Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: There Are 85 People Who Are As Wealthy As Half The WORLD, Oxfam Reports

  1. #11
    You may like this article

    Why are US corporate profits so high? Because wages are so low

    U.S. businesses have never had it so good.
    Corporate cash piles have never been bigger, either in dollar terms or as a share of the economy.
    The labor market, meanwhile, is still millions of jobs short of where it was before the global financial crisis first erupted over six years ago.
    Coincidence?
    Not in the slightest, according to Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist at Goldman Sachs:
    “The strength (in profits) is directly related to the weakness in hourly wages, which are still growing at just a 2% nominal pace. The weakness of wages and the resulting strength of profits are telling signs that the US labor market is still far from full employment.
    Companies have been unable to raise prices much because of the economic recovery has been fragile. But they’ve still managed to boost profits beyond anything ever seen before because they’ve got away with employing as few workers as possible at as low a rate as possible.
    Compare and contrast these two charts:






    So, corporate profits are their highest ever and wage growth is near its lowest in half a century. But don’t expect the transfer of that cash from businesses to workers to start any time soon, says Hatzius:
    “The bottom line is that the favorable environment for corporate profits should persist for some time yet, and the case for an acceleration in the near term is strong. Hourly labor costs would need to grow more than 4% to eat into margins on a systematic basis. Such a strong acceleration still seems to be at least a couple of years off.”
    Why are US corporate profits so high? Because wages are so low | MacroScope
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  2. #12
    So what does that tell us? Nothing. Are companies supposed to pay people more when the economy is in the tank? No company hires workers when there isn't enough work to justify hiring another employee. Only governments do that. Companies are also not paying current workers less. Wages only grow rapidly when the economy grows rapidly. When the economy is not growing or grows slowly, wages follow that trend.

    Average wages are low because the majority of new jobs being created are part-time jobs. In some months almost 75% of the new jobs reported by the Obama administration are part-time jobs. That is a directly due to the costs and uncertainty imposed by ObamaCare and over 120,000 pages of of new business regulations created by the Obama administration.

    I don't believe that on average most corporations are sitting on piles of cash. I don't know of a single corporation, other than energy companies and government contractors, that is doing better now than they were 7 or 8 years ago. You also cannot legitimately compare corporate profits to GDP when GDP has been so low since 2008. The same corporate profits as in 2008 would rank much higher on that chart when compared to today's lower GDP. This raises the age-old question: "Do the figures lie or do liars figure?" That is a very misleading chart.

    Reuters is not any more of a neutral source for information than Business Week. Ever since Bloomberg took over Business Week, it has become an extremely liberal publication not too much unlike Newsweek. The majority of the articles are political rather than financial. Reuters has always been liberal. I would believe the numbers much more if it they were from a legitimate financial information source such as the Wall Street Journal.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    So what does that tell us? Nothing. Are companies supposed to pay people more when the economy is in the tank? No company hires workers when there isn't enough work to justify hiring another employee. Only governments do that. Companies are also not paying current workers less. Wages only grow rapidly when the economy grows rapidly. When the economy is not growing or grows slowly, wages follow that trend.
    Just to recap a little. The majority of corporations reduced wages when the economy wasn't great, and that's not entry level wages? right? When the economy is doing great, as you can see in any statistic graphics available, people are not getting any raise, and if I follow your reasoning, workers get only raises when they climb the ladder in the enterprise. I guess we both agree on that.


    Average wages are low because the majority of new jobs being created are part-time jobs. In some months almost 75% of the new jobs reported by the Obama administration are part-time jobs. That is a directly due to the costs and uncertainty imposed by ObamaCare and over 120,000 pages of of new business regulations created by the Obama administration.
    I guess we both agree on this too, the way the affordable act was build is not what was promised and that's not the best system in my opinion. We are seeing how that affect the job market and the buying power. People aren't happy and this affordable act should be cancelled.


