Wealth Inequality in America

[Creighton Duke]

But clearly, as they are only working 60-72 hours a week, for $2k a month, they are a no good bums who just wants a hand out from the Gov right?

 

They obviously should get another job.

Does it ever say that it has to be the same person with the second job, as opposed to a spouse/partner/whatever?

If the "second job" represents their spouse's job, the situation is even worse.

[BigRedBuster]

Simple.

 

I tend to distinguish between these two groups.

 

a) A business owner in a family business who has invested his own resources and has grown the business to be an asset to him and his family. Over a long period of time, investing personal assets can happen multiple times along with personally guaranteeing loans and supplier accounts in a manner that puts their own assets in jeopardy.

 

b) An employee working for the company. I know the employee works hard and is a value to the business owner and puts his own time in to make the company successful. But, in no way has an average employee committed personally as much to the company as the business owner.

 

Now, you might say..."Yeah, but the business owner takes more home from the company"...not necessarily. I have employees who make a lot more than me.

 

Now, I said that about McDonald's employees because quite frankly, I am not a fan of that company and if nobody ever went and ate another Big Mac I would be happy. So, I wish those employees would see that and find a better job.

 

So, you have a different opinion. I get that. You see one side and I see the other.....

i do not disagree with you thoughts. i just think everyone deserves a living wage. it is funny how people on welfare are lazy freeloaders and the people with jobs deserve no more sympathy.

 

I agree with that. However, I believe there are some jobs that are made for people who are trying to make a living wage and some jobs are not for that purpose. Now, yes...I understand that some people are TRYING to live off of a McDonalds wage. But, many times, there are other jobs that pay better.

 

For instance, my daughters are life guards at the swimming pool. It is a fantastic job for them. BUT, there is no way in hell someone could live off of those wages. They get paid similar type wages as the McDonalds employee. But, it's an entry level job.

 

Again, I am not a fan of McDonalds on so many levels so I am not trying to defend them. They can go suck it for all I care.

 

Another interesting side to this is that I would bet that McDonalds customers tend to be on the lower end (on average) of the income scale. As a customer, they are benefiting from those low wages because they can go in and buy a burger for a couple bucks. Wage increases do get passed on in some way to the customer.

[Junior]

But clearly, as they are only working 60-72 hours a week, for $2k a month, they are a no good bums who just wants a hand out from the Gov right?

 

They obviously should get another job.

 

 

How about a different job?

 

It's that easy, is it? How easy do you think it would be for someone working 74 hours a week, and maybe trying to raise a family, to get training for a "different" job?

[BigRedBuster]

Are you saying that anything above minimum wage takes specialized training that the person would need to accomplish before getting hired?

[Junior]

Are you saying that anything above minimum wage takes specialized training that the person would need to accomplish before getting hired?

 

Not necessarily. But training certainly helps.

 

Do you think it reasonable for someone working full time at a multi-million dollar company to expect to get a livable wage? Do you think that someone working TWO full time jobs should live in what could only be described as poverty?

 

McDonald's made about $1.3 billion last year. http://www.nytimes.c...n-expected.html

 

Their CEO made $8.5 million. http://www.bloomberg...ws-pay-gap.html

 

A full time McDonald's employee makes $13,000 a year after taxes.

[sd'sker]

i was not always in favor of raising the minimum wage. i thought that those where entry jobs and they were being compensated fairly for their work. i also had fears that raising it would cause companies to layoff people or raise prices, making lower income people's income worth even less. but then i was for raising minimum wage because human work, effort, and time should be better compensated, especially when compared to how the top earners are compensated.

 

however, i recently saw this and it really fortified my belief in raising the minimum wage:

Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn ® chose a different reason to oppose the proposal today. A stronger minimum wage, Blackburn said, would negatively affect the ability of young workers to enter the workforce as teenagers, and would prevent them from learning responsibility like she did when she was a teenage retail employee making a seemingly-measly $2.15 an hour in Mississippi:

 

BLACKBURN: "What we’re hearing from moms and from school teachers is that there needs to be a lower entry level, so that you can get 16-, 17-, 18-year-olds into the process. Chuck, I remember my first job, when I was working in a retail store, down there, growing up in Laurel, Mississippi. I was making like $2.15 an hour. And I was taught how to responsibly handle those customer interactions. And I appreciated that opportunity."

 

Making $2.15 an hour certainly does sound worse than today’s minimum wage, which federal law mandates must be at least $7.25 an hour. But what Blackburn didn’t realize is that she accidentally undermined her own argument, since the value of the dollar has changed immensely since her teenage years. Blackburn was born in 1952, so she likely took that retail job at some point between 1968 and 1970. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, the $2.15 an hour Blackburn made then is worth somewhere between$12.72 and $14.18 an hour in today’s dollars, depending on which year she started.

