Wealth Inequality in America

[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.

 

Where did I say only poor people eat at McDonalds?

You said the customers tend to be on the "lower end (on average) of the income scale" Which is pure speculation.

[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.)

 

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.

No job should have pay where a 40 hour work week leaves that person eligible for food stamps.

 

And its more than just the one CEO, through the thick layers of middle and upper management in companies, there are far too many people making far too much versus the majority of the workers. And with a franchise type operation like McDonald's there are a lot of people making a lot of money. Not just 1 guy.

[strigori]

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.

There are so many levels and layers of management in companies, positions that did not exist previously, that do little to nothing to benefit the operation its not even funny. If I remember right, you do not work for a massive national or international company, so your 'management' is probably doing stuff that needs to be done. That is not the case for larger operations.

 

Raising prices is not necessarily 'how it works' Throughout decades of American history, the wealth gap was not like it is now. Management in companies didnt make hundreds and thousands of times what the lower level workers made. Just the value of the min wage vs eras that has been listed prior in this thread shows this. But that was also a time when the theories of getting the best, brightest and hardest working into, and staying with a company still were followed. Most large operations view a sizable part of their workers and a liability, and easily replaceable cogs in the machine.

[HSKR]

 

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.

No job should have pay where a 40 hour work week leaves that person eligible for food stamps.

 

And its more than just the one CEO, through the thick layers of middle and upper management in companies, there are far too many people making far too much versus the majority of the workers. And with a franchise type operation like McDonald's there are a lot of people making a lot of money. Not just 1 guy.

 

Did you even read what I just said? Take ALL of the upper salary range money redistribute to the lower pay and STILL wouldn't be a significant enough dent to make it what you want it. Not even freaking close. The only other option left is to pay to employees so much that the company loses money. What happens next? End of company and 1.7 million more on the unemployment line. THAT is what happens with your logic.

 

Let me guess, a reply coming that says that there are a lot of people in upper and middle management that makes a lot of money that do nothing, just take theirs. Broken record.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

You know why people at the bottom level get paid very little? Because there are a lot of them.

You know why there are a lot of people at the bottom? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the bottom are very commonplace.

 

You know why the people at the top get paid a lot? Because there are a few of them.

You know why there are a few people at the top? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the top are very rare.

[KJ.]

You know why people at the bottom level get paid very little? Because there are a lot of them.

You know why there are a lot of people at the bottom? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the bottom are very commonplace.

 

You know why the people at the top get paid a lot? Because there are a few of them.

You know why there are a few people at the top? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the top are very rare.

f'ing nailed it.

 

If you have a minimum wage job it means you are easily replaceable. Whose fault is it that those people are only qualified for jobs that anyone can do? And why should anyone else give a sh#t if they don't make enough money to live well?

[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.

There are so many levels and layers of management in companies, positions that did not exist previously, that do little to nothing to benefit the operation its not even funny. If I remember right, you do not work for a massive national or international company, so your 'management' is probably doing stuff that needs to be done. That is not the case for larger operations.

 

Raising prices is not necessarily 'how it works' Throughout decades of American history, the wealth gap was not like it is now. Management in companies didnt make hundreds and thousands of times what the lower level workers made. Just the value of the min wage vs eras that has been listed prior in this thread shows this. But that was also a time when the theories of getting the best, brightest and hardest working into, and staying with a company still were followed. Most large operations view a sizable part of their workers and a liability, and easily replaceable cogs in the machine.

 

 

At one time, I worked for Archer Daniels Midland. I would say that's a pretty big international company.

 

So....you believe what these companies should do is lay off large numbers of people.

[Junior]

You know why people at the bottom level get paid very little? Because there are a lot of them.

You know why there are a lot of people at the bottom? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the bottom are very commonplace.

 

You know why the people at the top get paid a lot? Because there are a few of them.

You know why there are a few people at the top? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the top are very rare.

f'ing nailed it.

 

If you have a minimum wage job it means you are easily replaceable. Whose fault is it that those people are only qualified for jobs that anyone can do? And why should anyone else give a sh#t if they don't make enough money to live well?

 

Exactly, I believe it was Jesus that said "Hoard all your money. F#@& the poor."

[HSKR]

You know why people at the bottom level get paid very little? Because there are a lot of them.

You know why there are a lot of people at the bottom? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the bottom are very commonplace.

 

You know why the people at the top get paid a lot? Because there are a few of them.

You know why there are a few people at the top? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the top are very rare.

f'ing nailed it.

 

If you have a minimum wage job it means you are easily replaceable. Whose fault is it that those people are only qualified for jobs that anyone can do? And why should anyone else give a sh#t if they don't make enough money to live well?

 

Exactly, I believe it was Jesus that said "Hoard all your money. F#@& the poor."

 

Godwin definitely needs to come up with another law that states when liberals have nothing left to support their losing argument they go to the Jesus card, the guy that none of them believes in yet they love to refer to him.

[Junior]

 

Godwin definitely needs to come up with another law that states when liberals have nothing left to support their losing argument they go to the Jesus card, the guy that none of them believes in yet they love to refer to him.