    I don't believe that on average most corporations are sitting on piles of cash. I don't know of a single corporation, other than energy companies and government contractors, that is doing better now than they were 7 or 8 years ago. You also cannot legitimately compare corporate profits to GDP when GDP has been so low since 2008. The same corporate profits as in 2008 would rank much higher on that chart when compared to today's lower GDP. This raises the age-old question: "Do the figures lie or do liars figure?" That is a very misleading chart.
    You don't believe that most corporations mostly public multi national corporations are sitting on a pile of cash, let me show you something:
    Companies sitting on cash pile of over $1 trillion
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100911328


    and if you don't like CNBC, here is another article from WSJ

    U.S. Firms Build Up Record Cash Piles
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704312104575298652567988246


    I really believe that the best way to see the truth is taking the best objectivity possible.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Franc Tireur View Post
    Just to recap a little. The majority of corporations reduced wages when the economy wasn't great, and that's not entry level wages? right? When the economy is doing great, as you can see in any statistic graphics available, people are not getting any raise, and if I follow your reasoning, workers get only raises when they climb the ladder in the enterprise. I guess we both agree on that.
    Only a very small number (you can count them on your fingers) of corporations who were in danger of going bankrupt reduced wages. It is completely false to say that the majority of corporation reduced wages. The issue is not reduced wages. Read the articles. It is reduced wage growth, which is something entirely different. That is not being greedy. That is common sense in a poor economy.

    Companies who are sitting on trillions in cash most likely held large sums in reserve before the recession. Once again, that is the wise thing to do in uncertain economic times. It is how a company survives. It does not make any sense at all to start spending that money on jobs that are not needed. Would you hire someone to cut your lawn if you do not have a lawn? It is no different. No business in their right mind hires someone until there is justification for doing so. Only governments do that. The demand for jobs must precede the growth in jobs.

    If you dig into the numbers you will find that only a relatively small number of major corporations are driving the cash numbers. On average, almost all companies who are outside of the energy and government contractor segments are in much worse shape. To assume that the numbers represent all corporations would be a misleading and a mistake. The Federal Reserve figure is a combined number, and not an average. It could be driven by 5% of US companies mostly in the energy sector. The problem with any statistics is in how they are reported. Statistics are frequently misleading, even if they are technically accurate.

    The real problem with job creation is that almost everything the Obama administration has done (ObamaCare, 125,000+ pages of new regulations, wild spending sprees, increased debt, etc.) has stifled job growth. The only jobs that socialists know how to create are government jobs, which is why governments are so inefficient. No corporation could survive using government hiring practices. We are now up to $55,000 of Federal government debt per capita that we have no possibility of repaying. That is a dramatic increase and a record amount. It should scare the heck out of every American. The government has been on a wild spending spree with our credit cards. That is another major concern for businesses who understand economics better than the average person.
    Last edited by TopDogger; 25 January, 2014 at 13:13 PM.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    Only a very small number (you can count them on your fingers) of corporations who were in danger of going bankrupt reduced wages. It is completely false to say that the majority of corporation reduced wages. The issue is not reduced wages. Read the articles. It is reduced wage growth, which is something entirely different. That is not being greedy. That is common sense in a poor economy.
    Ok maybe I was exaggerating a little, but look I didn't even talked about Employers Reducing Employee Benefits, tape the keyword "wages reduction" or "Reduced Employee Benefits" in a search engine and you will see that a lot of people were affected.

    It looks like an eternal class war! The disdain of the top class and the upper class toward the middle class and poor class. There is no respect and no compassion, just exploitation, and it is where in our societies we never intellectually evolved.

    The real problem with job creation is that almost everything the Obama administration has done (ObamaCare, 125,000+ pages of new regulations, wild spending sprees, increased debt, etc.) has stifled job growth. The only jobs that socialists know how to create are government jobs, which is why governments are so inefficient. No corporation could survive using government hiring practices. We are now up to $55,000 of Federal government debt per capita that we have no possibility of repaying. That is a dramatic increase and a record amount. It should scare the heck out of every American. The government has been on a wild spending spree with our credit cards. That is another major concern for businesses who understand economics better than the average person.
    Governments in general spend too much and waste too much the money of others. It is what we called in French the "le tonneau des Danaïdes".