At that time, the minimum wage was $1.60, equivalent to $10.56 in today’s terms. Today’s minimum wage is equivalent to just $1.10 an hour in 1968 dollars, meaning the teenage Blackburn managed to enter the workforce making almost double the wage she now says is keeping teenagers out of the workforce.

i never really considered inflation, but it certainly is worth considering. and the minimum as in no way remotely kept up.

[The Dude]

I just assumed it was adjusted with inflation at a reasonable level. Never would have guessed the disparity would be that large.

[strigori]

Simple.

 

I tend to distinguish between these two groups.

 

a) A business owner in a family business who has invested his own resources and has grown the business to be an asset to him and his family. Over a long period of time, investing personal assets can happen multiple times along with personally guaranteeing loans and supplier accounts in a manner that puts their own assets in jeopardy.

 

b) An employee working for the company. I know the employee works hard and is a value to the business owner and puts his own time in to make the company successful. But, in no way has an average employee committed personally as much to the company as the business owner.

 

Now, you might say..."Yeah, but the business owner takes more home from the company"...not necessarily. I have employees who make a lot more than me.

 

Now, I said that about McDonald's employees because quite frankly, I am not a fan of that company and if nobody ever went and ate another Big Mac I would be happy. So, I wish those employees would see that and find a better job.

 

So, you have a different opinion. I get that. You see one side and I see the other.....

i do not disagree with you thoughts. i just think everyone deserves a living wage. it is funny how people on welfare are lazy freeloaders and the people with jobs deserve no more sympathy.

 

I agree with that. However, I believe there are some jobs that are made for people who are trying to make a living wage and some jobs are not for that purpose. Now, yes...I understand that some people are TRYING to live off of a McDonalds wage. But, many times, there are other jobs that pay better.

 

For instance, my daughters are life guards at the swimming pool. It is a fantastic job for them. BUT, there is no way in hell someone could live off of those wages. They get paid similar type wages as the McDonalds employee. But, it's an entry level job.

 

Again, I am not a fan of McDonalds on so many levels so I am not trying to defend them. They can go suck it for all I care.

 

Another interesting side to this is that I would bet that McDonalds customers tend to be on the lower end (on average) of the income scale. As a customer, they are benefiting from those low wages because they can go in and buy a burger for a couple bucks. Wage increases do get passed on in some way to the customer.

there are people working these jobs because there is nothing else available. In part to the artificial barrier being put in at many companies requiring a 4 year degree for any job. And what the degree is in does not matter.

 

You can't really believe that only poor people eat at McDonald's? Go hang out in a parking lot for awhile, you will see plenty of cars roll through the drive through that cost more than the houses many of the workers inside live in.

[HSKR]

Are you saying that anything above minimum wage takes specialized training that the person would need to accomplish before getting hired?

 

Not necessarily. But training certainly helps.

 

Do you think it reasonable for someone working full time at a multi-million dollar company to expect to get a livable wage? Do you think that someone working TWO full time jobs should live in what could only be described as poverty?

 

McDonald's made about $1.3 billion last year. http://www.nytimes.c...n-expected.html

 

Their CEO made $8.5 million. http://www.bloomberg...ws-pay-gap.html

 

A full time McDonald's employee makes $13,000 a year after taxes.

 

$1.3 billion divided by 1.7 million employees = $764 extra per employee per year if McDonald's breaks even.

 

That extra $14 a week should fix all the employees financial problems.

 

The CEO should donate his entire salary to the employees too. That would be a whole $5 per employee per year or 9 cents a week.

 

But hey, don't let mathematics ruin your illusion of the evil corporate monster.

[strigori]

Are you saying that anything above minimum wage takes specialized training that the person would need to accomplish before getting hired?

 

Not necessarily. But training certainly helps.

 

Do you think it reasonable for someone working full time at a multi-million dollar company to expect to get a livable wage? Do you think that someone working TWO full time jobs should live in what could only be described as poverty?

 

McDonald's made about $1.3 billion last year. http://www.nytimes.c...n-expected.html

 

Their CEO made $8.5 million. http://www.bloomberg...ws-pay-gap.html

 

A full time McDonald's employee makes $13,000 a year after taxes.

 

$1.3 billion divided by 1.7 million employees = $764 extra per employee per year if McDonald's breaks even.

 

That extra $14 a week should fix all the employees financial problems.

 

The CEO should donate his entire salary to the employees too. That would be a whole $5 per employee per year or 9 cents a week.

 

But hey, don't let mathematics ruin your illusion of the evil corporate monster.

By that logic, lets just get rid of min wages, after all, it wouldn't be that big a deal if the poor people had less, they don't have much to begin with. Give it all to the guys who don't really do crap (more than just the CEO make mega money in a franchise operation, there are lots and lots of people making high 6 figures or more.)

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not going to defend CEO wages because I think they are outlandish. But, when someone claims upper management "doesn't really do crap", they tend to prove they really don't know what they are talking about.

