Wealth Inequality in America

[carlfense]

No problem. I will accept the owners compensation at $1.5 million. So the best you can come up with is cutting the compensation in half? How many small business owners do you think would do that versus raising prices on the consumer or unfortunately cutting staff? You are right, though. It is an option. Just not a good one.

It was the easiest one. In fact . . . it's easier than getting consumers to swallow a price increase.

 

If you chose to elaborate on your hypothetical we could almost certainly find others. But then again . . . that'd make it harder for you to say that I was stalling, dodging, etc. And we wouldn't want that.

[BigRedBuster]

Ever since I was a kid in the 1970s, I have heard people claiming low income people can't make a living.

 

Since 1975, we have raised the minimum wage 14 times. It is now 3.6 times higher than it was then.

 

Every time this comes up, proponents of raising it claim the disparity between high income and low income is a problem. They claim we are losing our middle class...and on and on and on...

 

Well, we have now done it 14 times since I was paying attention and they claim all of these problems are getting worse.

 

Now, I'm not necessarily against raising the minimum wage. I'm fine with having a minimum level that most jobs have to pay. If we are going to use the argument that it is going to help solve these problems, then someone is going to have to show me some facts on this.

[Mavric]

I know everyone hates WalMart so no one will care but this seems relevant and current:

 

Tug on the stem of any anti-corporate protest these days, and you're likely to find the same root -- unions more attuned to their own self-interest than the futures of low-income workers.

 

Just take a look at what happened to Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), which had the audacity to make plans to bring six stores and 1,800 jobs to Washington, D.C. -- catering to parts of the city where unemployment rates are among the highest in the nation. After the city council voted to single out the giant retailer with a requirement to pay workers 50% above minimum wage, Wal-Mart iced at least part--and possibly all--of those plans.

 

<snip>

 

But the No. 1 company on the Fortune 500 list, no stranger to setting up shop in union-strangleholds, plowed on. Wal-Mart regional general manager Alex Barron noted in theWashington Post this week that store officials engaged "in an open dialogue with residents, stakeholders, critics, and elected officials" and became sufficiently confident of local support that plans were made to increase the investment from four to six stores and 1,200 to 1,800 jobs.

The company's charitable foundation doled out $3.8 million last year to poverty-fighting organizations like D.C. Central Kitchen and Capitol Area Food Bank.

Local officials, including the mayor, quickly recognized the importance not only of jobs, but of providing low-cost groceries, clothes, and other consumer products to residents who must take public transportation for miles to find retail outlets.

 

Then, at the 11th hour, with two stores slated to open this fall, organized labor struck. The D.C. council took up union-backed legislation, called the Large Retailer Accountability Act, that would force giant box stores -- i.e. Wal-Mart -- to pay workers $12.50 an hour instead of the $8.25 minimum wage. (The measure applies to retailers over 75,000 square feet and with a parent company gross revenues of more than $1 billion. Existing stores are exempt.)

 

<snip>

 

The proponents of this "living wage" measure describe Wal-Mart's pullout as a victory for income equality and low-income workers. Really? Let's look at some facts. Washington, D.C.'s 68 square miles feature one of the widest income chasms in the country. The overall unemployment rate is about 8.5%, but Ward 7 -- which will lose two major Wal-Mart facilities -- has an unemployment rate that hovers at seven to eight times that of the mostly white, upper middle class Ward 3 in Northwest Washington.

No wonder Ward 7 council member Yvette M. Alexander described Wal-Mart's threatened pullout as "her worst nightmare" and called the legislation "a development killer ... a jobs killer." Her constituents are coping with a 15% unemployment rate.

 

Ward 8 is even worse, with a 23% unemployment rate. A 2012 Department of Employment Services report stressed that "wards with the highest poverty need access to resources that break the poverty cycle such as transportation to outlying areas where much of the economic growth is occurring and will grow."

 

Full Article

 

 

 

Edit: Sorry. Don't know what I screwed up the first time.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Mavric

[StPaulHusker]

Wouldn't this be reverse age discrimination? You would be paying older people more to do the same job as a younger person just because they are older. You could make the argument that a younger person could work harder and therefore should make more money. I am using a manual labor scenario, BTW.

Not if the government changes the age discrimination laws . . . which would presumably be a part of a two level minimum wage law.

So you have a single mother of 2. Age 22. And a married mother of 2. Age 35. Tell me why the younger person should make less per hour. I am not picking a fight, BTW. I just don't see logic in age based wages.

[StPaulHusker]

No reason to change the law, much like Medicaid covers people of a certain age and not everyone.

I see what you're saying but I think that a mandated wage paid by a private employer is somewhat different than a service provided directly by the government.

I agree. Medicaid has an intention based on age. Not general wages.

[JJ Husker]

Wouldn't this be reverse age discrimination? You would be paying older people more to do the same job as a younger person just because they are older. You could make the argument that a younger person could work harder and therefore should make more money. I am using a manual labor scenario, BTW.

Not if the government changes the age discrimination laws . . . which would presumably be a part of a two level minimum wage law.

 

No reason to change the law, much like Medicaid covers people of a certain age and not everyone.