    I think a very concentrated power have a negative impact in our societies, because mistakes are multiplied and damages are extremely severe. Another problem is that people don't talk each others, and debate truly. Unfortunately it is all about money that stays on the top earner list.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Franc Tireur View Post
    Ok maybe I was exaggerating a little, but look I didn't even talked about Employers Reducing Employee Benefits, tape the keyword "wages reduction" or "Reduced Employee Benefits" in a search engine and you will see that a lot of people were affected.
    That does happen. A lot of benefit reduction came as a result of the increased costs of ObamaCare, which also caused thousands of companies to limit many workers to part-time status. The overwhelming majority of companies are not capable of absorbing huge increases in costs. My wife works for the local county school system. They were forced to limit adjunct faculty (part time teachers) to less than 30 hours because if they allowed them to work more than 30 hours it dramatically increased everyone's health care costs. That did not affect very many people, but it did limit part-time teachers who were teaching several classes for extra money. That is happening all across the country as a direct result of a poorly written law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Franc Tireur View Post
    It looks like an eternal class war! The disdain of the top class and the upper class toward the middle class and poor class. There is no respect and no compassion, just exploitation, and it is where in our societies we never intellectually evolved.
    We come from different viewpoints on this one. I have worked for major corporations and at an executive level directly for several people who are worth many millions and I have never sensed that from anyone at any level. The only disdain I have seen for another working class is when I was younger and was a union member. Unions train people to distrust management and the people they work for. It creates an "us versus them" attitude. Socialism controls the people by creating similar attitudes, which is likely where your viewpoint originates. That goes back to the Communist viewpoint that claims that working people are exploited by business. Exploited simply means to " make full use of and derive benefit from a resource". A person is only truly exploited in a negative sense if they are forced to do something, which is exactly what happens when governments gain too much power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Franc Tireur View Post
    Governments in general spend too much and waste too much the money of others. It is what we called in French the "le tonneau des Danaïdes".
    That's what we call socialism.

    Government almost always naturally seeks too much power and control, which is why our Constitution was written primarily to limit the powers of government. It is intended to protect people from the abuses of government. These are limits which are frequently violated by the current president and attorney general. The real problem is that we actually have no way to force an abusive president to stay within the confines of the Constitution, especially when he frequently misquotes the Constitution and has referred to it as a "deeply flawed document".
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    That does happen. A lot of benefit reduction came as a result of the increased costs of ObamaCare, which also caused thousands of companies to limit many workers to part-time status. The overwhelming majority of companies are not capable of absorbing huge increases in costs. My wife works for the local county school system. They were forced to limit adjunct faculty (part time teachers) to less than 30 hours because if they allowed them to work more than 30 hours it dramatically increased everyone's health care costs. That did not affect very many people, but it did limit part-time teachers who were teaching several classes for extra money. That is happening all across the country as a direct result of a poorly written law.
    Well, the question is: If the overwhelming majority of companies are not capable of absorbing huge increases in costs do they deserve to be in business? (sorry I need again to make an exaggeration to make my point, but think about the reasoning. Unfortunately with this argument, it is an open door of abuses to avoid absorbing a decent living cost for their workers/employees and managers.

    We come from different viewpoints on this one. I have worked for major corporations and at an executive level directly for several people who are worth many millions and I have never sensed that from anyone at any level. The only disdain I have seen for another working class is when I was younger and was a union member. Unions train people to distrust management and the people they work for. It creates an "us versus them" attitude. Socialism controls the people by creating similar attitudes, which is likely where your viewpoint originates. That goes back to the Communist viewpoint that claims that working people are exploited by business. Exploited simply means to " make full use of and derive benefit from a resource". A person is only truly exploited in a negative sense if they are forced to do something, which is exactly what happens when governments gain too much power.


    That's what we call socialism.
    Be careful, my viewpoints aren't Socialist, nor fully Capitalistic. What represent my viewpoints is a way of thinking toward Mutualism taking a slide of the best part of Capitalism and a slide of the best part of the Mutualist philosophy from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon which probably will bring much more fair societies for all.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  8. #18
    Not that I agree 100% with what he said, there are some truths in it.