 

Oh, there's definitely plenty to support my argument, history, for example.

 

http://www.huffingto..._b_2750336.html

 

Boehner's "job killer" grumble should come as no surprise. Business groups and their political allies have been "crying wolf" about the minimum wage ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed it during the Depression to help stimulate the economy. The critics warned that enacting a minimum wage would destroy employees' drive to work hard and would force many firms out of business. The minimum wage law, warned the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) in 1937, "constitutes a step in the direction of communism, bolshevism, fascism, and Nazism." Congressman Edward Cox, a Georgia Democrat, said that the law "will destroy small industry." These ideas, Cox claimed, "are the product of those whose thinking is rooted in an alien philosophy and who are bent upon the destruction of our whole constitutional system and the setting up of a Red Labor communistic despotism upon the ruins of our Christian civilization." Roosevelt and most members of Congress ignored these warnings and adopted the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, establishing the federal minimum wage of 25 cents an hour.

 

Since then, each time Congress has considered raising the minimum wage, business groups and conservatives have repackaged the same arguments. In 1945, NAM claimed that, "The proposed jump from an hourly minimum of 40 to 65 cents at once, and 70 and 75 cents in the following years, is a reckless jolt to the economic system. Living standards, instead of being improved, would fall -- probably to record lows." Instead, the next three decades saw the biggest increased in living standards in the nation's history.

.....

 

In fact, raising the minimum wage is good for business and the overall economy. Why? Because when poor workers have more money to spend, they spend it, almost entirely in the local community, on basic necessities like housing, food, clothing and transportation. When consumer demand grows, businesses thrive, earn more profits, and create more jobs. Economists call this the "multiplier effect." According to Doug Hall of the Economic Policy Institute, a minimum wage hike to $9 would pump $21 billion into the economy.

....

 

More than one-quarter of all jobs pay poverty-level wages. According to a National Employment Law Project study, the majority of new jobs created since 2010 pay just $13.83 an hour or less. This has contributed to the nation's widening economic inequality. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz recently said, "Increasing inequality means a weaker economy" for all of us.

 

EDIT: My Jesus comment was meant as sarcasm. I didn't initially feel a comment as shockingly callous and uncaring as "why should anyone else give a sh#t if they don't make enough money to live well?" deserved a reasoned response.

[Ulty]

 

 

If you have a minimum wage job it means you are easily replaceable. Whose fault is it that those people are only qualified for jobs that anyone can do? And why should anyone else give a sh#t if they don't make enough money to live well?

 

Holy crap, you don't really care if people can afford to live or not? Some people have it tough throuh no fault of their own and don't have the bootstraps available to pull themselves up with. This includes the disabled, abused, mentally ill, and folks with children. Lots of children. Why should we give a sh#t if any of these people can get by?

 

If their wages don't cover their needs, then our tax dollars do. Our emergency rooms and hoomeless shelters, our street corners. This isn't just about lazy people not working hard enough or educating themselves or taking advantage of the system (there are plenty of those, mind you). Lots of people, families, children, have to try to get by on miniscule wages, no savings, no insurance, no future.

 

There is no easy answer. Raising minimum wages is one thing, but that would have other effects, and no one really knows an all-encompassing solution. But good god man, you certainly should give a sh#t about your fellow man.

[HSKR]

 

Godwin definitely needs to come up with another law that states when liberals have nothing left to support their losing argument they go to the Jesus card, the guy that none of them believes in yet they love to refer to him.

 

Oh, there's definitely plenty to support my argument, history, for example.

 

http://www.huffingto..._b_2750336.html

 

Boehner's "job killer" grumble should come as no surprise. Business groups and their political allies have been "crying wolf" about the minimum wage ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed it during the Depression to help stimulate the economy. The critics warned that enacting a minimum wage would destroy employees' drive to work hard and would force many firms out of business. The minimum wage law, warned the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) in 1937, "constitutes a step in the direction of communism, bolshevism, fascism, and Nazism." Congressman Edward Cox, a Georgia Democrat, said that the law "will destroy small industry." These ideas, Cox claimed, "are the product of those whose thinking is rooted in an alien philosophy and who are bent upon the destruction of our whole constitutional system and the setting up of a Red Labor communistic despotism upon the ruins of our Christian civilization." Roosevelt and most members of Congress ignored these warnings and adopted the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, establishing the federal minimum wage of 25 cents an hour.

 

Since then, each time Congress has considered raising the minimum wage, business groups and conservatives have repackaged the same arguments. In 1945, NAM claimed that, "The proposed jump from an hourly minimum of 40 to 65 cents at once, and 70 and 75 cents in the following years, is a reckless jolt to the economic system. Living standards, instead of being improved, would fall -- probably to record lows." Instead, the next three decades saw the biggest increased in living standards in the nation's history.

.....