 

The problem would not be reverse age discrimination, that's an easy one to get by. The problem would be straight age discrimination in the hiring process. If there are 2 minimum wages (assuming the one for older people is a higher wage) and I have a job opening that either person can do, who do you think I am going to hire to do that job? That's right, the lower cost teenager. Of course, assuming all other things being equal. Since it is minimum wage type work I am assuming any animated breathing body will do.

[BigRedBuster]

Wouldn't this be reverse age discrimination? You would be paying older people more to do the same job as a younger person just because they are older. You could make the argument that a younger person could work harder and therefore should make more money. I am using a manual labor scenario, BTW.

Not if the government changes the age discrimination laws . . . which would presumably be a part of a two level minimum wage law.

So you have a single mother of 2. Age 22. And a married mother of 2. Age 35. Tell me why the younger person should make less per hour. I am not picking a fight, BTW. I just don't see logic in age based wages.

 

 

Neither one has to make minimum wage.

[sd'sker]

Ever since I was a kid in the 1970s, I have heard people claiming low income people can't make a living.

 

Since 1975, we have raised the minimum wage 14 times. It is now 3.6 times higher than it was then.

 

Every time this comes up, proponents of raising it claim the disparity between high income and low income is a problem. They claim we are losing our middle class...and on and on and on...

 

Well, we have now done it 14 times since I was paying attention and they claim all of these problems are getting worse.

 

Now, I'm not necessarily against raising the minimum wage. I'm fine with having a minimum level that most jobs have to pay. If we are going to use the argument that it is going to help solve these problems, then someone is going to have to show me some facts on this.

how can we show you facts before it has happened?

 

but the other side is that the raises in minimum wage have been *far* out gained by inflation. it minimum wage just kept up with inflation, i do not think this is an issue.

[carlfense]

So you have a single mother of 2. Age 22. And a married mother of 2. Age 35. Tell me why the younger person should make less per hour.

I don't think that they should make less per hour. Particularly if they're doing the same job.

 

On the other hand, I'd take a minimum wage increase for some over a minimum wage increase for no one. If a tiered system is required to make it politically acceptable then I would support that as a step in the right direction. Seems pragmatic, no?

[carlfense]

They claim we are losing our middle class...and on and on and on...

We are losing our middle class.

[StPaulHusker]

No problem. I will accept the owners compensation at $1.5 million. So the best you can come up with is cutting the compensation in half? How many small business owners do you think would do that versus raising prices on the consumer or unfortunately cutting staff? You are right, though. It is an option. Just not a good one.

It was the easiest one. In fact . . . it's easier than getting consumers to swallow a price increase.

 

If you chose to elaborate on your hypothetical we could almost certainly find others. But then again . . . that'd make it harder for you to say that I was stalling, dodging, etc. And we wouldn't want that.

Easier on who? Does this said owner take their chances that consumers will accept the increase, maybe lose a few customers? Or do they cut their livelihood in half? As a business owner myself, I am taking my chances with the price increase because chances are, my competition is in the same boat I am and will have to do the same thing.

 

I know I could have been more specific. I could have drawn out a long scenario. I was genuinely interested in how to make up the additional overhead. The first 2 options are likely. The 3rd is possible but not very likely. Honestly, I don't think there are any other good ones left.

[carlfense]

but the other side is that the raises in minimum wage have been *far* out gained by inflation. it minimum wage just kept up with inflation, i do not think this is an issue.

Yep. Tie it to inflation and the minimum wage would be close to $20 IIRC.

[StPaulHusker]

Wouldn't this be reverse age discrimination? You would be paying older people more to do the same job as a younger person just because they are older. You could make the argument that a younger person could work harder and therefore should make more money. I am using a manual labor scenario, BTW.

Not if the government changes the age discrimination laws . . . which would presumably be a part of a two level minimum wage law.

So you have a single mother of 2. Age 22. And a married mother of 2. Age 35. Tell me why the younger person should make less per hour. I am not picking a fight, BTW. I just don't see logic in age based wages.

 

 

Neither one has to make minimum wage.

I didn't say they did. I asked why the younger one should make less based on their age.

[carlfense]

Easier on who? Does this said owner take their chances that consumers will accept the increase, maybe lose a few customers? Or do they cut their livelihood in half?

"Easiest" as in least effect on the business itself. Unless you think that the owner would run his own business less effectively if he took home a smaller salary . . .

 

As a business owner myself, I am taking my chances with the price increase because chances are, my competition is in the same boat I am and will have to do the same thing.

I can understand the temptation to make others pay more rather than taking home less money yourself. It's classic "taker" behavior.

[StPaulHusker]

So you have a single mother of 2. Age 22. And a married mother of 2. Age 35. Tell me why the younger person should make less per hour.

I don't think that they should make less per hour. Particularly if they're doing the same job.

 

On the other hand, I'd take a minimum wage increase for some over a minimum wage increase for no one. If a tiered system is required to make it politically acceptable then I would support that as a step in the right direction. Seems pragmatic, no?

It is pragmatic. But I find an aged based tiered system of pay flawed. I see way too many employers taking advantage of this situation