Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What are your thoughts on income inequality?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by jiM_Mi View Post

    This is a good point to debate free markets.

    Babysitting and Athletes are in a "free market" or capitalist market.
    Teachers are not.

    Many years ago owners of athletic teams made all the money, players made little, and had to work second jobs in off season. When profit sharing comes into play, athletes now deserve about a 45%-55% cut of the revenue or profits. If I work for a company which makes $158 billion in revenue, I expect profit sharing. And I get it... last year I only received 75% of the target amount because we missed our profit margins by 2.5% or so.

    Babysitters will only work for what they feel giving up their evening is worth, and there is a limited supply of quality babysitters.

    Teachers have their wages controlled by a government, and there are laws which prevent teachers from seeking employment elsewhere (for example in MI if a teacher changes districts I was told they go to bottom of pay scale for that district). Meaning the ability of a teacher to negotiate a salary in a free market is impossible for public school teachers.
    Teachers is kind of a gray area. the wages are set by the state/local government. In private industry or private schools, the wages are set by the administration/board.

    Teachers are free to not apply if they dont like the wages or leave to find employment elsewhere. In private industry, if you change jobs, you're also probably at the bottom of the pecking order. and pay scale for that position. if there's a teacher's contract, you're free to accept or not. Nobody forces you to enter the profession or prevents you from leaving it.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by disneysteve View Post
      Snydley, you make some good points, but where do you draw the line, and who draws the line?

      At some level, a company will pay as much as it needs to pay to get the workers they need. If there is an abundant supply of people willing to take those $10/hour jobs, why would they pay $12 or $15? That wouldn't be a responsible business decision. Last month, my job gave all of us providers a 20% raise. It came as a complete surprise. I was only 8 months into a 2-year contract so I had zero expectation that a raise was coming. However, the company determined that our pay wasn't competitive and that was affecting recruitment and retention, so they upped the salary. If people were staying and more people were knocking at the door wanting to work here, they wouldn't have done that.

      You can't have it both ways. You can't take that $10/hour job and them complain that it isn't enough to live on. You knew the salary when you took the job. If you didn't want to (or can't afford to) work for $10/hour, then you need to look elsewhere.
      I agree with this regarding minimum wage.

      The question is, if overall society is better off by incraesing the minimum wage, then why not set it at $50 or $100 or $1000/hour? The fact is raising minimum wage throws the market and company out of balance, and likely hurts the group of people you're trying to help. Technology is increasing at a very rapid rate. By increasing minimum wage, you hasten the automation and outsourcing of these lower end jobs, which are meant for newer people entering the labor force or students.

      Regarding ceo pay, my opinion is that a company is free to pay whatever they want. the company lives (or dies) by that decision. You could pay the CEO 100 million per year and everyone else minimum wage, if the company goes broke, that is the result of your foolish decision.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by ~bs View Post
        The fact is raising minimum wage throws the market and company out of balance, and likely hurts the group of people you're trying to help. Technology is increasing at a very rapid rate. By increasing minimum wage, you hasten the automation and outsourcing of these lower end jobs, which are meant for newer people entering the labor force or students.
        It frustrates me to no end that proponents of a higher minimum wage can't comprehend this. Forcing businesses to pay more doesn't result in better and more abundant jobs. It does exactly the opposite. Employers are then forced to cut hours or even cut staff positions to fund the higher wages. And in companies where automation is a feasible option, they will go that route to replace employees and be able to maintain productivity at a lower cost. Look at something like a supermarket. Ours currently has 4 self checkout lanes. If the law changes and they are forced to pay cashiers more, it would be pretty simple for them to tear out 2 or 3 or 4 lanes and add more self checkouts. The upfront cost might be high but the long term savings is probably substantial. A lot of fast food restaurants now have ordering kiosks as well as mobile ordering from a cell phone app. Those things reduce the staffing needs of the restaurant. Maybe they only need 2 cashiers taking orders instead of the 4 they used to have.
        Steve

        * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
        * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
        * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

        Comment


        • #34
          I think income inequality in a country with good infrastructure doesn't really mean much of anything. I don't look at income inequality but material inequality. What does the ultra rich have access to that the average person don't besides yachts? People of average salary can afford a decent place to live, drive a decent car, and live a decent life.

          If this was back in the days then yeah, people with money have access to electricity, clean water, telephones, tvs, computers, cars, traveling by plane, etc etc. Just saying the average American life is really not that bad and doesn't really need a revolution to bring income inequality inline.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by ~bs View Post

            Teachers is kind of a gray area. the wages are set by the state/local government. In private industry or private schools, the wages are set by the administration/board.

            Teachers are free to not apply if they dont like the wages or leave to find employment elsewhere. In private industry, if you change jobs, you're also probably at the bottom of the pecking order. and pay scale for that position. if there's a teacher's contract, you're free to accept or not. Nobody forces you to enter the profession or prevents you from leaving it.
            In private industry, when I change jobs, I received raises. Every time but twice (once I took a large paycut for a temp job, once I took a 10k paycut to get more stability with solid prospects for benefits and advancement).