 

In fact, raising the minimum wage is good for business and the overall economy. Why? Because when poor workers have more money to spend, they spend it, almost entirely in the local community, on basic necessities like housing, food, clothing and transportation. When consumer demand grows, businesses thrive, earn more profits, and create more jobs. Economists call this the "multiplier effect." According to Doug Hall of the Economic Policy Institute, a minimum wage hike to $9 would pump $21 billion into the economy.

....

 

More than one-quarter of all jobs pay poverty-level wages. According to a National Employment Law Project study, the majority of new jobs created since 2010 pay just $13.83 an hour or less. This has contributed to the nation's widening economic inequality. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz recently said, "Increasing inequality means a weaker economy" for all of us.

 

 

You do realize how insignificant $21 billion pumped into our economy is don't you? Well probably not, otherwise you wouldn't have posted that. Probably better stick to the Jesus card.

 

Having said that, I'm in no way against raising the minimum wage. In fact I would be in favor of a bill that say every 5 years or so would raise it based on some type of inflation adjustment calculation. I'd much rather see that then letting the politicians barter with each other and throw in their pork for votes at unspecified adjustment periods.

 

Even if we did something like that, I have bad news for you libs, a minimum wage job would still be a minimum wage job and those workers would still be fighting from being in poverty. If you are making $13K a year or $17K a year, odds are you are still royally $%^&ed when it comes to finances. Of course the other bad thing that happens when you raise the minimum wage is a lot of those jobs simply disappear. Pay four guys $9 an hour instead of five guys $7 or better yet move the jobs to Mexico or China. So is it better to try to close the close the wealth gap and at the same time have less working?

 

Also if Jesus was a researcher, he would do his research for free.

[Whistlebritches]

You know why people at the bottom level get paid very little? Because there are a lot of them.

You know why there are a lot of people at the bottom? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the bottom are very commonplace.

 

You know why the people at the top get paid a lot? Because there are a few of them.

You know why there are a few people at the top? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the top are very rare.

f'ing nailed it.

 

If you have a minimum wage job it means you are easily replaceable. Whose fault is it that those people are only qualified for jobs that anyone can do? And why should anyone else give a sh#t if they don't make enough money to live well?

 

I got mine. f#*k y'all.

[carlfense]

 

Godwin definitely needs to come up with another law that states when liberals have nothing left to support their losing argument they go to the Jesus card, the guy that none of them believes in yet they love to refer to him.

 

Oh, there's definitely plenty to support my argument, history, for example.

 

http://www.huffingto..._b_2750336.html

 

Boehner's "job killer" grumble should come as no surprise. Business groups and their political allies have been "crying wolf" about the minimum wage ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed it during the Depression to help stimulate the economy. The critics warned that enacting a minimum wage would destroy employees' drive to work hard and would force many firms out of business. The minimum wage law, warned the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) in 1937, "constitutes a step in the direction of communism, bolshevism, fascism, and Nazism." Congressman Edward Cox, a Georgia Democrat, said that the law "will destroy small industry." These ideas, Cox claimed, "are the product of those whose thinking is rooted in an alien philosophy and who are bent upon the destruction of our whole constitutional system and the setting up of a Red Labor communistic despotism upon the ruins of our Christian civilization." Roosevelt and most members of Congress ignored these warnings and adopted the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, establishing the federal minimum wage of 25 cents an hour.

 

Since then, each time Congress has considered raising the minimum wage, business groups and conservatives have repackaged the same arguments. In 1945, NAM claimed that, "The proposed jump from an hourly minimum of 40 to 65 cents at once, and 70 and 75 cents in the following years, is a reckless jolt to the economic system. Living standards, instead of being improved, would fall -- probably to record lows." Instead, the next three decades saw the biggest increased in living standards in the nation's history.

.....

 

In fact, raising the minimum wage is good for business and the overall economy. Why? Because when poor workers have more money to spend, they spend it, almost entirely in the local community, on basic necessities like housing, food, clothing and transportation. When consumer demand grows, businesses thrive, earn more profits, and create more jobs. Economists call this the "multiplier effect." According to Doug Hall of the Economic Policy Institute, a minimum wage hike to $9 would pump $21 billion into the economy.

....

 

More than one-quarter of all jobs pay poverty-level wages. According to a National Employment Law Project study, the majority of new jobs created since 2010 pay just $13.83 an hour or less. This has contributed to the nation's widening economic inequality. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz recently said, "Increasing inequality means a weaker economy" for all of us.

 

EDIT: My Jesus comment was meant as sarcasm. I didn't initially feel a comment as shockingly callous and uncaring as "why should anyone else give a sh#t if they don't make enough money to live well?" deserved a reasoned response.

F@#% b@3ches, get money.

[krill]

If you have a minimum wage job it means you are easily replaceable. Whose fault is it that those people are only qualified for jobs that anyone can do? And why should anyone else give a sh#t if they don't make enough money to live well?

 

It seems to have been demonstrated quite clearly that in most places, it is almost impossible to live period on the minimum wage without massive government subsidies or living in your parent's basement.

 

I only wish we could be honest about what's going on here instead of pretending to be shocked at how many people are on food stamps and medicaid, even more so when it's discovered that the vast majority of those people work full time jobs.