a fraction of the membership they did in the 60's/70's. I'm sure there are other reasons.

 

[hornadylnl]

My biggest complaint is not the amount of my pay, it's the amount of my pay relative to my peers. I can go somewhere else and make more per hour but I'll still face the same issue. Any large employer will pay hourly based on classification and seniority. I think most companies are scared to death to pay based on merit due to the can of worms it opens up. Claims of discrimination, favoritism, etc. The most worthless employees will be screaming the loudest. I've backed off on a lot of what I do and I told them I was.

 

[gravitas73]

Every Walmart employee costs the federal government over $5000 a year in welfare.

So why do we have to be mad at the government for helping people eat?

Why can't I be mad at Walmart for being greedy?

Or am I supposed to be mad at people for choosing to work at Walmart?

 

[Arthur Dent]

If paying employees higher wages has a net benefit then teaching that in business education classes seems appropriate.

It used to be. Part of the ethics course.

 

[Arthur Dent]

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.

From time to time the government needs to step in and mandate something for the betterment of all. Some of which it botches. A minimum wage helps those that do not have a means of collective bargaining to level the playing field when it comes to setting wages. When the company hold all the cards in negotiating wages the playing field is unfairly tilted in the company's favor.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Every Walmart employee costs the federal government over $5000 a year in welfare.

So why do we have to be mad at the government for helping people eat?

Why can't I be mad at Walmart for being greedy?

Or am I supposed to be mad at people for choosing to work at Walmart?

You should be mad at all the people that shop at Walmart rather than the higher priced outlets. If there were a large customer demand for paying premium prices so people could have better wages, there would be retailers/sellers trying to capture that market.