|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Immoral Republicans Reject Minumum Wage Hike
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Immoral Republicans Reject Minumum Wage Hike
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| B.A. Baracus60 |
| NCDike is not smart enough to think through a position, he lets the GOP do it for him. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
The simple fact that the world did not end when it was raised in 97 proves you wrong (again)... in fact, to listen to you, things are going just peachy now, so what are you worried about? |
So you are admitting that the economy is great?? Think I will have to quote you on that. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by B.A. Baracus60
NCDike is not smart enough to think through a position, he lets the GOP do it for him. |
Wow...he said NCDike....how imaginitive, how creative.....or how lame. Can't you do better than that? |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| NCDICKHEAD06 |
|
|
| incoherent |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Wow...he said NCDike....how imaginitive, how creative.....or how lame. Can't you do better than that? |
Hey, LOOK! NCMike06 is back!
NCMike! Everyone thought you cut n run from this thread. I mean, just because you still have not actually answered the questions that called you on your untruths...
So here are some of the MANY questions you've been hiding from:
Quote: Originally posted by incoherent
NCMIke06, Is it pointless to point out the holes in your logic and your inconsistent positions and untruths?
Will you just cut and run from another board, like Bush and Cheney from service in Vietnam?
OK, let's humor you one more time.
1) Are you saying you have some kind of problem with government dictating to business?
2) Or just liberals dictating to business?
3) Why are you not pitching a tantrum over Alan Greenspan? Isn't the Federal Reserve Board government "dictating to business?
4) How about anti-discrimination laws? Is the government wrong to dictate to business when bigots try to deny jobs to women, minorities and other victims of discrimination?
5) How about anti-monopoly laws? Against those too?
6) Child labor laws? More liberals "dictating to business?"
7) Businesses should be allowed to dump toxic sludge into the kiddie's neighborhood swimmin' hole?
8) Please list all the kinds of government regulation of business that you support. Or have you never actually thought through your position before? |
|
|
|
| TonyJax |
NO INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE
And that's a good thing.
If I run a business why and the fuck should some asshole in Congress tell me what to pay a untrained 16 year old that needs the part time job for his cell phone. Would you pay somebody $7.50 to tak out your trash, FUCK NO!!! Dont tell me I have to.
You can come up with as many reasons why people earning the minimum wage deserve a raise as you want, but one truth remains. The government should have no role in setting the wages that an employer will pay to an employee. That's a matter to be settled in the private sector, not by politicians trolling for votes.
If you want to earn more than the minimum wage, or if you want a raise, you earn it. You do something to become more valuable to your employer and then negotiate for the wage you believe you deserve.
And please, people! Let's stop with this crybaby nonsense about raising a family on the minimum wage!
If you can't earn more than the minimum wage, you have no business having children. Develop some job skills first, then work on developing an embryo. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by TonyJax
NO INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE
And that's a good thing.
If I run a business why and the fuck should some asshole in Congress tell me what to pay a untrained 16 year old that needs the part time job for his cell phone. Would you pay somebody $7.50 to tak out your trash, FUCK NO!!! Dont tell me I have to.
You can come up with as many reasons why people earning the minimum wage deserve a raise as you want, but one truth remains. The government should have no role in setting the wages that an employer will pay to an employee. That's a matter to be settled in the private sector, not by politicians trolling for votes.
If you want to earn more than the minimum wage, or if you want a raise, you earn it. You do something to become more valuable to your employer and then negotiate for the wage you believe you deserve.
And please, people! Let's stop with this crybaby nonsense about raising a family on the minimum wage!
If you can't earn more than the minimum wage, you have no business having children. Develop some job skills first, then work on developing an embryo. |
No one is talking about raising a family on minimum wage, although some are forced to do it. The truth is the value of today's minimum wage is LESS than it was when they raised it 97. I don't know if you were in business in 97, but the world did not end because min. wage was raised.
And it is a right wing talking point that only 16 year olds are making minimum wage... In fact 80% of the workers who would benefit from an increase are 20 or older. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
No one is talking about raising a family on minimum wage, although some are forced to do it. The truth is the value of today's minimum wage is LESS than it was when they raised it 97. I don't know if you were in business in 97, but the world did not end because min. wage was raised.
And it is a right wing talking point that only 16 year olds are making minimum wage... In fact 80% of the workers who would benefit from an increase are 20 or older. |
But only 2% are OVER 25.
Here's the stats on minimum wage from the Dept of Labor...
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
Quote: According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2005, 75.6 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 60.1 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, 479,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage. Another 1.4 million were reported as earning wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 1.9 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.5 percent of all hourly-paid workers . Tables 1 - 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2005 data.
Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth of workers earning at or below the minimum wage were age 16-19. Among employed teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was about 3 percent. (See table 1 and table 7.)
About 3 percent of women paid hourly rates reported wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with under 2 percent of men. (See table 1.)
Less than 3 percent of white hourly-paid workers earned $5.15 or less. Among black, Asian, and Hispanic hourly-paid workers, about 2 percent earned the Federal minimum wage or less. For whites and Hispanics, women were twice as likely as men to earn $5.15 or less. (See table 1.)
Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely to earn the minimum wage or less than married workers. (See table 8.)
Among hourly-paid workers age 16 and over, 2 percent of those who had a high school diploma but had not gone on to college earned the minimum wage or less. (See table 6.)
Part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were more likely than their full-time counterparts to be paid $5.15 or less (about 6 percent versus 1 percent). (See table 1 and table 9.)
By occupational group, the highest proportion of workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage occurred in service occupations, at about 8 percent. About three in four workers earning $5.15 or less in 2005 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and service jobs. The proportion of hourly-paid workers whose earnings were reported at or below $5.15 was lowest for persons employed in management, professional, and related occupations and natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations (less than 1 percent for both). (See table 4.)
The industry with the highest proportion of workers with reported hourly wages at or below $5.15 was leisure and hospitality (about 14 percent). About three-fifths of all workers paid at or below the Federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, primarily in the food services and drinking places component. For many of these workers, tips and commissions supplement the hourly wages received . (See table 5.)
Among the states, Oklahoma and West Virginia had the highest proportion of hourly-paid workers earning at or below $5.15 (at about 4 percent). Alaska, California, and Washington had the lowest proportion earning the minimum wage or less (less than 1 percent). It should be noted that some states have minimum wage laws establishing minimum wage standards that exceed the Federal level of $5.15 per hour. (See table 2 and table 3.)
The proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less has trended downward since 1979, when data first began to be collected on a regular basis. |
Basically what these statistics reveal is that 98% of all people who receive minimum wage are <25 . Most minimum wage workers are in low skilled jobs/part time jobs.
WHat is then shown is that as you gain skills/experience/training as you get older, you move out of your minimum wage position. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
| You still fail to provide any reason people between the ages of 20 and 25 should not be paid a minimum above the poverty line.... |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
This may seem facetious but it's not.
What don't we raise min wage to $100/hr. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
This may seem facetious but it's not.
What don't we raise min wage to $100/hr. |
We've already been through that. That is a straw man argument at best. No one here is suggesting it be raised to any unreasonable, unsustainable number.
And I don't believe you weren't being facetious ;) |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| Dont the states have control of min wage too? NC just increased min wage a 1$. People who make min wage are making it for a reason skill/age. IF it isnt enough to support themselves they can jump on welfare. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
We've already been through that. That is a straw man argument at best. No one here is suggesting it be raised to any unreasonable, unsustainable number.
And I don't believe you weren't being facetious ;) |
I didn't read the whole tread (maybe I should have). My point is that you can see that that is an unreasonable, and unsustainable number. If you look at econ 101, if you increase the price of something (labor) you decrease the demand. Yes 100/hr is unreasonable, but if you admit that would have and effect on inflation and job growth, you have to admit that any increase will have the same (but proportionally) effect. |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| ^ thank you he might understand that from you. Im was a econ major.. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
^ thank you he might understand that from you. Im was a econ major.. |
we'll see. But I have my doubts. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
I didn't read the whole tread (maybe I should have). My point is that you can see that that is an unreasonable, and unsustainable number. If you look at econ 101, if you increase the price of something (labor) you decrease the demand. Yes 100/hr is unreasonable, but if you admit that would have and effect on inflation and job growth, you have to admit that any increase will have the same (but proportionally) effect. |
But you, nor any of the others sharing your position, have shown us why $7.25 is an unreasonable, unsustainable number. You throwing $100/ hr out there is nothing more than a distraction... The truth is the current min. wage is worth LESS now than it was in 1997 when they changed it the last time.
This would not be the first time min. wage has been raised. The world still turns afterward, and people have more money in their pockets and put it back into the economy. You don't need to be an expert in economics, or work at a high class loan shark operation (fudgepirate) to figure that one out. |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| THE STATES control this also. BLAME THEM. We dont need a fed hike right now. |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
[ If you look at econ 101, if you increase the price of something (labor) you decrease the demand. Yes 100/hr is unreasonable, but if you admit that would have and effect on inflation and job growth, you have to admit that any increase will have the same (but proportionally) effect. [/B] |
so we should all work for free then?
I mean we wouldn't want business to suffer any. |
|
|
| incoherent |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
WHat is then shown is that as you gain skills/experience/training as you get older, you move out of your minimum wage position. |
And therefore you don't deserve a living wage while trying to move out of it?
Hi, NCMike. Looks like you snuck back into the debate after you cut n run. But you missed some questions that called you out, just like on so many other SFN boards.
OK, let's humor you one more time.
1) Are you saying you have some kind of problem with government dictating to business?
2) Or just liberals dictating to business?
3) Why are you not pitching a tantrum over Alan Greenspan? Isn't the Federal Reserve Board government "dictating to business?
4) How about anti-discrimination laws? Is the government wrong to dictate to business when bigots try to deny jobs to women, minorities and other victims of discrimination?
5) How about anti-monopoly laws? Against those too?
6) Child labor laws? More liberals "dictating to business?"
7) Businesses should be allowed to dump toxic sludge into the kiddie's neighborhood swimmin' hole?
8) Please list all the kinds of government regulation of business that you support. Or have you never actually thought through your position before? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
THE STATES control this also. BLAME THEM. We dont need a fed hike right now. |
We also don't "need" tax cuts for millionaires or a $2 billion a week war that for some reason doesn't get added into Bush's budget, but we have those, don't we...?
You are clueless. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
we'll see. But I have my doubts. |
I'll ask you a similar question, TT:
Why don't you work for $1/ hr. ? |
|
|
| SDLaw06 |
| It sure would be nice to get some campaign finance reform so that corporations couldn't buy our politicians....Repub or Democrat, hell it wouls be nice to get a few more parties in the mix, but neither side will pass that, so we'll just keep arguing over collateral issues and not the real solutions to the problems. Our politicians are tools of big business and unions, not tools of the people and that's true for both parties. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by SDLaw06
It sure would be nice to get some campaign finance reform so that corporations couldn't buy our politicians....Repub or Democrat, hell it wouls be nice to get a few more parties in the mix, but neither side will pass that, so we'll just keep arguing over collateral issues and not the real solutions to the problems. Our politicians are tools of big business and unions, not tools of the people and that's true for both parties. |
I agree with everything you said, SD, but since this is what we have right now, we are forced to work with it... Neither of the current parties will allow for a true 3rd or 4th party to emerge... |
|
|
| SDLaw06 |
We almost had it with Nader, not saying he was the greatest candidate but I thought the green party got enough support to get federal funding or something, but then they kind of dropped off. I may be mistaken.
The problem with arguing over things like this is I can find a set of statistics to back up my point, you can find a set to back up your,s just the nature of statistics. I think while raising the minimum wage sounds laudable, my fear is, and this is just how business works, instead of wal-mart's roll back prices ending in .97, they now are rolled to the next dollar up and still ending in .97. They are in it to make money, and hit they take in profit they just pass on to us.
Which, hey, maybe we don't mind paying an extra dollar for a federal minimum wage increase, I don't know. At some point, we have to start cutting into the profits, instead of indirectly just taxing ourselves to pay for our wages. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by SDLaw06
We almost had it with Nader, not saying he was the greatest candidate but I thought the green party got enough support to get federal funding or something, but then they kind of dropped off. I may be mistaken.
The problem with arguing over things like this is I can find a set of statistics to back up my point, you can find a set to back up your,s just the nature of statistics. I think while raising the minimum wage sounds laudable, my fear is, and this is just how business works, instead of wal-mart's roll back prices ending in .97, they now are rolled to the next dollar up and still ending in .97. They are in it to make money, and hit they take in profit they just pass on to us.
