Wealth Inequality in America

[Mavric]

Your response makes no sense whatsoever. It's simple math and simple logic.

 

More people buying products definitely does not mean more products are being sold. If I by 3 things and you buy none before a change then I buy 2 and you buy one, there are "more people buying more products" but the amount of products sold stays the same.

So wait, is there a static amount of goods that can ever be sold? There's nothing logical about that.

Where did I ever talk about a static amount of goods in my original post? I only gave an illustration about how "more people buying more products" doesn't mean that more products are being sold.

 

I'll try to slow it down for you.

 

1 - Minimum wage is raised

2 - Company A (who has employees making minimum wage) has to raise prices on the products they sell to cover raised wages (or cut staff but we're ignoring that option)

3 - Other low- and middle-class consumers now have to pay more for the items they buy from Company A

4 - Other low- and middle-class consumers now have less money left to buy products from Company B, Company C, etc.

 

Thus, there are "more people" (i.e., minimum wage earners) who have more money to spend, but there are also many more low- and middle-class consumers who now have less money to spend because their dollars aren't going as far so the total money being spent hasn't changed, it has only been shifted from one group to the other.

[tschu]

Your response makes no sense whatsoever. It's simple math and simple logic.

 

More people buying products definitely does not mean more products are being sold. If I by 3 things and you buy none before a change then I buy 2 and you buy one, there are "more people buying more products" but the amount of products sold stays the same.

So wait, is there a static amount of goods that can ever be sold? There's nothing logical about that.

Where did I ever talk about a static amount of goods in my original post? I only gave an illustration about how "more people buying more products" doesn't mean that more products are being sold.

 

I'll try to slow it down for you.

 

1 - Minimum wage is raised

2 - Company A (who has employees making minimum wage) has to raise prices on the products they sell to cover raised wages (or cut staff but we're ignoring that option)

3 - Other low- and middle-class consumers now have to pay more for the items they buy from Company A

4 - Other low- and middle-class consumers now have less money left to buy products from Company B, Company C, etc.

 

Thus, there are "more people" (i.e., minimum wage earners) who have more money to spend, but there are also many more low- and middle-class consumers who now have less money to spend because their dollars aren't going as far so the total money being spent hasn't changed, it has only been shifted from one group to the other.

 

This.

 

Also, Bye Bye, the problem isn't that the top people in the workforce earn a lot or that the bottom folks earn very little. It's that the gap between the two is the widest that it has ever been and continues to get wider. Which is what you get when the richest people tend to be either in positions of power in the government itself or have friends in the government and lobby heavily with all that money in order to get the policies that they need to make even more money.

 

At some point, there is an amount of money that an individual can possess where the returns on their life fulfillment and happiness fail to increase with increased wealth. And it's not necessarily a person's fault that they do what anyone would do - try to acquire more wealth - but it is the system's fault. There will always be super-rich people and there's nothing wrong with that, but something has to be done to try to shift a little more income down to the lower and middle class people who really need it to pay the bills, rather than trading in the 60-foot yacht for a 100-foot one.

[knapplc]

I don't have a problem with the mega-rich. If they can get crazy wealthy, more power to them. Like the kid who dropped out of high school at 15 and founded Tumblr, only to sell it to Yahoo last month for a billion dollars. Great for him, and that doesn't do anything to hurt me.

 

The only time I have a problem with the wealthy is if they climb that ladder and then pull it up behind them so the next guy can't. Once you get wealthy, if you change the rules so others can't do the same, that's a problem.

[Stumpy1]

I don't have a problem with the mega-rich. If they can get crazy wealthy, more power to them. Like the kid who dropped out of high school at 15 and founded Tumblr, only to sell it to Yahoo last month for a billion dollars. Great for him, and that doesn't do anything to hurt me.

 

The only time I have a problem with the wealthy is if they climb that ladder and then pull it up behind them so the next guy can't. Once you get wealthy, if you change the rules so others can't do the same, that's a problem.

This rings true in so many ways. The CEO for the company I work for came up from the bottom and he is one of the best guys you could work for. He knows what the lower level people go through and is compassionate for them. The VP, whom no longer works for us, also came up the ranks. Once he became a man of power, he ruled like Stalin. He literally would fire a person because he could, no other reason although he would come up with something. His actions ended up getting him fired because the CEO and the guy that started the company both did not like the way he treated the lower level employees.

[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.

Chunks of management, yes absolutely. What they 'do' is of little to no use. Have good people, which you get by not paying crap. But the current corporate mentality is anyone not 'management' is worthless/stupid/incompetent/a thief we just have not caught in the act yet. Look at a flow chart in most, there are managers who oversee managers who over see managers, each making more money than the last rank, and often the only 'talent' they have is kissing ass and shifting blame. They come up with 'ideas' and 'programs' that offer no real benefit to a company besides the ego stroke.

 

Interesting....

 

This is what many companies did over the last 4-5 years. I guess they could do it even farther. Then, we have even more low income/poor people that the government has to support.

[carlfense]

I'll try to slow it down for you.

 

1 - Minimum wage is raised

2 - Company A (who has employees making minimum wage) has to raise prices on the products they sell to cover raised wages (or cut staff but we're ignoring that option)

3 - Other low- and middle-class consumers now have to pay more for the items they buy from Company A

4 - Other low- and middle-class consumers now have less money left to buy products from Company B, Company C, etc.

 

Thus, there are "more people" (i.e., minimum wage earners) who have more money to spend, but there are also many more low- and middle-class consumers who now have less money to spend because their dollars aren't going as far so the total money being spent hasn't changed, it has only been shifted from one group to the other.