 

His point is that even though the CEO wages are outlandish, they aren't the problem of lower employees not earning what they think they should. It is an easy scape goat for people who are jealous of their income.

 

If people want to earn more, raise prices on the food and give them a wage. That is how it works.

[BigRedBuster]

Simple.

 

I tend to distinguish between these two groups.

 

a) A business owner in a family business who has invested his own resources and has grown the business to be an asset to him and his family. Over a long period of time, investing personal assets can happen multiple times along with personally guaranteeing loans and supplier accounts in a manner that puts their own assets in jeopardy.

 

b) An employee working for the company. I know the employee works hard and is a value to the business owner and puts his own time in to make the company successful. But, in no way has an average employee committed personally as much to the company as the business owner.

 

Now, you might say..."Yeah, but the business owner takes more home from the company"...not necessarily. I have employees who make a lot more than me.

 

Now, I said that about McDonald's employees because quite frankly, I am not a fan of that company and if nobody ever went and ate another Big Mac I would be happy. So, I wish those employees would see that and find a better job.

 

So, you have a different opinion. I get that. You see one side and I see the other.....

i do not disagree with you thoughts. i just think everyone deserves a living wage. it is funny how people on welfare are lazy freeloaders and the people with jobs deserve no more sympathy.

 

I agree with that. However, I believe there are some jobs that are made for people who are trying to make a living wage and some jobs are not for that purpose. Now, yes...I understand that some people are TRYING to live off of a McDonalds wage. But, many times, there are other jobs that pay better.

 

For instance, my daughters are life guards at the swimming pool. It is a fantastic job for them. BUT, there is no way in hell someone could live off of those wages. They get paid similar type wages as the McDonalds employee. But, it's an entry level job.

 

Again, I am not a fan of McDonalds on so many levels so I am not trying to defend them. They can go suck it for all I care.

 

Another interesting side to this is that I would bet that McDonalds customers tend to be on the lower end (on average) of the income scale. As a customer, they are benefiting from those low wages because they can go in and buy a burger for a couple bucks. Wage increases do get passed on in some way to the customer.

there are people working these jobs because there is nothing else available. In part to the artificial barrier being put in at many companies requiring a 4 year degree for any job. And what the degree is in does not matter.

 

You can't really believe that only poor people eat at McDonald's? Go hang out in a parking lot for awhile, you will see plenty of cars roll through the drive through that cost more than the houses many of the workers inside live in.

 

Where did I say only poor people eat at McDonalds?

[carlfense]

I just assumed it was adjusted with inflation at a reasonable level. Never would have guessed the disparity would be that large.

It's pretty shocking.

[krill]

In regard to the McDonald's sample budget, I have been wondering if the lack of a line item for food, $0 for heating, and $20 for health care was really a mistake. It's been shown in the past that Wal-Mart plans on their low wage workers using programs such as food stamps, medicare, and home heating assistance.

 

In addition, it is highly unlikely that a worker in this position is saving or investing any money in an IRA or voluntary 401k, which is virtual assurance of needing even more assistance if they live beyond a working age. This is one of my primary problems with the temporary or stepping stone job arguments as well, because failure to invest money for retirement when you are young means losing out on all the tax advantages and necessitates greater contributions if you do move on to a higher earning job. No small surprise then young, middle-aged, and nearing retirement age people alike are all on the whole woefully unprepared to independently retire.

[HSKR]

Are you saying that anything above minimum wage takes specialized training that the person would need to accomplish before getting hired?

 

Not necessarily. But training certainly helps.

 

Do you think it reasonable for someone working full time at a multi-million dollar company to expect to get a livable wage? Do you think that someone working TWO full time jobs should live in what could only be described as poverty?

 

McDonald's made about $1.3 billion last year. http://www.nytimes.c...n-expected.html

 

Their CEO made $8.5 million. http://www.bloomberg...ws-pay-gap.html

 

A full time McDonald's employee makes $13,000 a year after taxes.

 

$1.3 billion divided by 1.7 million employees = $764 extra per employee per year if McDonald's breaks even.

 

That extra $14 a week should fix all the employees financial problems.

 

The CEO should donate his entire salary to the employees too. That would be a whole $5 per employee per year or 9 cents a week.

 

But hey, don't let mathematics ruin your illusion of the evil corporate monster.

By that logic, lets just get rid of min wages, after all, it wouldn't be that big a deal if the poor people had less, they don't have much to begin with. Give it all to the guys who don't really do crap (more than just the CEO make mega money in a franchise operation, there are lots and lots of people making high 6 figures or more.)

 

OK, so let's take ALL of the high salary employees money and give it to the low wage workers and still require McDonald's to break even so instead of $764 extra per year we may get it up to $1000 per year. So making $14K per year instead of $13K per year fixes the problem for you? I'd say it's better to leave it like it is otherwise liberals wouldn't have any room left to bitch about how low end jobs are still and always going to be low end jobs.