Which, hey, maybe we don't mind paying an extra dollar for a federal minimum wage increase, I don't know. At some point, we have to start cutting into the profits, instead of indirectly just taxing ourselves to pay for our wages. |
I understand your point, but the problem with that thinking is that Wal Mart and the wealthy will remain wealthy no matter what inflation is, no matter what the minimum wage is...
The system is set up in their favor, and they have the power to make money regardless... Leaving the wage where it is is a race to the bottom.... |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
We've already been through that. That is a straw man argument at best. No one here is suggesting it be raised to any unreasonable, unsustainable number.
And I don't believe you weren't being facetious ;) |
We have not been through it at all, the question was repeatedly ignored.
People should be paid what their labor is worth, not some number plucked out of the sky by the government. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
I'll ask you a similar question, TT:
Why don't you work for $1/ hr. ? |
Most likely because he is able to demand more for his labor. If his labor is worth more than $1 per hour, why should he work for it.?? If someones labor is worth less than $7 an hour, why should I pay it?? |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
We also don't "need" tax cuts for millionaires or a $2 billion a week war that for some reason doesn't get added into Bush's budget, but we have those, don't we...?
You are clueless. |
What do you think those millionaires do with those tax cuts?? The money doesn't exactly go into their mattresses. It is saved, spent, or most likely invested, which are all good for the economy.
And everyone who paid taxes received a tax cut. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| It thus goes to the individuals good and not the common good! |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Most likely because he is able to demand more for his labor. If his labor is worth more than $1 per hour, why should he work for it.?? If someones labor is worth less than $7 an hour, why should I pay it?? |
But WHO gets to determine what your labor is worth? The corporations who's interest is in making as much PROFIT as possible? Please. Who "determined" Lee Raymond's labor was worth a $400 million retirement package? Who decided Congress' labor was worth $31,000 in raises over the last nine years?
You have STILL not provided a single bit of evidence that raising the minimum to $7.25 will damage the economy in ANY way. Until you do, there is no reason the minimum should not be above the poverty line...
The value of the current minimum amounts to less than it did in 1997 when they raised it the last time. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by thoroldjames
so we should all work for free then?
I mean we wouldn't want business to suffer any. |
No, we should all work for the value that the marketplace assigns to the value we add to the product or service being produced.
I have around 10 people working for me most of the time, and their pay is proportional to the difficulty of the job or the skill set required to do it.
None of my employees make minimum wage, if fact for two years one of my employees make more than I did, as I only get the leftovers. But if I was to hire a kid after school to sweep the floor and cut the grass, I would pay min. wage and both of us would be happy.
Nobody is forced to take any job, and we are all free to increase our skills to make more. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
We also don't "need" tax cuts for millionaires or a $2 billion a week war that for some reason doesn't get added into Bush's budget, but we have those, don't we...?
You are clueless. |
don't forget that the top 1% of wage earners pay 50% of the income tax and the top 50% pay 98% of the income tax. How much more do you really want to soak them!
If you take more tax out of me (not a millionaire, but I make what most consider a good salary), I will have no choice but to cut costs at my company. And guess what, employees are my biggest cost, and easiest place to save big money.
It kills me to lay anybody off (shit it kills me to fire somebody who is a total dick), but my company has to survive to feed my family and the families of the employees I can keep.
Sure raise taxes and min. wage. You only screw those at the bottom the most. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
But WHO gets to determine what your labor is worth? The corporations who's interest is in making as much PROFIT as possible? Please. Who "determined" Lee Raymond's labor was worth a $400 million retirement package? Who decided Congress' labor was worth $31,000 in raises over the last nine years?
|
The market gets to determine. Same place that determines the value of the product or service you are producing.
Corporate CEO pay is a disgrace and more share holders should be up in arms about this.
Congress operates outside the market, and they have 0 idea what their value is, but they are spending our money so they don't give a shit. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
don't forget that the top 1% of wage earners pay 50% of the income tax and the top 50% pay 98% of the income tax. How much more do you really want to soak them!
If you take more tax out of me (not a millionaire, but I make what most consider a good salary), I will have no choice but to cut costs at my company. And guess what, employees are my biggest cost, and easiest place to save big money.
It kills me to lay anybody off (shit it kills me to fire somebody who is a total dick), but my company has to survive to feed my family and the families of the employees I can keep.
Sure raise taxes and min. wage. You only screw those at the bottom the most. |
I don't doubt your sincerity as an employer, TT, but when they look at the places in this country where the minimum has been raised beyond the federal level, there was no ill effects on the economy, and in many cases things improved.
You just said you pay all your employees more than minimum wage, but want us to believe that if you were forced to pay $7.25 / hr to the kid who sweeps your floor, your business would be seriously damaged? There is something missing there.
And "the market" is like bigfoot. It is a myth. There is no standard for what makes the market "free", or why it is ok for corporations and the government to tamper with the market by trying to make US workers compete with someone in a third world country chained to a table, working 18 hours a day for pennies? So stop referring to "the market" as if it is some level playing field where everything will be worked out fairly for workers and corporations alike. It is completely amorphous and undefined. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
don't forget that the top 1% of wage earners pay 50% of the income tax and the top 50% pay 98% of the income tax. How much more do you really want to soak them!
|
Then explain the tax cuts to the oil industry that were needed for their "Survival" and then they posted Billion Dollar plus , profits?
Explain th ecutting of taxes during a war?
They also use the majority of government services. They are not closing fire houses in the rich neighborhoods! |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
But only 2% are OVER 25.
Here's the stats on minimum wage from the Dept of Labor...
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
Basically what these statistics reveal is that 98% of all people who receive minimum wage are <25 . Most minimum wage workers are in low skilled jobs/part time jobs.
WHat is then shown is that as you gain skills/experience/training as you get older, you move out of your minimum wage position. |
Oh the dishonesty continues!!!!!
Not a single minimum wage person from CA and the other nine states with higher than the federal minimum wage were counted in this study.
Statistical manipulation at its best.
http://www.cbp.org/2000/bb000601.htm
[QUOTE]
California Budget Project
Budget Brief
June 2000
CALIFORNIA'S RECENT MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES:
Real Wage Gains with No Loss of Jobs
Minimum Wage Remains Inadequate to Meet
California's Cost of Living
In the 2½ years following California's increase of its minimum wage, earnings and employment data suggest that higher minimum wages can have a positive impact on the earnings of low wage workers without a loss of jobs.
Since 1996, California's minimum wage rate has been increased twice by federal law and twice pursuant to a voter-passed state initiative.1 The most recent state increase - to $5.75 per hour - took effect in March 1998. California is one of ten states with a minimum rate that is higher than the national minimum wage of $5.15 per hour.2 Recent ballot initiatives in Oregon and Washington have raised minimum wages in those states to $6.50 per hour. Washington's initiative also indexes the state's minimum wage annually to reflect inflation.
State law requires the California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) to conduct "a full review of the adequacy of the minimum wage at least once every two years."3 Pursuant to this mandate, the IWC recently established a "wage board" composed of representatives from business and labor to review the state's minimum wage.
This report examines the impact of recent minimum wage increases on wage and employment trends. The evidence suggests that higher minimum wages have increased earnings of workers at the lower end of the income distribution without undermining California's job growth. The finding is consistent with the experiences of other states, where moderate minimum wage hikes have not led to employment losses.
While the recent increases temporarily reversed a decade-long decline in earnings at the low end of the wage distribution, the purchasing power of the minimum wage remains low compared with its value prior to 1982. More importantly, the rate is inadequate to enable either a single person or a family dependent on minimum wage earnings to live moderately well.
Who Benefits from a Higher Minimum Wage?
Approximately 1.3 million working Californians - nearly ten percent of the workforce - earned less than $5.75 per hour in the year prior to the March 1998 state increase (Table 1).4 Most of these workers received a pay raise that was directly attributable to the increased minimum wage. 5 Most of the benefits of the recent increases went to adults and full-time workers. The minimum wage increases were especially important for workers in low to moderate income families and Latinos.
Four out of five workers (80 percent) directly aided by the new California minimum wage were 20 years of age or older.
[QUOTE] |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
[QUOTE=Turbo_Nerd_Eric]Oh the dishonesty continues!!!!!
Not a single minimum wage person from CA and the other nine states with higher than the federal minimum wage were counted in this study.
Statistical manipulation at its best.
http://www.cbp.org/2000/bb000601.htm
Quote:
California Budget Project
Budget Brief
June 2000
CALIFORNIA'S RECENT MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES:
Real Wage Gains with No Loss of Jobs
Minimum Wage Remains Inadequate to Meet
California's Cost of Living
In the 2½ years following California's increase of its minimum wage, earnings and employment data suggest that higher minimum wages can have a positive impact on the earnings of low wage workers without a loss of jobs.
Since 1996, California's minimum wage rate has been increased twice by federal law and twice pursuant to a voter-passed state initiative.1 The most recent state increase - to $5.75 per hour - took effect in March 1998. California is one of ten states with a minimum rate that is higher than the national minimum wage of $5.15 per hour.2 Recent ballot initiatives in Oregon and Washington have raised minimum wages in those states to $6.50 per hour. Washington's initiative also indexes the state's minimum wage annually to reflect inflation.
State law requires the California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) to conduct "a full review of the adequacy of the minimum wage at least once every two years."3 Pursuant to this mandate, the IWC recently established a "wage board" composed of representatives from business and labor to review the state's minimum wage.
This report examines the impact of recent minimum wage increases on wage and employment trends. The evidence suggests that higher minimum wages have increased earnings of workers at the lower end of the income distribution without undermining California's job growth. The finding is consistent with the experiences of other states, where moderate minimum wage hikes have not led to employment losses.
While the recent increases temporarily reversed a decade-long decline in earnings at the low end of the wage distribution, the purchasing power of the minimum wage remains low compared with its value prior to 1982. More importantly, the rate is inadequate to enable either a single person or a family dependent on minimum wage earnings to live moderately well.
Who Benefits from a Higher Minimum Wage?
Approximately 1.3 million working Californians - nearly ten percent of the workforce - earned less than $5.75 per hour in the year prior to the March 1998 state increase (Table 1).4 Most of these workers received a pay raise that was directly attributable to the increased minimum wage. 5 Most of the benefits of the recent increases went to adults and full-time workers. The minimum wage increases were especially important for workers in low to moderate income families and Latinos.
Four out of five workers (80 percent) directly aided by the new California minimum wage were 20 years of age or older.
[QUOTE] |
It wasn't a study, Beavis, it was official Dept of Labor stats. And it specifically states the $5.15 minimum wage...
You are trying to hard to rebut facts which you obviously can't. You are in over your head. Stop embarrassing yourself already.
Like all Libs...best thing for you to do is cut/run. |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
It wasn't a study, Beavis, it was official Dept of Labor stats. And it specifically states the $5.15 minimum wage...
|
Once again you explian what you meant instead of what you said.
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
But only 2% are OVER 25.
Here's the stats on minimum wage from the Dept of Labor...
Basically what these statistics reveal is that 98% of all people who receive minimum wage are <25 .
|
What I am worried about is that all the Bush Bots with their heads straight up your ass are not going to read the statistics but just take your word. Where in your summary did you say it was just workers at the federal minimum?
Also from the article you linked but did not cut and paste. Yet even more dishonesty. Why did you not post this info as well? Do you think you know better than the DOL what is important info??
"The estimates of the numbers of minimum and subminimum wage workers presented in the accompanying tables pertain to workers paid at hourly rates; salaried and other non-hourly workers are excluded. As such, the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing minimum is undoubtedly understated. Research has shown that a relatively smaller number and share of salaried workers and others not paid by the hour have earnings that, when translated into hourly rates, are at or below the minimum wage. However, BLS does not routinely estimate hourly earnings for non-hourly workers because of data concerns that arise in producing these estimates."
Once again you prove yourself the master of intellectual dishonesty.
I guess I was wrong. I do need to keep checking your sources. Haha did not need sourcewatch this time. All info came from your link. "Facts" my ass!! They day you post unbiased "facts" is the day I start looking for temperature drops in hell.
And before you pull out you usual defense. No I am not funded by a "radical left wing" foundation.
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Like all Libs...best thing for you to do is cut/run. |
Go check the history of posts YOU started. As incoherent is fond of pointing out. YOU are the master of "cut & run"
This reminds me of the "In defense of Fredrick Seizt" thread you started then cut and ran from. Remember when you went to Wikipedia and cut and pasted almost everything EXCEPT the criticism.
http://www.sternfannetwork.com/foru...15&pagenumber=1 |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
I don't doubt your sincerity as an employer, TT, but when they look at the places in this country where the minimum has been raised beyond the federal level, there was no ill effects on the economy, and in many cases things improved. |
Data mining is a wonder thing. Things MAY have improved more had it not been raised.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
You just said you pay all your employees more than minimum wage, but want us to believe that if you were forced to pay $7.25 / hr to the kid who sweeps your floor, your business would be seriously damaged? There is something missing there . |
Exactly. My business would not be damaged at all. The kid would, as I might just sweep my own floor. That is the point that people can't understand. Economics 101 Increase price, reduce demand.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
And "the market" is like bigfoot. It is a myth. There is no standard for what makes the market "free", or why it is ok for corporations and the government to tamper with the market by trying to make US workers compete with someone in a third world country chained to a table, working 18 hours a day for pennies? So stop referring to "the market" as if it is some level playing field where everything will be worked out fairly for workers and corporations alike. It is completely amorphous and undefined. |
Wow, I don't know how to address this without getting into trade policy, world wide markets and a few other things. Lets not go there now. We can't even agree on basics at this point. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
don't forget that the top 1% of wage earners pay 50% of the income tax and the top 50% pay 98% of the income tax. How much more do you really want to soak them!
|
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
Then explain the tax cuts to the oil industry that were needed for their "Survival" and then they posted Billion Dollar plus , profits?
Oil companies made the same margin they always have. And that margin is lower than that of most industries. They
Explain the cutting of taxes during a war?
They also use the majority of government services. They are not closing fire houses in the rich neighborhoods! |
First, what does your post have to do with what you quoted from me?
Next oil co's made the same margin on oil they always have, and that margin is lower than in most other industries. International speculators are mostly to blame for the high prices (and therefore the high profits). But that is a much to difficult issue to handle in a sound bit, so the pols blame the oil cos.
Cutting taxes spurs the economy and has increased revenue to the federal govt.
They also use the majority of government services. They are not closing fire houses in the rich neighborhoods!
They who? The rich, corporations? And you are right, they aren't closing fire houses in rich neighborhoods, they don't build the firehouses in rich neighborhoods, they go right outside. ;) Firehouses are locally funded by the way. |
|
|
| SDLaw06 |
Interesting tidbit here....My wife's brother works for GM and is a member of the UAW, they told the union, you have 3 options, take a dollar an hour pay cut, 5,000 of you have to take early retirement, or we cut 5,000 jobs.
Now most people don't want to take a pay cut, and I sure wouldn't, but $1 an hour when you are making $25-30 without a college degree for basically watching a robot do work, seems a little absurd. But they said no way.
Some opted for the early retirement, becaus they are smart and realize GM now has a plant in China making every single one fo the cars made in the US, so early retirement was a forward looking move. But not nearly enough decided to exercise this option.
So basically they said, fuck you, fire us. Absolutely crazy to me. I can't understand that logic. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by SDLaw06
Interesting tidbit here....My wife's brother works for GM and is a member of the UAW, they told the union, you have 3 options, take a dollar an hour pay cut, 5,000 of you have to take early retirement, or we cut 5,000 jobs.
Now most people don't want to take a pay cut, and I sure wouldn't, but $1 an hour when you are making $25-30 without a college degree for basically watching a robot do work, seems a little absurd. But they said no way.
Some opted for the early retirement, becaus they are smart and realize GM now has a plant in China making every single one fo the cars made in the US, so early retirement was a forward looking move. But not nearly enough decided to exercise this option.
So basically they said, fuck you, fire us. Absolutely crazy to me. I can't understand that logic. |
It's referred to as going down with the ship. A very noble action. |
|
|
| SDLaw06 |
| I don't think it's too noble when thepurpose of a union was to protect workers and they are basically guaranteeing their demise. The unions have far outlived their purpose and part of the reason american automobiles suck is becuase of the UAW. $30 to watch a robot, please. |
|
|
| SDLaw06 |
| I mean do they think if GM got rid of the unions they couldn't find workers to replace them? |
|
|
| stonerjesus |
| And what about all the people who will be fired when we have to pay teenagers more money? The businesses that will fold? Quite whining and get an education. |
|
|
| incoherent |
Quote: Originally posted by stonerjesus
And what about all the people who will be fired when we have to pay teenagers more money? The businesses that will fold? |
What people will be fired?
What businesses will fold?
On what do you base your speculation? |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by incoherent
What people will be fired?
What businesses will fold?
On what do you base your speculation? |
The poorest among us get fired first, they are the least skilled.
Company that require cheap labor to satisfy the demand for low price goods in the American market.
Economics 101. Increase price (of labor) reduce demand (for labor). Simple. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
But WHO gets to determine what your labor is worth? |
The employer and the employee !!!! WHo else would know better. If the employer does not offer enough, the employee demand more or looks elsewhere !! Its just that simple.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
The corporations who's interest is in making as much PROFIT as possible? Please. |
Of course..profitable corporations is a GOOD THING!! it means more employees, better wages/benefits, more innovation ect ect.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Who "determined" Lee Raymond's labor was worth a $400 million retirement package? |
The Board of Directors !! which ultimately means the shareholders or owners of the company.....who else??
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Who decided Congress' labor was worth $31,000 in raises over the last nine years? |
Congress is a different situation. There is an inherent conflict of interest, but ultimately the voters decide this by leaving them in office.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
You have STILL not provided a single bit of evidence that raising the minimum to $7.25 will damage the economy in ANY way. Until you do, there is no reason the minimum should not be above the poverty line... |
I linked information in a prior post...(and others) please go back for review.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
The value of the current minimum amounts to less than it did in 1997 when they raised it the last time. |
Which is irrelevant.
You surprised me with this post....It really shows a GLARING absence of even basic economic understanding.. Wow... |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
The employer and the employee !!!! WHo else would know better. If the employer does not offer enough, the employee demand more or looks elsewhere !! Its just that simple.
|
Is anything "that simple"?
I believe what you are describing is the situatiuon we had before unions came around. Whatever your feeling about unions now, they did serve an important function. like ending child labor, unpaid overtime, dangerious working conditions etc.
Without oversite who would stop companies from colusion. Getting together and refusing to pay anything above slave wages. Demanding 50, 60, 70 hour weeks. What you are describing is how things work in China.
What happens when there are more people looking for jobs then there are jobs available?
Simple answers are for simpletons. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Turbo_Nerd_Eric
Simple answers are for simpletons. |
Does that explain Clinton's Keep it Simple Stupid moto? ;) |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
Opps my bad.
China does have minimum wage laws.
So China is going forward and NCMike wants to drag us backwards.
http://english.people.com.cn/200402...06_134134.shtml
The Ministry of Labor and Social Security Thursday publicized on its website a special regulation on minimum wage that is the first of its kind in China.
The regulation, to take effect March 1, divides wages into two types, one monthly and the other hourly, respectively applying to full-time and non full-time workers.
The monthly minimum wage should take into account factors such as a worker and his dependents' minimum living cost, the urban resident consumption price index, social security and housing accumulation fund fees, average salary, economic development level and employment situation.
The hourly minimum wage should take into account the local monthly minimum wage, retirement pension and medical insurance fees, working conditions and intensity, work stability and welfare of non part-time workers, according to the regulation. |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Does that explain Clinton's Keep it Simple Stupid moto? ;) |
Actually that is a design motto.
His quote that played off of it was, "Its the economy stupid"
(Yes I know you were joking) Here is the "real" definition.
http://www.answers.com/topic/kiss-principle
The KISS principle is a popular maxim often invoked when discussing a design process as a reminder to avoid the unnecessary complexity that can arise during the design process. The traditional expansion of this acronym is "Keep it Simple, Stupid". |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Turbo_Nerd_Eric
Actually that is a design motto.
His quote that played off of it was, "Its the economy stupid"
(Yes I know you were joking) Here is the "real" definition.
http://www.answers.com/topic/kiss-principle
The KISS principle is a popular maxim often invoked when discussing a design process as a reminder to avoid the unnecessary complexity that can arise during the design process. The traditional expansion of this acronym is "Keep it Simple, Stupid". |
From phrase finder
It's the economy, stupid. This was a sign hung in Bill Clinton's campaign headquarters to keep everybody "on message" in 1992. James Carville put it there.
: : I could've sworn there was an earlier instance, with some thing other than "economy". May be I'm wrong, though.
: Before that, there was "Keep it simple, stupid." Not quite the same thing, of course.
I thought I remembered him using the KISS first. And Clinton is far from a simpleton. |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
And Clinton is far from a simpleton. |
Aye. You can't be a Rhode scholar and a simpleton. |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Of course..profitable corporations is a GOOD THING!! it means more employees, better wages/benefits, more innovation ect ect.
|
Better wages?? now you are saying that higher profits should mean higher wages??? I thought your whole point is that you pay people as little as they will accept. Now all of a sudden you want to say higher profits mean better wages???
You just love having your cake and eating it too. In your world more profits means bigger payouts for investors, not higher wages.
You just latch on to whatever makes you look better don't cha? Consistency is not one of your strong points is it?
------------------------------------------------
BTW Mr. Cut & Run do you plan on addressing the dishonest omissions from your past post???
Also from the article you linked but did not cut and paste. Yet even more dishonesty. Why did you not post this info as well? Do you think you know better than the DOL what is important info??
"The estimates of the numbers of minimum and subminimum wage workers presented in the accompanying tables pertain to workers paid at hourly rates; salaried and other non-hourly workers are excluded. As such, the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing minimum is undoubtedly understated. Research has shown that a relatively smaller number and share of salaried workers and others not paid by the hour have earnings that, when translated into hourly rates, are at or below the minimum wage. However, BLS does not routinely estimate hourly earnings for non-hourly workers because of data concerns that arise in producing these estimates."
Once again you prove yourself the master of intellectual dishonesty.
I guess I was wrong. I do need to keep checking your sources. Haha did not need sourcewatch this time. All info came from your link. "Facts" my ass!! They day you post unbiased "facts" is the day I start looking for temperature drops in hell.
And before you pull out you usual defense. No I am not funded by a "radical left wing" foundation.
****************************
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Like all Libs...best thing for you to do is cut/run.
*****************************
Go check the history of posts YOU started. As incoherent is fond of pointing out. YOU are the master of "cut & run"
This reminds me of the "In defense of Fredrick Seizt" thread you started then cut and ran from. Remember when you went to Wikipedia and cut and pasted almost everything EXCEPT the criticism.
http://www.sternfannetwork.com/foru...15&pagenumber=1 |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Turbo_Nerd_Eric
Better wages?? now you are saying that higher profits should mean higher wages??? I thought your whole point is that you pay people as little as they will accept. Now all of a sudden you want to say higher profits mean better wages??? |
Of course it does..but why would you understand that. You understand nothing about economics or business. WHen corporations are profitable and seeking to expand they must compete for scarce labor resources. Which will increase wages and benefits. I'm not going to spell it out for you, but I would suggest you read: Basic Economics. By Thomas Sowell.
Quote: Originally posted by Turbo_Nerd_Eric
You just love having your cake and eating it too. In your world more profits means bigger payouts for investors, not higher wages. |
Someone would be hardpressed to be MORE clueless than you.
------------------------------------------------
Quote: Originally posted by Turbo_Nerd_Eric
"BTW Mr. Cut & Run do you plan on addressing the dishonest omissions from your past post???
Also from the article you linked but did not cut and paste. Yet even more dishonesty. Why did you not post this info as well? Do you think you know better than the DOL what is important info??
The estimates of the numbers of minimum and subminimum wage workers presented in the accompanying tables pertain to workers paid at hourly rates; salaried and other non-hourly workers are excluded. As such, the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing minimum is undoubtedly understated. Research has shown that a relatively smaller number and share of salaried workers and others not paid by the hour have earnings that, when translated into hourly rates, are at or below the minimum wage. However, BLS does not routinely estimate hourly earnings for non-hourly workers because of data concerns that arise in producing these estimates."
Once again you prove yourself the master of intellectual dishonesty.
I guess I was wrong. I do need to keep checking your sources. Haha did not need sourcewatch this time. All info came from your link. "Facts" my ass!! They day you post unbiased "facts" is the day I start looking for temperature drops in hell.
And before you pull out you usual defense. No I am not funded by a "radical left wing" foundation. . |
If I included the link...how again is it dishonest? You don't even know what that quote means that you posted. Please give us a detailed meaning, in your own words?? Can you? Here's a hint...its not that big a deal.
Quote: Originally posted by Turbo_Nerd_Eric
"****************************
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Like all Libs...best thing for you to do is cut/run.
*****************************
Go check the history of posts YOU started. As incoherent is fond of pointing out. YOU are the master of "cut & run"
This reminds me of the "In defense of Fredrick Seizt" thread you started then cut and ran from. Remember when you went to Wikipedia and cut and pasted almost everything EXCEPT the criticism.. |
You are coming dangerously close to joining 2 others on the man crush list (those on this board who have a man crush on me).
You really are too stupid for words, and have shown an incredible lack of any economic understanding. Get that book, and read it (if you can read and comprehend that is) It can only help. You have nowhere to go but up. |
|
|
| magnusvv |
Regarding the $5.15 to $7.25, it seems quite a bit steep. Especially given the fact that inflation goes at about 3% every year. That would make your $5.15 in 1997 equivalent to $6.72 in 2006.
This sounds more like vote buying than necessity to me. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
The employer and the employee !!!! WHo else would know better. If the employer does not offer enough, the employee demand more or looks elsewhere !! Its just that simple.
Of course..profitable corporations is a GOOD THING!! it means more employees, better wages/benefits, more innovation ect ect.
The Board of Directors !! which ultimately means the shareholders or owners of the company.....who else??
Congress is a different situation. There is an inherent conflict of interest, but ultimately the voters decide this by leaving them in office.
I linked information in a prior post...(and others) please go back for review.
Which is irrelevant.
You surprised me with this post....It really shows a GLARING absence of even basic economic understanding.. Wow... |
Wow is right. The same Lee Raymond who was begging congress for tax breaks for their survival gets a $400 million retirement package and I'M the one who doesn't understand....
I can explain that situation to a damn 3 year old and they have more of a grip on the concept of right and wrong than you... |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Of course it does..but why would you understand that. You understand nothing about economics or business. WHen corporations are profitable and seeking to expand they must compete for scarce labor resources. Which will increase wages and benefits. I'm not going to spell it out for you, but I would suggest you read: Basic Economics. By Thomas Sowell.
Someone would be hardpressed to be MORE clueless than you.
------------------------------------------------
If I included the link...how again is it dishonest? You don't even know what that quote means that you posted. Please give us a detailed meaning, in your own words?? Can you? Here's a hint...its not that big a deal.
You are coming dangerously close to joining 2 others on the man crush list (those on this board who have a man crush on me).
Those are just your own Narcissistic feelings. No one could love an idiot like you!
You really are too stupid for words, and have shown an incredible lack of any economic understanding. Get that book, and read it (if you can read and comprehend that is) It can only help. You have nowhere to go but up. |
Seems like your story.......Too stupid for words, incredible lack of understanding, no comprehnsion, Just some of the usual character traits of our NCMORON06. |
|
|
| TonyJax |
In a move some small businesses say will force them to raise prices or lay off employees, Massachusetts lawmakers on Thursday voted to boost the state's minimum wage from $6.75 to $8 an hour over a two-year period.
The bill, a compromise passed by the state Senate and expected to pass the House next week, would make the Bay State's minimum wage the highest in the nation in 2008, once the full increase takes effect.
Under the measure, the first increase of $0.75 will come on Jan. 1, 2007, with an additional increase of $0.50 planned for the following year.
"Our members need a pay increase and they need it now," said Carl Nilsson, campaign director for Neighbor to Neighbor Massachusetts, an advocacy group that represents more than 10,000 low-income and working-class employees in the state.
"The minimum wage increase would give a raise to over 300,000 people," Nilsson added. "This is money that is going to go back into the local economy."
Based on a 40-hour workweek, the increase will boost workers' earnings from about $14,000 a year to $16,500.
However, small-business advocates said the increase will place a significant burden on employers. "We are very disappointed," said Erin Trabucco, general counsel for the Retailers Association of America. "It's hard for small businesses to deal with the wage increase. They'll be left with no other option than to raise costs to their consumers."
According to Trabucco, the wage increase and potential price hikes that ensue will be especially hard for small businesses in Massachusetts that are close to the border with New Hampshire, where the minimum wage remains at the federal level of $5.15 an hour. "It will be hard to remain in business, due to the competition," she said, noting that she expects the bill will indeed pass the House.
Eighteen states and the District of Columbia now have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage, which has remained the same since 1997.
Although Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a possible candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, historically has supported indexing the minimum wage for future inflation, the new legislation does not include that provision under the compromise. Romney has not yet received the bill and will wait to review before commenting on it, according to Eric Fhernstrom, Romney's director of communications.
State Sen. Marc R. Pacheco (D-Taunton), who was the chief sponsor of the Senate's original version of the bill, which included a raise to $8.25 over three years and indexing the minimum wage to inflation, said he agreed to the compromise in order to "get it done" during this legislative session.
"If the governor is concerned with the issue of indexing, he should have no problem signing this bill," Pacheco said, noting that if the current minimum wage were tied to inflation, it would be close to $8 an hour by 2008 anyway.
Nilsson said he believes the current bill will hit Romney's desk on July 11 -- 20 days before the end of the legislative session. "We're under a tight time limit," he said. "I hope that the legislature is committed to making this happen during this session." |
|
|
| jtheweirdo |
As a libertarian I think there should be no minumum wage. It hurts all american workers.
The more power you give the government, the harder they will fuck you with it.
Take all the trouble Howard used to have with the FCC. |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
Quote: Originally posted by bushleaguer
I'll leave you with a quote from Franklin Roosevelt -
"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to exist in this country." |
Again, FDR(via bushleaguer :) ) nails it. |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Can you? Here's a hint...its not that big a deal.
|
Ahh I see so you know better then the DOL what is a big deal. They find it nesessary to devulge but you get to decide if it is a big deal.
The point is that you only post what makes you look good and always over look your contradictions.
As I showed in YOUR "IN Defense of Fredrick S." thread you have a history of such dishonesty.
Yeah you linked it but so what. All the Bush bots figure that you post all the info they need. Do you really thin people like Dud-here and IP actually click a link and read an entire article?
Douche bag.
"WHen corporations are profitable and seeking to expand"
Ahh right silly me. Here I thought expansion was an expense before profits are figured. :rolleyes: Aren't most major coporations expanding into places like India? How is that helping wages at home?
"scarce labor resources"
So you must be talking about all those new service sector jobs we have been adding. :rolleyes:
Lemmie see... record profits for corporations in this "new" economy yet unemployment is????? And before you crow about an .08 increase realize that increases in wages has not kept up with inflation.
Thank you for your Econ 101 platitudes &conjecture. Here is some reality for you.
Quote:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Employment Situation Summary
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 USDL 06-1172
http://www.bls.gov/cps/
Establishment data: 691-6555 Transmission of material in this release
http://www.bls.gov/ces/ is embargoed until 8:30 A.M. (EDT),
Media contact: 691-5902 Friday, July 7, 2006.
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JUNE 2006
Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 121,000 in June, and the unemployment
rate was unchanged at 4.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor reported today. Employment continued to trend upward in
several service-providing industries and in mining. Average hourly earnings
rose by 8 cents in June.
|
Once agin reality invades your little party.
Quote:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs...May.15.2005.pdf
Star Tribune
By John Oslund and Patrick Kennedy
May 15, 2005
In most years, it's good to be king. In 2004, it was great to be king.
For the first time, average total compensation for Minnesota CEOs climbed past $1 million in
2004.
The median increase for company heads in the state was just shy of 20 percent, nearly twice the
national average. Meanwhile, the inflation-adjusted pay for U.S. hourly workers last year
dropped slightly.
The trend holds even when the extraordinary $124.8 million pay package of UnitedHealth Group
Inc. CEO William McGuire is excluded.
At the median - where half the pay packages are higher and half lower - total CEO compensation
grew 19.6 percent to $1.124 million, according to the Star Tribune's 2004 CEO pay report. That's
the highest total compensation level since 1997, when we began to track total compensation
using the same methodology. Total compensation includes salary, bonus, gains from previously
issued stock options and other compensation.
Each year, the Star Tribune ranks the 100 highest-paid executives from among more than 150
Minnesota-based publicly held companies. Total compensation for this group declined in 2002,
reflecting the stock market's troubles in 2000 and 2001. Executive pay recovered its upward
trajectory in 2003, and in 2004 the afterburners kicked in on the compensation rocket.
The lowest-paid of the CEOs took home $342,000 last year, up about 15 percent from 2003.
Stock options made an important contribution to the overall pay boost. For the second
consecutive year, more Minnesota CEOs exercised more options and realized bigger gains than
the year before.
But actual cash compensation grew even faster than total pay. Median salary-plus-bonus for the
100 highest-paid Minnesota CEOs jumped 22 percent to $663,790 in 2004. That compares with a
salary-and-bonus bump of about 11 percent nationwide, according to compensation consulting
firm Towers Perrin.
BusinessWeek's recent survey found that total CEO pay nationwide rose about 11.3 percent,
excluding the extraordinary $230 million pay package of Yahoo CEO Terry Semel.
The strong rebound in corporate profits, and stock prices, in 2004 helped CEOs cash in. And the
above-average performance of many Minnesota companies explains, in part, the outsized jump in
CEO pay here. The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose 10.9 percent for 2004, while the
Bloomberg-Star Tribune index of Minnesota's largest companies climbed a brisk 17.1 percent.
Double-digit pay increases have become the norm at the top of the economic food chain, but the small fry struggled in 2004 against a strengthening current of consumer price increases.
"Real wages" for average U.S. hourly workers fell in 2004 by 0.6 percent, after adjusting for
inflation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. For the past three years, real hourly
wages have remained flat.
In other words, overall wages have been stuck in neutral since 2002 while executive
compensation has soared.
|
More reality.
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6070900429.html
2005 Compensation For Top-Earning Executives Grew With Stock Option Awards
By David S. Hilzenrath and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 10, 2006; Page D01
It was another banner year for the Washington area's highest-paid executives.
The median total compensation for the 100 highest-paid executives at local public companies rose 21.2 percent in 2005, to $6.4 million from $5.2 million the year before. While the median salary for that group increased 4 percent, bonuses climbed nearly 14 percent, the value of the typical stock option grant went up by more than 25 percent, and other forms of long-term compensation leapt by a third.
as of May 2005, according to the most recent local snapshot from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For private-sector workers nationwide, total compensation rose an average of 2.9 percent last year. (Inflation was 3.4%)
|
Quote:
http://www.ded.mo.gov/researchandpl...flation2005.htm
Inflation last year was: The average cost of a market basket of goods and services in the United States increased by an average of 3.4 percent in 2005 according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index (CPI).
|
I see so when you say wages will rise you mean for executives. how stupid of me to forget that you are a rebulican and that is who you are most concerned with.
My contention is that coporations are going to pay as little as possible no matter what their profit rate. Anything extra goes to CEO's and investors. Not workers.
if unemployment is high it does not matter what profits are at. Wages for the bottom will not increase. Whcih is why outsourcing is so benifical to big business. Not only cheaper workers but depresses the labor market. |
|
|
| walt zink |
| i still don't understand how a minimum wage hike is the downfall of the economy. it sort of contradicts common sense.... |
|
|
| SDLaw06 |
| I think TonyJax got it right, the big companies don't care what the minimum wage is, they can easily pass along the expense to consumers. It's the little companies that can't afford to do such. As a matter of fact that would probably help the big companies. Maybe they should be lobbying for a minimum wage hike. :D |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
Quote: Originally posted by SDLaw06
I think TonyJax got it right, the big companies don't care what the minimum wage is, they can easily pass along the expense to consumers. It's the little companies that can't afford to do such. As a matter of fact that would probably help the big companies. Maybe they should be lobbying for a minimum wage hike. :D |
Care to explain why little companies cannot pass on expenses? |
|
|
| SDLaw06 |
| Simple, most don't have the giant profit margins the bigger companies do. Larger companies have the ability to price them out of the market because of it. |
|
|
| | |