    This is what Joseph Proudhom said:

    "To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  9. #19
    Great article from my perspective

    You are paying tax dollars to McDonald’s. And to Walmart. And to untold numbers of other major international corporate giants. And that money coming out of your pocket goes straight to the bottom line of those companies’ income statements.
    This is not hyperbole. It is the twisted, truly sick outcome of a system that most Americans don’t understand but that many pump their fists and wave their flags in order to preserve. My bottom line: Americans are being lied to by some of the best prevaricators in the country—corporations, G.O.P. politicians, and economically obtuse pundits—turning many of them against their fellow citizens in order to pump up profits to levels that these corporate managers could not achieve through their own skill and acumen.
    The fact that I am being slow in explaining how money goes from your pocket to the corporate coffers is intentional—unwinding an ingrained deception can be challenging. Step-by-step explanations have to be used before the “Oh, I’ve heard of this! The companies tell me . . . ” brainwashing we’ve all been victims of kicks in. So bear with me.
    Step one: Corporations have costs. The best managers of the best of them figure out how to hold down those expenses so that they can increase their profits.
    Step two: Human beings have basic needs that they require for their own survival. Food, shelter, health care—all of these cannot simply be denied to people without creating piles of bodies in the streets. (That is one of the points I keep making when it comes to Obamacare: when some conservatives grouse about paying insurance subsidies for the poor, they seem to be unaware that those people will be obtaining health-care services no matter what and that, in the past, those costs were paid from our tax dollars and higher premiums.)
    Step three: All of those needs have to be met by purchasing something. Someone has to receive dollars to provide food or health care; someone has to pay the cost of rent. If it is not the individual, it is someone else.
    Step four: If a company doesn’t provide the people it pays with enough money to meet those needs, then someone else has to do it. Unless, again, we want bodies in the street.
    Step five: If a company holds down its costs by failing to pay its employees a living wage—something that should be a typical expense of running a business—then taxpayers are going to be called upon to pick up the slack through public assistance programs like food stamps, housing credits, and Medicaid.
    Which leads us to step six: We have to increase the minimum wage so that McDonald’s et al are paying for the labor costs of their own businesses, rather than sucking on the teat of the American taxpayer to keep corporate profits high.
    Yes, I am talking about the minimum wage—the obscene, ridiculous, and utterly unlivable minimum wage. Today, the income of a worker on minimum wage is the same as it was in 1950, in constant dollars. These are poverty wages. To give a comparative measure of that—take a C.E.O. of a company who earned on average $14.1 million in 2012; if it were 1965, that same C.E.O. would have earned $807,000 in 2012 dollars. In other words, C.E.O.’s earn on average 17 times what they did in 1965, while their minimum-wage workers make the same amount in 1950. And trust me—modern-day C.E.O.’s are not 17 times better than the ones who held the job in 1965. I know enough of them to say that without hesitation.
    Before conservatives start screaming that marshaling these comparative numbers amounts to class warfare (or whatever other Fox News meme is out there now to defend the indefensible), let me stress: I am not bringing up those numbers to suggest that minimum-wage workers should be receiving 17 times what they did in 1965 (although I will say that C.E.O.’s certainly don’t deserve it). I am simply giving a comparison to those who might reflexively dismiss the news that the pay of minimum-wage workers is at 1950 levels.
    What does that mean in reality? Put simply, people on minimum wage don’t make enough to live. Take one example: according to the Fiscal Times, renting an average place for a minimum-wage worker “became near impossible” as long ago as 33 years.
    If the companies don’t pay enough to their employees to live—but still have to have employees to keep their doors open—what do they do? That’s where you come in. They depend on your tax dollars to make up the difference between their refusal to meet the minimum employment expenses they would have to pay to keep their business in operation and the amount that employees need to survive.
    Let me make it even simpler: if an employee needs $10 for basic necessities and is paid $7, then your taxes will be used to supply that employee the other $3. Saying it the other way, companies reduce their required expenses by $3 by taking the money from you; then they can directly count that $3 as profit.
    Not outraged yet? Then how about this—companies not only know they are doing this, it is essentially part of their business plan.