            The easiest way to get raises is be an engineering contractor- work one position for 6-18 months, find another for 6-18 months, and each time you change, increase the hourly rate. This works...
            From 2012 to 2019 My salary has increased more than 50%. Generally doing same work (I am a contributor, not a supervisor).

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by ~bs View Post

              I agree with this regarding minimum wage.

              The question is, if overall society is better off by incraesing the minimum wage, then why not set it at $50 or $100 or $1000/hour? The fact is raising minimum wage throws the market and company out of balance, and likely hurts the group of people you're trying to help. Technology is increasing at a very rapid rate. By increasing minimum wage, you hasten the automation and outsourcing of these lower end jobs, which are meant for newer people entering the labor force or students.

              Regarding ceo pay, my opinion is that a company is free to pay whatever they want. the company lives (or dies) by that decision. You could pay the CEO 100 million per year and everyone else minimum wage, if the company goes broke, that is the result of your foolish decision.
              It is not government's role to decide what is best for society.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ~bs View Post
                ^

                you do bring up a good point, and male vs female "income inequality" is also another hot topic, which I will try to avoid getting into.

                I can only speak for the US, but in general, I think people are fairly compensated for their work, volume of work, their education, and demand for their education. If nursing and engineering was equivalent in difficulty, yet engineering pays more, then more women should gravitate to that profession. Especially since college attendance is now skewed towards women, I think it's up to 60/40? However, we do not see this to be the case. Gendered roles are strictly a personal choice imo.

                Wage stagnation overall is not a woman vs man thing. I mentioned this in another thread, but the push to get everyone educated in the US means there are now WAY too many people with 4 year and higher degrees compared to the available jobs, leading to wage stagnation. This doesnt even consider the huge numbers of foreigners in india and china also earning advanced degrees. As students careen from field to field going after high paying careers, it drives the salaries down due to competition.
                I have an engineering degree. I have met many nurses, I don't think trying to put these jobs as "they should be paid equal" is the right logic. First, engineers have to have significant critical thinking skills... every type of engineer has to make decisions without checking a lot with others... where as nurses are administering what a doctor has ordered... less critical thinking needed. In general engineers do not service people (very few engineering roles are people centric, they are problem or project centric). Most engineers would prefer to not deal with people as a stereotype.

                If we compare engineers to nurse practitioners, then that analogy might be closer, but I still don't like it.

                Engineers should be compared to architects, scientists and data analysts.
                Nurses should be compared to realtors, doctors, nurse practitioners, and waitresses. Here is why- the goal of every occupation in this list is to serve people. They each serve people with a certain amount of risk/reward/required knowledge and skill. The more critical thinking needed, the higher the salary. The more specialized the skill, the higher the salary.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by jiM_Mi View Post
                  nurses are administering what a doctor has ordered... less critical thinking needed

                  Nurses should be compared to realtors, doctors, nurse practitioners, and waitresses.
                  Wow, This would get you in a lot of trouble with nurses, and plenty of doctors. I'm not exactly sure how nurses can be compared to waitresses or realtors. Nurses are doing front line patient care every day. They are the eyes and ears of the doctors and need to observe and be ready to respond to all sorts of variables throughout they day. They're highly trained and generally well-compensated, as they should be.
                  Steve

                  * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
                  * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
                  * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by jiM_Mi View Post

                    I have an engineering degree. I have met many nurses, I don't think trying to put these jobs as "they should be paid equal" is the right logic. First, engineers have to have significant critical thinking skills... every type of engineer has to make decisions without checking a lot with others... where as nurses are administering what a doctor has ordered... less critical thinking needed. In general engineers do not service people (very few engineering roles are people centric, they are problem or project centric). Most engineers would prefer to not deal with people as a stereotype.

                    If we compare engineers to nurse practitioners, then that analogy might be closer, but I still don't like it.

                    Engineers should be compared to architects, scientists and data analysts.
                    Nurses should be compared to realtors, doctors, nurse practitioners, and waitresses. Here is why- the goal of every occupation in this list is to serve people. They each serve people with a certain amount of risk/reward/required knowledge and skill. The more critical thinking needed, the higher the salary. The more specialized the skill, the higher the salary.
                    I wouldnt go that far, but I do get what you're saying. Just the calculus portion of engineering curriculum would cause probably 99% of college entrants to consider a career change if they initially chose engineering. The fail/major cange/drop out rate for engineers at my college was very high, and we were an average mid-large university, nothing special.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It's all in what society is willing to pay for.

                      Like it or not, the general public isn't selling out a 75,000 seat stadium to watch a nurse or a teacher hard at work. But, they will hand over cash to watch a sports team or a rock concert. That's why athletes and entertainers make millions of dollars.
                      Brian

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by disneysteve View Post

                        Wow, This would get you in a lot of trouble with nurses, and plenty of doctors. I'm not exactly sure how nurses can be compared to waitresses or realtors. Nurses are doing front line patient care every day. They are the eyes and ears of the doctors and need to observe and be ready to respond to all sorts of variables throughout they day. They're highly trained and generally well-compensated, as they should be.
                        You missed my point- nurses are "service" oriented... at least the ones I know- they are servicing patients. I agree their background is more educated than most realtors or waitresses, but the salaries of nurses should not be compared to engineers, they should be compared to other occupations servicing people.

                        The likely income (risk/reward/background) of the occupations I listed

                        waitress
                        realtor
                        nurse
                        nurse practitoner
                        Doctor

                        higher on that list, the less money they make based on risk/reward... but all are servicing people and likely have similar personality traits.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          A few thoughts:

                          Wealth cannot be created with the stroke of a pen. Liberals do not understand this.

                          "Minimum wage" is a political tool to garner votes, not an economic tool to protect people. This is a very basic fact. That's because regardless of what the politicians set it at, it remains minimum wage. Let's say for example that you indexed it at $50 per hour, so that anyone working full time would now make 6 figures. All of our problems are solved, right? Well no, because McDonald's has to raise the price of the Mac burger to cover their costs to pay that $50 per hour. Instead of $5.99, your Mac Burger is $45. So your 6 figure salary didn't get you out of subsidized housing - you're still there!

                          And it doesn't stop there...not only is McDonald's having to cover the cost of THEIR higher labor costs, but the suppliers of their napkins, ketchup, meat, cheese, and bread just raised their prices 7 fold so that they could cover THEIR increased cost. And your doctor? He's not satisfied to only make $200K any more - heck a Mac Burger is now $45 - he needs to make $1 million or more just to keep him where he was at before all this nonsense started! Instead of taking a $20 bill to McDonald's, he's packing the all new "$200 bill", freshly minted to account for this new economy. Wealth cannot be created with the stroke of a pen.

                          The liberal media will say "but the greedy companies don't HAVE to pass the added labor costs onto consumers". No? So they can just eat it and call it good, even if it means they don't make a profit any more? Who actually owns these greedy bastard companies like GE, McDonald's, and WalMart. Hmmm. YOU and ME do! They are publicly traded, meaning there isn't some greedy rich business owner behind the scenes lining his pockets. The integrity of our own personal investments depends upon our own companies earning a profit, and we shouldn't have to apologize for that. Profit is an evil word to liberals. But wealth cannot be created with the stroke of a pen.

                          So the liberal media says "we aren't asking for $50 an hour...just $15! The same economic principle applies - it is still minimum wage!

                          What do you think your 401K would do if all of the companies it is invested in suddenly slashed/eliminated their profit because "they aren't going to pass on higher labor costs to customers". ??

                          CEO salaries are determined by the board of directors, which the shareholders (you and me) elect! If we don't think it's fair what the CEO makes, SELL YOUR SHARES or nominate new shareholders that fire the CEO.

                          Do you really want to own shares in a company where they pay the CEO like a pauper because the company is doing so poorly? There are plenty of those out there - good luck with that!
                          Last edited by TexasHusker; 05-17-2019, 09:51 AM.
                          How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by TexasHusker View Post
                            Wealth cannot be created with the stroke of a pen. Liberals do not understand this.
                            Don't assume that all liberals are the same. I very much consider myself a liberal but don't agree with raising the minimum wage (or lowering CEO pay) for all of the reasons you stated.
                            Steve

                            * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
                            * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
                            * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by disneysteve View Post

                              Don't assume that all liberals are the same. I very much consider myself a liberal but don't agree with raising the minimum wage (or lowering CEO pay) for all of the reasons you stated.
                              point taken.
                              How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                To present the opposing side to TexasHusker, briefly:

                                I believe that CEOs should make far more than the lowest paid employee, but I feel this difference should be reasonable, should be, frankly, humane. Let's say 30X difference- so the lowest paid person makes 30K/year and the CEO 900K. Who on earth needs to make more than 900K per year?? You can say, well they deserve it, they got there..but rest assured unless someone is equivalent to di Vinci (with unequivocal ability to truly change the world with their genius)...no one should be worth 165 billion dollars. No one. That is disgusting.

                                Liberals feel everyone deserves a living wage. They think the system is rigged more than ever for the rich families to get richer while the former middle class evaporates. I see it in my own working class town- many fellow parents telling me they are sending their kids to the tech high school to learn a trade because they don't have the $ for college and they don't want their kids saddled with huge undergrad loans with 6-8% interest. I never saw this happen as a middle class high school student.

                                My peers in science (fellow faculty, biotech scientists, etc) are sending their kids to colleagues' labs to get experience to sweeten their college and grad school applications; these same kids have extensive private tutoring whenever needed, including for the SAT and graduate entrance exams. This puts middle and lower class kids at a huge disadvantage. There weren't so many of these elite 'hyper-groomed' kids when I was applying to undergrad/grad school.

                                I cannot understand this argument that raising the minimum wage won't help these employees because they will have to raise prices, etc. To cover the cost, lower the executives' pay from the ridiculous sky-high amounts they currently are. Take less (but still very very high!!) profits. Be fair to everyone. Market Basket in Massachusetts does this - they treat their employees very well, with good pay, insurance, pensions, etc..and guess what? The employees work hard, are loyal to the company and the shoppers feel good about shopping there. The CEO is plenty rich but likely not nearly as rich as he COULD be.





                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X