Why do you assume the bold? It seems to me that without that assumption your argument isn't going far.

 

Are you truly arguing that raising prices on the end product or cutting the numbers of staff are the only options? Or are you hoping that no one notices?

[StPaulHusker]

I'll try to slow it down for you.

 

1 - Minimum wage is raised

2 - Company A (who has employees making minimum wage) has to raise prices on the products they sell to cover raised wages (or cut staff but we're ignoring that option)

3 - Other low- and middle-class consumers now have to pay more for the items they buy from Company A

4 - Other low- and middle-class consumers now have less money left to buy products from Company B, Company C, etc.

 

Thus, there are "more people" (i.e., minimum wage earners) who have more money to spend, but there are also many more low- and middle-class consumers who now have less money to spend because their dollars aren't going as far so the total money being spent hasn't changed, it has only been shifted from one group to the other.

Why do you assume the bold? It seems to me that without that assumption your argument isn't going far.

 

Are you truly arguing that raising prices on the end product or cutting the numbers of staff are the only options? Or are you hoping that no one notices?

Do you have other options in mind for reducing overhead costs?

[carlfense]

Do you have other options in mind for reducing overhead costs?

Google that phrase if you're truly interested.

 

Or we can just pretend like there is only one or two options.

[StPaulHusker]

Do you have other options in mind for reducing overhead costs?

Google that phrase if you're truly interested.

 

Or we can just pretend like there is only one or two options.

Have you googled it? I am interested in how YOU would offset the added costs of a higher minimum wage for employees without, reducing the amount of employees, or passing the costs along to customers.

[Mavric]

I'll try to slow it down for you.

 

1 - Minimum wage is raised

2 - Company A (who has employees making minimum wage) has to raise prices on the products they sell to cover raised wages (or cut staff but we're ignoring that option)

3 - Other low- and middle-class consumers now have to pay more for the items they buy from Company A

4 - Other low- and middle-class consumers now have less money left to buy products from Company B, Company C, etc.

 

Thus, there are "more people" (i.e., minimum wage earners) who have more money to spend, but there are also many more low- and middle-class consumers who now have less money to spend because their dollars aren't going as far so the total money being spent hasn't changed, it has only been shifted from one group to the other.

Why do you assume the bold? It seems to me that without that assumption your argument isn't going far.

 

Are you truly arguing that raising prices on the end product or cutting the numbers of staff are the only options? Or are you hoping that no one notices?

No, there are obviously other options available. I should have said "is likely to raise prices" instead of "has to". But it seems to me like the two most likely options are to raise prices or cut back on staff and Junior claims suggesting that is "crying wolf" so I went with the other option.

[carlfense]

I am interested in how YOU would offset the added costs of a higher minimum wage for employees without, reducing the amount of employees, or passing the costs along to customers.

You're going to have to design a hypothetical business with some very specific facts if you want me to offer a hypothetical way to pay minimum wage employees a larger salary.

 

There isn't a one size fits all solution.

[carlfense]

No, there are obviously other options available. I should have said "is likely to raise prices" instead of "has to".

Raising prices is probably the easiest option from a management perspective. That doesn't mean that it's the best option.

 

I'd venture a guess that nearly the same arguments have been made every time the minimum wage laws have been increased (and probably when they were first enacted) and yet disaster has been averted.

[StPaulHusker]

I am interested in how YOU would offset the added costs of a higher minimum wage for employees without, reducing the amount of employees, or passing the costs along to customers.

You're going to have to design a hypothetical business with some very specific facts if you want me to offer a hypothetical way to pay minimum wage employees a larger salary.

 

There isn't a one size fits all solution.

Sure. Manufacturing company. Privately owned in a smallish town. Lets say 100 employees. $3 per hour wage hike due to mandated minimum wage raise. 40 hours per week per employee. $12,000 per week more in wages. Don't forget that employers have to pay the same taxes as the employee does on that paycheck. Plus more unemployment insurance. That's $625,000 in extra wages per year plus taxes of say an additional $150,000 per year in employment taxes. Over $750,000 in additional money comes out of the pocket of the employer.

 

I have to say going paperless and renting equipment like it said in the google it page probably won't cover that.

[Junior]

I'll try to slow it down for you.

 

1 - Minimum wage is raised

2 - Company A (who has employees making minimum wage) has to raise prices on the products they sell to cover raised wages (or cut staff but we're ignoring that option)

3 - Other low- and middle-class consumers now have to pay more for the items they buy from Company A

4 - Other low- and middle-class consumers now have less money left to buy products from Company B, Company C, etc.

 

Thus, there are "more people" (i.e., minimum wage earners) who have more money to spend, but there are also many more low- and middle-class consumers who now have less money to spend because their dollars aren't going as far so the total money being spent hasn't changed, it has only been shifted from one group to the other.

Why do you assume the bold? It seems to me that without that assumption your argument isn't going far.

 

Are you truly arguing that raising prices on the end product or cutting the numbers of staff are the only options? Or are you hoping that no one notices?

 

This.

[Junior]

No, there are obviously other options available. I should have said "is likely to raise prices" instead of "has to".

Raising prices is probably the easiest option from a management perspective. That doesn't mean that it's the best option.

 

I'd venture a guess that nearly the same arguments have been made every time the minimum wage laws have been increased (and probably when they were first enacted) and yet disaster has been averted.

 

In fact, they have, which is noted in the Huffington Post article I linked to here:

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/64360-wealth-inequality-in-america/page__view__findpost__p__1182642