    For proof, listen to a recording obtained by the online magazine Salon. In it, Nancy Salgado, a 10-year employee of McDonald’s, contacts a counselor at the McResources line, the company’s 1-800 number for employees. In the recording, Salgado explains how she is struggling on the minimum wage. The counselor doesn’t say, “Gee, I have no idea what you can do, because you are being paid enough to survive.” No, instead, the counselor tosses out the company’s advice: turn to the government to make up for your lousy wages.
    The McResources staffer offers her a number to “ask about things like food pantries” and tells her she “would most likely be eligible for SNAP benefits” which she explains are “food stamps.” After Salgado asks about “the doctor,” the staffer asks, “Did you try to get on Medicaid?” She notes it’s “health coverage for low income or no income adults and children.
    Then, in the Salon piece, Salgado takes the hatchet to McDonald’s:
    “It was really, really upsetting,” Salgado told Salon Wednesday, “knowing that McDonald’s knows that they don’t pay us enough, and we have to rely on this.” Noting that McDonald’s was “a billionaire company,” she asked, “how can they not afford to pay us?
    Now, I’m picking on McDonald’s here. The company is not responsible for the federal minimum wage, although it and a lot of other corporations have endlessly fought to prevent it from being increased. No, this is a problem that infects all businesses with employees earning the substandard minimum wage.
    Whenever this topic comes up, corporate executives and conservative lawmakers all bleat that raising the minimum wage would destroy jobs. In fact, the former C.E.O. of McDonald’s (sorry, but he’s the most recent one I found doing it) recently said flat out that raising the minimum wage would cut back jobs.
    To which I say: bull. Before everyone starts trotting out the irrational studies, let me bring up a couple of my own.
    But it doesn’t matter what the dueling studies say. Let’s think about it for a second.
    Business does not run on lesser expenses—it runs on demand. To take this to a logical extreme, if McDonald’s cut its employee costs to zero, it would not suddenly be making massive profits caused by its lower expenses. No, its profits would drop to nothing because, no matter how many customers came into their restaurants, there would be no one to take their order, drop potatoes in the fryer, or clean the restrooms. McDonald’s would go out of business.
    Now, let’s suppose that the demand at McDonald’s requires 1,000 employees to satisfy customer needs. Unless McDonald’s is run terribly—hiring people that are not required—then paying those 1,000 people is simply the cost of doing business. If the minimum wage is raised, and suddenly your wait for a Big Mac triples, the floors are cleaned less often, and the garbage starts piling up in the waste cans, you will stop going to McDonald’s. It’s that simple: a certain level of employees is required to meet customer demand. If McDonald’s is currently hiring some excess level of employees simply to be gracious, then its top management needs to be fired for incompetence. Moreover, if demand picks up, then McDonald’s is going to have to hire more people.
    And pick up it will. Again, logic. If you are paid $300 a week, you will spend $200 a week (you won’t have enough money to save any of it). If you receive $300 a week, you will spend $300 a week. And if you can figure out how to keep some of the extra money in the bank, then that institution has more cash to give out as loans, which help grow the economy. In other words, when employees have a real income—and aren’t forced to depend on food stamps for their basic purchases because a company counts public assistance as part of the business plan—the extra money will go back to the very businesses paying the minimum wage in increased sales, which will lead the businesses to buy more products from vendors, which will raise incomes at those companies, and on and on.
    That is part of why the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that increasing the minimum wage, so that annual income of those minimum-wage employees rises by about $1,000, increases per-capita spending by about $2,800 a year. And that means real growth in economic activity. As the Chicago Fed found in another stellar study:
    Given the number of teen and adult workers who are likely affected by a $1.75 hike in the hourly federal minimum wage (including those earning $9–$10 per hour), we calculate that spending among minimum wage households could add as much as $73 billion to the economy in the year following the hike, which is 0.47% of real GDP and 0.66% of total household consumption in 2012.
    Why is that? The answer is obvious: if workers around the country make more, they can afford to go to McDonald’s more often. Or Walmart. Or any other business that depends on the spending of minimum-wage workers. And even some expenses will be cut—when employees are paid more, the costs of employee turnover drops. People working at McDonald’s will know more about what they’re doing, because they have been there longer. The customer experience will be better.
