"
When men share the same basic premise, it is the most consistent ones who win. So long as men accept the altruist morality, they will not be able to stop the advance of communism. The altruist morality is Soviet Russia’s best and only weapon."
This and the fact that cashiers would be replaced by self checkout kiosks. Like what McDonald's did with their cashiers. "Here's you $15 an hour and your pink slip."
They have a hard time appreciating how razor thin profit margins are, and how inconsequential the CEO's salary is in the grand scheme of things.
Sick meme.
If something about earning $22million per year doesn't sit quite right, the way to tackle that is to rollback all the laws that favor corporations and tend to consolidate things into mega-companies. And then there just isn't as much need for top-heavy management.
Apparently math is hard for both sides. Claiming to explain complex economic effects with a short paragraph of fantasy stats with no reality whatsoever is ridiculous.
When wages at the top consistently go the direction of modern day royalty while workers at the bottom lose to inflation, the momentum will continue in the same direction until it completely breaks.
Fake money created out of nothing does not exist. Math
What is "fantasy" about the stats? If Walmart were to raise everybody's wages where would the money come from? Clearly, eliminating CEO salary and shareholder benefits wouldn't come close to covering the amount necessary (and would likely cause other problems resulting from no investment and poor leadership). Logically, the only way to do it is to reduce costs elsewhere (i.e. reduce the number of employees or hours worked) or raise prices (which is no guarantee...depends on how elastic the demand is...and this would negate wage increases to some degree as well).
I agree that fake money created out of nowhere is a problem but that's a U.S. government and Federal Reserve issue, not a Walmart issue. Inflation is a huge problem but it can't be solved by artificially raising wages and that doesn't help those on a fixed income (retirees) anyway.
The fantasy is simplifying an incredibly complex issue down to very few variables & claiming to have given an accurate assessment of effects.
They buyback shares on cheap credit whenever needed to prop up the fake stock price & enrich their executives. This, after spending many many years putting small businesses out of business so they can underpay their employees who have no other option due to all the small business failures. Preferential government treatment, lack of monopoly enforcement, & enough fake free money from the colluding banking system to do whatever they want, to whomever they want. The Federal reserve & government subsidize Walmart so much that they are all one in the same to me.
An economy built on mega corporations run by few will necessarily produce huge wealth disparity between the very few & every one else. Walmart, Amazon, the government, & the federal reserve all know this is true & is probably part of the plan as much as it is about indivual greed
I'm all for getting rid of government interference like subsidies. I just don't support adding new government interference (e.g. minimum wage) to combat other government interference (e.g. subsidies, federal reserve). Fix the root of the problem, don't create new ones (which is what minimum wage ultimately does).
The fact of the matter is that increased minimum wage increases costs for businesses, big and small. Many of those businesses are working on pretty tight margins as it is. You may want to punish walmart or force them to treat their employees better or whatever, but in the process it will just end up hurting small businesses more. Walmart will find a way to cut other costs (more automation to replace employees, fewer hours, fewer employees, cheaper benefits package, etc.). Smaller businesses often don't have that luxury.
The fact still remains that reducing CEO compensation or shareholder value will not pay for minimum wage increases. If you feel the above example is oversimplified then explain where you think the money to pay for such an increase in minimum wage will come from. Economies of scale is a real thing.
Im not advocating for an increase in minimum wage solution. Simply pointing out that cause & effect in economics is far from an exact science & that there are always many variables impossible to account for. My other point is these mega corporations, including ceos obviously rig the system to reinforce the wealth gap. I think an economy built on many many small businesses will be more efficient & secure than these giant government corporations
Well, i believe that was the whole point of the OP. i.e. that paying for a minimum wage increase is NOT a simple matter of reducing CEO compensation or stock dividends.
.gov statistics tend to contradict what the real world looks like to me. The unemployment % is a good example. The link looks like a lot of outdated inaccurate cherry picked stats.
I see no good reason why any ceo needs to make enough money to buy small countries. The wealth disparity in this country is a symptom of sickness & rapidly getting worse. Bernie is a gutless pawn
Wealth disparity is a non-issue in itself. The more important issue is whether or not the middle and lower classes are improving or getting worse.
A CEO doesn't NEED to make enough to buy a small country but if the net effect on everybody else is nil (which would seem to be the case based on basic numbers), then it's irrelevant. If there is a problem with jobs or income with the average person, it has nothing to do with CEO salary. That's kind of the point of the OP and exactly the type of argument the OP is addressing.
As far as the statistics, the basic numbers are pretty clear. For the time being, more people are employed by small businesses than by large corporations (though it's nearly a 50/50 split). It's true that large corporations are always buying up smaller companies and consolidating but it is also true that new small businesses are created every day. If you have some better statistics I would love to see them. I don't consider "How the world looks to you" to be a very reliable source either unless you can back that up with some specifics. I can look around my town at small business vs. large corporations and the 50/50 split looks about right to me.
" This, after spending many many years putting small businesses out of business so they can underpay their employees who have no other option due to all the small business failures. "
That's false.
The only reason they don't have other options is due to taxes and regulations, especially property taxes, income taxes, and the minimum wage.
If you cannot freely start a business and own a home without constantly having to pay the governemnt money, you'll always be a neo-feudal slave.
It's not so much that corporations write the laws, it's that they bribe the politicians to pass them. The problem is with the amount of power politicians have. If they didn't have the power to do these things, there wouldn't be an issue. As long as they have such power, the problem will exist. Unless you believe in the myth of the "honest politician".
Did the chicken or egg come first? I’d say a ceo of a corporation the size of wal mart is much much more powerful than a lowly politician. CEO makes much more money & is hired for an unlimited # of years. CEOs buy & sell politicians, both have way too much power.
But if the politicians didn't have so much power, they wouldn't be worth buying. As long as politicians have broad taxation and regulation powers, they will be targets for corruption.
"
When men share the same basic premise, it is the most consistent ones who win. So long as men accept the altruist morality, they will not be able to stop the advance of communism. The altruist morality is Soviet Russia’s best and only weapon."
Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 196
This and the fact that cashiers would be replaced by self checkout kiosks. Like what McDonald's did with their cashiers. "Here's you $15 an hour and your pink slip."
The only two people that should decide an employee's wage are the employee and employer. Not the government.
Socialist Bernie has no idea what he is talking about.
Posted using Partiko Android
They have a hard time appreciating how razor thin profit margins are, and how inconsequential the CEO's salary is in the grand scheme of things.
Sick meme.
If something about earning $22million per year doesn't sit quite right, the way to tackle that is to rollback all the laws that favor corporations and tend to consolidate things into mega-companies. And then there just isn't as much need for top-heavy management.
Apparently math is hard for both sides. Claiming to explain complex economic effects with a short paragraph of fantasy stats with no reality whatsoever is ridiculous.
When wages at the top consistently go the direction of modern day royalty while workers at the bottom lose to inflation, the momentum will continue in the same direction until it completely breaks.
Fake money created out of nothing does not exist. Math
What is "fantasy" about the stats? If Walmart were to raise everybody's wages where would the money come from? Clearly, eliminating CEO salary and shareholder benefits wouldn't come close to covering the amount necessary (and would likely cause other problems resulting from no investment and poor leadership). Logically, the only way to do it is to reduce costs elsewhere (i.e. reduce the number of employees or hours worked) or raise prices (which is no guarantee...depends on how elastic the demand is...and this would negate wage increases to some degree as well).
I agree that fake money created out of nowhere is a problem but that's a U.S. government and Federal Reserve issue, not a Walmart issue. Inflation is a huge problem but it can't be solved by artificially raising wages and that doesn't help those on a fixed income (retirees) anyway.
The fantasy is simplifying an incredibly complex issue down to very few variables & claiming to have given an accurate assessment of effects.
They buyback shares on cheap credit whenever needed to prop up the fake stock price & enrich their executives. This, after spending many many years putting small businesses out of business so they can underpay their employees who have no other option due to all the small business failures. Preferential government treatment, lack of monopoly enforcement, & enough fake free money from the colluding banking system to do whatever they want, to whomever they want. The Federal reserve & government subsidize Walmart so much that they are all one in the same to me.
An economy built on mega corporations run by few will necessarily produce huge wealth disparity between the very few & every one else. Walmart, Amazon, the government, & the federal reserve all know this is true & is probably part of the plan as much as it is about indivual greed
I'm all for getting rid of government interference like subsidies. I just don't support adding new government interference (e.g. minimum wage) to combat other government interference (e.g. subsidies, federal reserve). Fix the root of the problem, don't create new ones (which is what minimum wage ultimately does).
The fact of the matter is that increased minimum wage increases costs for businesses, big and small. Many of those businesses are working on pretty tight margins as it is. You may want to punish walmart or force them to treat their employees better or whatever, but in the process it will just end up hurting small businesses more. Walmart will find a way to cut other costs (more automation to replace employees, fewer hours, fewer employees, cheaper benefits package, etc.). Smaller businesses often don't have that luxury.
The fact still remains that reducing CEO compensation or shareholder value will not pay for minimum wage increases. If you feel the above example is oversimplified then explain where you think the money to pay for such an increase in minimum wage will come from. Economies of scale is a real thing.
Im not advocating for an increase in minimum wage solution. Simply pointing out that cause & effect in economics is far from an exact science & that there are always many variables impossible to account for. My other point is these mega corporations, including ceos obviously rig the system to reinforce the wealth gap. I think an economy built on many many small businesses will be more efficient & secure than these giant government corporations
Well, i believe that was the whole point of the OP. i.e. that paying for a minimum wage increase is NOT a simple matter of reducing CEO compensation or stock dividends.
At least for now, small businesses are alive and well: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/opadhome/mtdpweb/sbfacts.htm
.gov statistics tend to contradict what the real world looks like to me. The unemployment % is a good example. The link looks like a lot of outdated inaccurate cherry picked stats.
I see no good reason why any ceo needs to make enough money to buy small countries. The wealth disparity in this country is a symptom of sickness & rapidly getting worse. Bernie is a gutless pawn
Wealth disparity is a non-issue in itself. The more important issue is whether or not the middle and lower classes are improving or getting worse.
A CEO doesn't NEED to make enough to buy a small country but if the net effect on everybody else is nil (which would seem to be the case based on basic numbers), then it's irrelevant. If there is a problem with jobs or income with the average person, it has nothing to do with CEO salary. That's kind of the point of the OP and exactly the type of argument the OP is addressing.
As far as the statistics, the basic numbers are pretty clear. For the time being, more people are employed by small businesses than by large corporations (though it's nearly a 50/50 split). It's true that large corporations are always buying up smaller companies and consolidating but it is also true that new small businesses are created every day. If you have some better statistics I would love to see them. I don't consider "How the world looks to you" to be a very reliable source either unless you can back that up with some specifics. I can look around my town at small business vs. large corporations and the 50/50 split looks about right to me.
" This, after spending many many years putting small businesses out of business so they can underpay their employees who have no other option due to all the small business failures. "
That's false.
The only reason they don't have other options is due to taxes and regulations, especially property taxes, income taxes, and the minimum wage.
If you cannot freely start a business and own a home without constantly having to pay the governemnt money, you'll always be a neo-feudal slave.
When mega corporations write the laws to reinforce their dominance they put small businesses out of business & might as well be government. Fact
It's not so much that corporations write the laws, it's that they bribe the politicians to pass them. The problem is with the amount of power politicians have. If they didn't have the power to do these things, there wouldn't be an issue. As long as they have such power, the problem will exist. Unless you believe in the myth of the "honest politician".
Did the chicken or egg come first? I’d say a ceo of a corporation the size of wal mart is much much more powerful than a lowly politician. CEO makes much more money & is hired for an unlimited # of years. CEOs buy & sell politicians, both have way too much power.
But if the politicians didn't have so much power, they wouldn't be worth buying. As long as politicians have broad taxation and regulation powers, they will be targets for corruption.