    Corporate C.E.O.’s don’t see it that way, at least not today. And one of the greatest business geniuses in American history would almost certainly call them idiots for their short-sightedness. In 1914, Ford decided to pay his employees a rich wage and otherwise improve the working conditions. I’ll let Ford Motor Company explain the reasons why:
    In January 1914, (Henry Ford) startled the world by announcing that Ford Motor Company would pay $5 a day to its workers. The pay increase would also be accompanied by a shorter workday (from nine to eight hours). While this rate didn’t automatically apply to every worker, it more than doubled the average autoworker’s wage. While Henry’s primary objective was to reduce worker attrition—labor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high—newspapers from all over the world reported the story as an extraordinary gesture of goodwill.After Ford’s announcement, thousands of prospective workers showed up at the Ford Motor Company employment office. People surged toward Detroit from the American South and the nations of Europe. As expected, employee turnover diminished. And, by creating an eight-hour day, Ford could run three shifts instead of two, increasing productivity.
    Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry Ford had changed manufacturing forever.
    I want to stress one part of that. More cars “could be sold if employees could afford to buy them.” People with money buy. McDonald’s employees with higher salaries would make more purchases at McDonald’s and Walmart, etc. And employees who made more at Walmart, etc. would make more purchases, too. The money doesn’t disappear down a rat hole. It is spent—a lot of it at the very businesses that are whining about paying people a livable wage.
    Or, as Henry put it, raising wages “has the same effect as throwing a stone in a still pond,” creating an “ever-widening circle of buying” that increases the prosperity of a nation.
    Why don’t corporate executives understand this? Part of it, I believe, is that there are just too many of them who, despite their pay, aren’t all that talented. Like I said, I know a lot of them. But there is a more important part: there is absolutely no doubt that, once a minimum-wage increase is put into place, the higher expenses will hit first and the higher sales will come later. Henry Ford didn’t play the “what will my corporate income be next quarter?” game. Instead, he focused on the long-term profits of his company. Too many C.E.O.’s don’t do that anymore. Wall Street demands immediate profits; if those don’t show up in the immediate quarter, then the company stock will probably suffer for a short while.
    And when stock prices go down, even for a short time, so does C.E.O. compensation that is tied to share price. That’s a lot of the money C.E.O.’s make every year.
    So, am I saying that companies are pushing their employees into poverty, leaving them unable to purchase basic necessities, and forcing taxpayers to pick up the slack so that the C.E.O. can buy another yacht this year? Could be. But it’s much more complicated than that.
    Businesses have to earn enough money to pay employees. Companies whose employees don’t earn minimum wage do it, and lots of them have far lower profits than giants like McDonald’s. And the truth is, there is a name for the type of corporate C.E.O. who argues that his business can’t possibly function without turning over the cost of his workforce to the taxpayers: incompetent.
    So, C.E.O.’s with minimum-wage workers: stop stealing our money. Pay your employees a livable wage. And if you don’t know how to make that work, I have a suggestion: get out of the executive suite, head off into retirement, and let somebody with some business sense take over.
    How Big Corporations Are Stealing Your Tax Dollars (and Hurting Themselves) by Underpaying Their Employees | Vanity Fair
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Morgan Hill, California
    Posts
    41
    I'd put a bit more stock in what Vanity Fair has to say about the minimum wage if they weren't doing things like this:
    Vanity Fair Winter/Spring Fashion Internship

    Company Vanity Fair

    Description of the internship

    The Vanity Fair Fashion Department is looking for a hard working intern for
    next semester. This person should be hard working, detail oriented and
    have a love for fashion. FOR COLLEGE CREDIT ONLY! This internship
    includes, but is not limited to, research for upcoming shoots, creating
    look boards and making fashion show folders.

    This internship is NOT paid

    This internship COUNTS for credits
    Source: Vanity Fair Winter/Spring Fashion Internship for Vanity Fair

    Hypocrites.

    Besides, Henry Ford's decision to raise factory pay was a voluntary business decision based on his company's needs and the expected benefits from it. The minimum wage is raised through the force of government. (Nice business you have there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.)

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •