$13,700 an Hour

Last Sunday, the New York Times reported that--for the first time--a full-time worker earning minimum wage cannot afford a one-bedroom apartment anywhere in America at market rates. That means more and more people like Michelle Kennedy--a former Senate page and author of Without a Net: Middle Class and Homeless (with Kids) in America--are finding themselves homeless and living out of their cars.

At a town hall meeting in Ohio last Saturday, Representative Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a staunch advocate for social and economic rights--he and Bernie Sanders are the two best candidates running for Senate in 2006--railed against stagnant wages' contribution to economic hardship. "It is unacceptable that someone can work full-time--and work hard--and not be able to lift their family out of poverty." He blasted a system where a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $10,500 annually, while "last year the CEO of Wal-Mart earned $3,500 an hour. The CEO of Halliburton earned about $8,300 an hour. And the CEO of ExxonMobil earned about $13,700 an hour."

This past weekend Robert Kuttner argued in the Boston Globe that while people are blaming undocumented workers for driving down wages, the real villains are "the people running the government, who have made sure that the lions' share of the productivity gains go to the richest 1 percent of Americans. With different tax, labor, health, and housing policies, native-born workers and immigrants alike could get a fairer share of our productive economy."

Kuttner points to Census data showing that "median household income fell 3.8 percent, or $1,700, from 1999 to 2004...during a period when average productivity rose 3 percent per year." And while income is falling, working people are increasingly squeezed. Costs for housing, healthcare, education and childcare rose 46 percent between 1991 and 2002, according to economist Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute.

And the situation is getting worse. Look at the Delphi Corporation's moves as reported in the Washington Post on Saturday. The company asked a bankruptcy judge to void its union contracts so it could lower worker wages and benefits. CEO Steve Miller played the ever-reliable global competition card saying, "At the end of the day, Delphi must be competitive in the global marketplace."

But as Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research at Cornell University, makes clear, this new tactic will further erode labor's power in the workplace. "What in our laws and in our democracy gives a bankruptcy judge the right to take away freedom of association and collective bargaining?" Bronfenbrenner asked. "Bankruptcy judges should not have that power. Now they do."

In the current climate--with tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans; a minimum wage frozen for eight years and a GOP-dominated Congress; deterioration of labor's power in the workplace; and corporate-authored free-trade agreements that exacerbate these trends--it is heartening to hear Sherrod Brown make the case that "a hard day's work should mean a fair day's pay." But where are the other Democratic leaders who should be standing by his side?

The Democratic Party needs to regain its moral compass, its heart and soul. Sounding an alarm on this economic catastrophe befalling so many Americans is what heart and soul is all about.

Comments (188)

1. $13,700 an hour-that man needs a tax cut!

   Posted by proudleftists at 04/06/2006 @ 11:33pm

2. Yeah. Clearly he's living hand to mouth.

   Posted by redwingblack at 04/06/2006 @ 11:36pm

3. AMERICAN COLONIALS FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM AND WON.

   THEY FORMED THE HEART AND SOUL OF OUR NATION.

   A CIVIL WAR WAS FOUGHT TO MAKE US AS ONE.

   GERMAN CITIZENS MARCHED AND TORE DOWN THE WALL.

   THEY BROUGHT DOWN COMMUNISM AND CHANGED THE WORLD.

   IN UKRAINE THE ORANGE REVOLUTION CHANGED A GOVERNMENT.

   THERE WAS STRENGTH, COURAGE, AND WISDOM IN THEIR HEARTS.

   DO THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY EVEN WANT TO CHANGE?

   IF SO THEN WHAT IS IN THEIR HEARTS?

   HOW MUCH IS POWER, HATE, AND GREED?

   Posted by bohdan yuri at 04/06/2006 @ 11:57pm

4. Is his wage illegal? If not, and the company is willing to pay his salary, who are we to care?

   Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 01:18am

5. wow, Katrina is really on to something here! Did she know that a whole bunch of PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES make that much an hour? Let's see if we ever see her direct her attention or wrath towards them! How about finding out how much George Soros Makes per hour at the expense of the POOR! What a pathetic lunatic she is! You all are insane!

   Posted by barry25 at 04/07/2006 @ 01:32am

6. Exxon's never paid the fine for the Alaskan oil spill. How many realize that? Let's stencil " never paid the fine" on every Exxon gas pump . Record profits! How much benzene in your water?

   Posted by georgepweb at 04/07/2006 @ 02:38am

7. Ms vanden Heuval....

   Aside from COMPLAINING about it, did Mr Brown actually propose any SOLUTIONS for this "problem" of CEOs making un-holy salaries?

   Posted by Mask at 04/07/2006 @ 07:13am

8. Also, I'm sure those who supported Paul Hackett will be glad to know THEY were wrong....and Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer were RIGHT about replacing him.

   Posted by Mask at 04/07/2006 @ 07:14am

9. MASK wrote: "Aside from COMPLAINING about it, did Mr Brown actually propose any SOLUTIONS for this "problem" of CEOs making un-holy salaries?"

   Given that the article doesn't use the term unholy anywhere, can one assume that *you* find the salaries mentioned unholy?

   Posted by oneworld at 04/07/2006 @ 08:31am

10. How much do YOU get an hour from your trust funds, KVH? Btw - still trying to avoid paying those taxes?

    Posted by woodyee at 04/07/2006 @ 08:45am

11. $13,000 an hour? but raising the minimum wage to at least keep up with inflation, that's gonna make business uncompetitive. sure.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 09:53am

12. We can count on the right-wing to see it wrong. They ask "who are we to care about a high salary"? What the author is doing is pointing out the discrepency between the highest and lowest underscors the fact that minimum wage is too low, not that their salaries are too high, per se.

    If Corporations can afford rediculously high salaries (just as sports teams do), then realistically, they have no argument in opposing a minimum wage hike.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 10:04am

13. Katy Couric only gets $ 7500.00 an hour to read a telepromter(based on a 40 hour week). Maybe she should go on strike for higher wages since she is obviously at the lower end of her economic class.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 10:16am

14. What I would propose is this: A floating corporate "minimum wage" where the total benefits package per annum maximum never exceed 5 times the minimum paid within that company, and the minimum not to go below the current wage.

    This does two things:

    1)his favors the small "mom and pop" stores where minimum wage can be as low as justified by the employers own relatively low salaries; and

    2)Forces companies like Exxon/Mobil to pay employees a fairer structure relative to their top executives.

    For the millions of middle income workers in the biggest companies like Exxon, which most lavishly compensate their executives, the increased salaries to the middle income workers would dramatically boost the economy by providing consumers a huge boost of cash, immediately pouring into the housing and commodities markets.

    Thank you very much! And, have a great day!

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 10:18am

15. It's not sick Katy Couric gets $7500.00 an hour. It's sick that the cafeteria staff at ABC (or wherever the hell she whores herself now) is making less than $6 an hour - for the same employer.

    Thus, the employer cannot show hardship to prevent the minimum wage for employees that immediately support Katy to make such a wonderful salary (like the cafeteria help) shouldn't themsleves make approximated 20% of that, or around $300 per hour.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 10:25am

16. $300.00 an hour sounds like a lot, but that comes to about $2000.00 a day, or about $4 million per annum. This is approximately what the minimum wage for Americans working in large corporations would be if salaries were "fairly" distributed (5 to 1 ratio max).

    This redistribution of salaries doesn't touch investment capital, so there is no excuse not to redistribute, other than to protect the "haves" (<1% of the population) from the have-nots, which includes me, and probably 99% of the GOP base, too.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 10:31am

17. Because,

    How would you handle the $ 100,000 package the laid off union workers(GM) are being paid, for YEARS, after they have left the job? Those costs are in the price of the new American car you refuse to buy.

    Ratios of executive salaries and workers packages are not related, except at the profitability level. Some one who puts lug nuts on wheels paycheck should only be related to how many he puts on, unless the union says he needs to be paid according to how long he has done the job. The executive makes decisions on how many lug nuts may or may not be required in the coming year. There is no rational connection between the 2 wages unless the responsibility factor is considered. Higher responsibility level tyhe higher the compensation. One is paid for what he knows and the other by how much he is willling to do over time(hourly).

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 10:32am

18. Because,

    If you folow your logic, then only Katy could eat in the cafateria. Your formula is a recipe for corporate collapse, or is this your desire?

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 10:34am

19. Because,

    Why 5 times the level of execs? How did you arrive at 5, why not 3, or 8? Does the market matter at all to you? What if, like the case of GM, sales fall and no one buys the cars and the profits dry up? Do you drop to 2 times or do you shrink wages? What happens when your company has huge losses for years? Cut the pay? Lay off? NO? Welcome to France.

    Your plan only works in a system where the government mandates the rules, like the old USSR, where everyone had a job and was treated equaly...workers paqradise...veery progressive. Why do you on the left always focus on what some one else has manage to earn and not focus on why and how they earned it? You are too worried about those who don't earn as much with a blanket, "they are getting screwed since the guy next to them is earning more" syndrome..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 10:41am

20. MAASCH: Do you believe in a minimum wage? If so, how do you believe that the minimum wage rate should be determined?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/07/2006 @ 10:41am

21. "This redistribution of salaries doesn't touch investment capital, so there is no excuse not to redistribute, other than to protect the "haves" (<1% of the population) from the have-nots, which includes me, and probably 99% of the GOP base, too."

    Redistribution of salaries...you mean, steal mine and give to someone else...Why should I even work? I will wait for you to redistribute someones elses salary to me...This is why you are out of power and with the help of God, you will never attain power. I urge you to puish your plan loudly and everywhere..especially in 06 and 08...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 10:44am

22. I'm not at all sure what the point of this is.....is wealth a bad thing (even if it's obscene wealth)? That would be a politically suicidal position to take in the land of opportunity.

    A corporation wants to pay everyone as little as possible....from the guy that puts the little cakes in the executive bathroom urinals to the guys pissing on those cakes. The corporation is out to screw them all. The problem is not corporations it's just personal leverage and the corporation is not directly responsible for the distribution of personal leverage). The urinal cake placer can be replaced by an ex con, a machine or a migrant worker. The CEO cannot. He / she has leverage over the corporation the other person does not. The more leverage you have (leverage comes from connections, education, drive, charisma, risk taking, looks etc.) the more money you can extract from the corporation.

    Donm't blame corporations for the distribution inequity, blame our system for allowing migrant workers, for not educting our whole popuation, and so on. And I know that corporate policy and influence is partially responsible for this, but complaints about the pay scale thing don't address the real problems and just sound like sour grapes.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/07/2006 @ 10:47am

23. Yes, I believe in a minimum wage, determined by the market. Not a beurocrat(sp) or socialist dreamer or captialistic hog. The market. The reason dry walling is dominated by the Mexican workers these days is that no one will work for the wages being offered to day...except the Mexicans(or other immigrants). What would happen if no one showed up to take the lower wages for dry walling at the price offered? I believe the wage would rise until someone accepted the job. The market would say no one wants to work for these lower wages, so , if we want dry walling done, and we need this service, then we have to offer more...the raise stops once some accepts the wage.

    Market forces and not governemnt hacks. Minmum wages are ENTRY level wages. If you are earning min wages for years then there is another problem and no beaurcrats can fix it...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 10:50am

24. Free,

    "The more leverage you have (leverage comes from connections, education, drive, charisma, risk taking, looks etc.)"

    Granted to a degree, but you still have to produce..you are being paid to produce and EARN you high wage with higher profits or sales ...if not it is adios...as it should be. Some GM workers are being paid not to produce..for years...should you redistrubte their pay now, according to Because?

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 10:56am

25. Nah, Maasch. It's ok to keep starving the workers, and paying CEOs more and more money. I mean, they only come from rich, industrious families anyway, so they really need the money in order to fill their platinum vaults with. Why, they might not be able to buy that new 150,000 dollar Beamer this year! 'Course, there's always the off chance that pushing this sort of bullshit wage setup too far results in violent revolution, but hey, the corporate security guards are making 13,700$ an hour too...

    right?

    Posted by Megido at 04/07/2006 @ 10:58am

26. And a note to dry wallers,,why is it that wages for dry walling in New Orleans are as high as $ 17.00 an hour and only the Mexicans are showing up? What about all those people who left and are now getting some form of aid and want a job?

    Why isn't Jesse and his cabal helping get people back to earn those wages and rebuild the city he claims no one cares about? Just a thought.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 11:00am

27. Megido,

    I can't find in any post an arguement you posted above. May be you misread something.

    BTW, what does Megido mean?

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 11:02am

28. the point here is not to take anything away from the obscenely rich, heaven forfend, but to give the working man his or her due. stagnant wages for the middle class, starvation wages for the underclass, it is that which is the shame of america.

    Orwell and Megido, good luck with Maasch, better you than me. I've been around the floor a few times on this issue with the heartless bastard, who now resides happily, for me, on my ignore list. if Frei wasn't in China, he too would probably be stinking up the place with defense for the super rich, fulminating about zero sum games and other such nonsense

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 11:07am

29. by the way I have no problem witth George Clooney or A-Rod making tens of millions, they are stars, and repay their corporate owners multiple time over, something that cannot always be said about the CEOs

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 11:09am

30. JR,

    " by the way I have no problem witth George Clooney or A-Rod making tens of millions, they are stars, and repay their corporate owners multiple time over,"

    This makes my point. Did Exxons chairman accomplish the same deed?

    I am also off to China next month...now what? And, I am not heartless.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 11:15am

31. JR,

    Who has been ,"defending the super rich"? Me? You? SOROS?..Who? Read the posts again. If JR has ignored me, then someone read it to him.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 11:17am

32. But how is anything going to happen? You write: "The Democratic Party needs to regain its moral compass, its heart and soul." Fine sentiments, but how would or could such a thing occur? The same party found its "moral compass" during the Great Depression. So, do we need another economic collapse before the "rich get richer..." path is abandoned? If not, how do you envision this "regaining?" Who will lead it? Who will follow and why? Most Americans who have come of age since RR won in 1980 don't even suspect what a "moral compass" in our society might look like, and how it could work. They understand amassing wealth and celebrity, but from what national events or role models could they have learned social conscience?

    Posted by donescobar at 04/07/2006 @ 11:28am

33. I forget which thread it was, where Chavez was discussed, but those interested might check Ted Rall's column, which is very fine.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 11:30am

34. i'm with maasch and frei on this one. ceo-worker pay difference went from 301-1 in 2003 to 431-1 in 2004. why? because these ceo's are working soooo much harder than the workers. they earned that money damnit. they are much much harder workers than the lazy employees they have. halliburton's ceo, david lesar's pay went from 4.2 million in 2003 to 11.4 million in 2004. now some people may say with halliburton's many scandals and troubles overcharging for their services and "misplacing" so much money, that maybe he didn't deserve that increase in pay. but obviously he is a very hard worker. he earned every cent.

    Posted by loveloki at 04/07/2006 @ 11:30am

35. but from what national events or role models could they have learned social conscience?

    er, Jesus Christ?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 11:31am

36. Loveloki, naughty, naughty.

    the head of the NY stock exchange was getting 130 million dollares, how? by cheating of course, but our attorney general and future governor is onto him, and will bring him down, he resigned already but he;ll have to give some of that money back.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 11:34am

37. ceo-worker pay ratio in 1980 was 42-1. i don't know what it is now. but it has gone up to 431-1 or greater now because the quality of the ceos has gone up too. don't u people get it?

    Posted by loveloki at 04/07/2006 @ 11:34am

38. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/07/2006 @ 10:50am: Yes, I believe in a minimum wage, determined by the market.

    That is remarkably obtuse. A minimum wage, as understood by most everyone in this country, is a minimum salary rate specified by statute. It is, obviously, not determined by the market, as that would make it a meaningless concept.

    Apparently, by "believe in a minimum wage" you mean that you believe that there is someone somewhere who makes less than everyone else, and therefore receives the minimum wage. Obviously this is true. Just as obviously, this is irrelevant.

    So, let me rephrase. Maasch, do you support the minimum wage laws that have existed in this country for nearly 70 years? And, if so, how do you feel the country should determine the minimum wage that is specified in the statute?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/07/2006 @ 11:34am

39. johannesrolf, he was the exception to the rule. these ceos are amazingly good and talented people. they have earned their money.

    Posted by loveloki at 04/07/2006 @ 11:35am

40. Orwell, Yes, and as I said, the market should determine the wage, not some meaning bench mark dictated by beurocrats.

    The jobs has to have a value of its own that employers and employees are willing to accept and pay. Not obtuse, rather , more simple than most would make it.

    As for the posts about 400 to 1...meaningless stats. Getting paid what the job , or you are worht is the bigger issue.

    No limits on what one can earn by "statute". None. Free enterprise.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 11:41am

41. they are meaningless stats. you're right. money isn't real. silly me. and i can't believe katrina is picking on lee raymond here. he may look like a bloated disgusting pig, he may act like a repulsive grotesque pig.....but i for one, know that appearances can be tricky. he earned every cent of that money through his toil. i will buy all of my gas at exxon from now on.

    Posted by loveloki at 04/07/2006 @ 11:45am

42. loveloki, your scaring me.

    the illegal immigrant wage, as determined by the market is $3 an hour. hey let's let the minimum wage float, as determined by the market, and see if we can't get it down to $3.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 11:51am

43. OR,

    "Apparently, by "believe in a minimum wage" you mean that you believe that there is someone somewhere who makes less than everyone else, and therefore receives the minimum wage. Obviously this is true. Just as obviously, this is irrelevant. "

    You are, of course, correct. Irrelevant. I support the law because it is the law of the land. I believe it should be determine by the market. But I support the law and would follow it. It is the arbitrary raises that drive me nuts as there is no formula or logic. Just government hacks around election time.

    He is one for you. If the US had a policy where in order to get a job, government check, hotel room, ect. One had to show a passport, ie. Europe, then anyone with out a valid passport would have no illegal job or low pay to deal with. To get a passport one would have to show residence and citizenship. The companies could no longer give cheap wages and screw the system. It would also solve the illegal immigrant problem eventually.

    Come in the front door of my house and live by me like my neighbor..but don't come in through the windows...like a thief.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 11:51am

44. JR,

    My family has construction companies and haven't paid $ 3.00 an hour in over 20 years. You don't what the fuck you are talking about.

    My father in law had at one time 150 employees, mostly Hispanic and paid them America wages and bonuses determined by productivity. He helped them get citizenships. He is even helping the 2 long term brothers BUY his compamy with SBA loans while he will do the bids. He no longer hires Anglos as they have caused him problems as have African Americans. The people who have worked WITH him are now getting the business. No inhertitance. Very red conservative in a very red state..Texas.

    JR, you may be a smart fellow, but you need to wander outside and see America from another perspective other than the concrete canyons.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 11:58am

45. Whose word do you take for what "THE MARKET" determines or decides? Who/what drives THE MARKET? Could that change or be changed? Would it then still be THE MARKET? Why not get at this first?

    Posted by donescobar at 04/07/2006 @ 11:59am

46. My employer is my age and started from a weaker position than I. He came from Israel and started his own company with nothing. 6 months ago he bought a $ 10 million dollar apartment in NEW YORK CITY. It is his, he earned it he paid for it, he worked for it and he is entitled to it, since he worked for his money and it is his money fairly earned. His r salary ratio to mine is meaningless and I am insulted to measured or compared or judged to have a value in this formula. The harder,smarter, more efficiently I work the more I can earn. I have a great deal and a great opportunity and I intend to capitalize on it.

    Keep your redistribution lunacy away from me. It amounts to nothing morewith the stamp of legality... than stealing..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 12:07pm

47. the market is whatever the bosses can get away with. that's why they want bring in more "guest workers" from Mexico and central america.

    I find it quite pathetic to see middle class folks defending the rapacious privileges of the rich and super rich on this blog. believe me folks, there ain't no millionaires and multimillionaires posting on these threads, so I guess somebody has to shill for them.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 12:11pm

48. Zero,

    You have identified the problem...the pie...You see everyone fighting over crumbs of a pie you seem to think someone has taken from you. I see the pie as growing and the larger the pie, the more pices one can share. You have to earn a piece, but everyone can get a piece. If someone works, or bakes harder or smarter and gets a bigger slice, so what, you can do the same. While you complain over the crumbs you don't even see the pie. Too worried about who cuts the pie instead of helping bake it...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 12:12pm

49. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/07/2006 @ 11:51am: I support the law because it is the law of the land. I believe it should be determine by the market.

    I do not understand how that works. How does the market determine the minimum wage specified in the statute?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/07/2006 @ 12:12pm

50. Again,

    I would severly punish any and all companies hiring illegals and paying slave wages.

    Period.

    The market is the wage at which someone is WILLING to work and WILLING to accept.

    If I am only willing to pay X for a job and no one applies or will work for X, then I have to raise wage to Y or forget the work altogether. That is market force of the wage.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 12:15pm

51. "the market is whatever the bosses can get away with" JOHANNESROLF

    Nice, Brechtian working definition. And now what, fellow non-bosses?

    Posted by donescobar at 04/07/2006 @ 12:16pm

52. Waste of electrons...

    I am off to earn more for my employer and for my family. I hope he gets richer, as in the process, my boat will float higher too...Oh, Oh, trickle down?....NAH..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 12:17pm

53. Zero,

    Congradulations, Yes, you get it...not everyone will get rich, but everyone can...

    you get it. and, most won't get rich, but they have a shot..and in most cases, upon examination, most are a victum of thremselves..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 12:19pm

54. "But noone who simply takes your perspective and presents it to the public as a substitute for sound government"

    This is also true...I am not suggesting this is a formula for sound government, rather, it is a sound perspective for changing the arguement from "he has mine, to, I can work and get mine too, with out STEALING his.."

    Got to go..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 12:23pm

55. "...enhancement of the social safety net, a total reformation of health care costs, real living wage legislation and a boxcar full of other remedies..." ZERO

    You got my vote, but: when can my children or grandchildren expect any or all of the above in the USA, or where should they move to?

    Posted by donescobar at 04/07/2006 @ 12:27pm

56. support unions, don't buy sweatshop products, pressure your congress person to raise the minimum wage, c'mon folks , help me out here, ignore Maasch, etc etc etc, to quote from "the king and I"

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 12:28pm

57. Zero,

    I am late....the reality is that world is getting smaller and the changes are coming at us faster. And, yes, the worker getting $ 50 an hour is disappearing, as did the horse whip when horses were replaced with autos. My father worked for the same company for 30 years. No one does that anymore. Is the company or the government evil and corrupt? Or did the world change....I am trying to stay ahead of the curve and it is difficult, but I also enjoy the battle. Maybe I am more motivated, who knows,but I can't buy something that costs $50 an hour to build when my neighbor is building one for $40, or $30...and neither can you, nor will you ..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 12:30pm

58. Donescobar, thanks, it was nice to hear Brecht's name mentioned, who by the way was a great poet in addition to being a great playwright, poetry is nearly impossible to translate, so you non german readers will have to trust me on this

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 12:30pm

59. Zero, "But noone who simply takes your perspective and presents it to the public as a substitute for sound government"

    I will respond later in depth, but I am so late sorry. I will return.

    John

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 12:31pm

60. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/07/2006 @ 12:19am | ignore this person

    Actually JOHN, the quickest way to end a "living wage/minimum wage" debate is...

    ask for a figure.

    You MIGHT get one (usually not though), and it maybe like $7.50 an hour. To which you simply ask, "If 7.50 is fair, is $8.00 TOO much?" Then try "8.50"...then "9"....then "10".

    And the "living wage" people usually spiral out of control until their wings snap off and they crash into "Well, okay THAT is too much" ....to which you ask "Why?" and they say "That much would cause inflation and create unemployment" and then you know what to say next.

    Posted by Mask at 04/07/2006 @ 12:32pm

61. Blah blah blah...

    How much is enough?

    Consider all those scary "third world" countries where corruption, violence, hunger, and disease are an everyday reality, where weapons are easier to come by than food. Look at the gap between the rich and the poor, and see if you notice any pattern.

    I'm thinking that an unfettered lust for power and/or wealth from the "ruling class" is not the recipe for stability, or the endurance of the state.

    And I don't want to wake up and find myself in a bad Kurt Russell movie.

    Posted by drhammer at 04/07/2006 @ 12:32pm

62. Dones,

    Move to France. Hurry, tho, it may not last long.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 12:32pm

63. "Donescobar, thanks, it was nice to hear Brecht's name mentioned, who by the way was a great poet in addition to being a great playwright, poetry is nearly impossible to translate, so you non german readers will have to trust me on this"

    True enough...the "3 Penny Opera"...Mack the Knife(MACKIEMESSER), but I am sure no one will connect Brecht with the Bobby Darin song....

    Posted by john maasch at 04/07/2006 @ 12:35pm

64. The last time we had this problem, the almighty market came in with a correction. It was called the Great Depression.

    We don't have a properly functioning economy right now. Too many bubbles. CEO pay is just one.

    You know that debt clock in New York? They need to add a digit soon!

    Pardon my gloom. This country's fuel is optimism. Maybe some of these highly paid geniuses can figure out how to grow that.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/07/2006 @ 12:44pm

65. MAASCH Bashing the French "ist noch kein Programm."

    JOHANNESROLF

    Yes, his poetry is great. But I also like: "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral." More pertinent to the discussion here.

    Posted by donescobar at 04/07/2006 @ 12:45pm

66. yes indeed Don. I also like the scene in Pygmalion, where Liza's dad explains that he cannot afford morality, priceless. who played the better dad, the first non musical version or the second?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 12:50pm

67. I remember posting "Soldaten wohnen, auf den Kannonen.." here not so long ago.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 12:51pm

68. Don, you'll have to indulge Maasch, he likes to change subjects in mid breath, the old bait and switch

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 12:52pm

69. And I don't want to wake up and find myself in a bad Kurt Russell movie.

    Posted by DRHAMMER 04/07/2006 @ 12:32am | ignore this person

    "Tango and Cash"?.....hehe

    Posted by Mask at 04/07/2006 @ 12:53pm

70. JOHANNESROLF

    Also, the parody (by Heine) of Goethe's famous line about Italy: "Kennst Du das Land wo die Zitronen bluehn?"--transferred to Germany, as "Kennst Du das Land wo die Kanonen bluehn?" That's us too, today.

    Posted by donescobar at 04/07/2006 @ 12:54pm

71. I was taught that in this great nation, there is no limit to what you can accomplish.

    You can grow up to be president.

    You can grow up to be paid enough to buy yourself a new Ferrari every week.

    Or you could put in 40-plus hours and still not be able to afford to support your family.

    Whose service, or product, or bottom line is so important that their employees should not earn a living wage?

    Who actually earns $13,700 an hour?

    How much is enough?

    Posted by drhammer at 04/07/2006 @ 12:58pm

72. Don, that's good. get thee to Gutenberg.de, for Heine, Wilhelm Busch, and just about everybody.

    Der Einsame by Wilhelm Busch, bitte auschecken

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 1:02pm

73. correction, here's that link, most amusing

    http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/wbusch/zuguterl/Druckversion_einsame.htm

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 1:11pm

74. Well, LVLIBERTY1 and others, consider the meaning of the "social contract" when you find out that: $107.2 million were cut in W's 2007 budget for U.S Department of Agriculture's Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provided nutritionally balanced food boxes to 525,000 people, mostly seniors with income below 130 percent of federal poverty guidelines and to low-income families. "I don't know where I'd be without it," said James Barone, 70, a Park Manor Apartment resident in Reno. "After paying for rent and medicine, it leaves me with about $90 per month and that's what I have to live on and I'm one of the better off ones in this building." (Reno Gazette-Journal, Feb. 21, 2006)

    The "MARKET" will not help him, and he doesn't have your choices to be an independent contractor any longer. It's not hard to find thousands of similar examples. No sympathy?

    Posted by donescobar at 04/07/2006 @ 1:12pm

75. JOHANNESROLF

    Great line in "Der Einsame" that applies to the old guy in Reno:

    "Und allgemach vergisst man seiner."

    Did our yuppies or Bobos EVER think of him and those like him?

    Posted by donescobar at 04/07/2006 @ 1:26pm

76. Who actually earns $13,700 an hour?

    Posted by DRHAMMER 04/07/2006 @ 12:58am | ignore this person

    As noted earlier, a LOT of the same Hollywood stars who claim to be liberals and do a lot of fund-raising for the Democratic Party.

    But, I'm sure, that threatened with making only "5X what the studio janitor makes" by the guys they're supporting, they'll agree to that and not do something self-interested like....oh...vote Republican or something!

    Posted by Mask at 04/07/2006 @ 1:26pm

77. after pouring out their sympathy for the bosses, there is nothing left for anyone else.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 1:31pm

78. independent contractor

    I can't decide whether to laugh or weep. reminds me of: " if they don't like working for a very diminished minimum wage, almost ten years without a raise, why don't they just find another job?" oh yes, no bread? why don't they eat cake? you know who you are Maasch and Frei

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 1:43pm

79. Exactly who has worked for minimum wage for 10 years without getting a raise? That would be quite a feat!

    Posted by usc1 at 04/07/2006 @ 1:51pm

80. Exactly who has worked for minimum wage for 10 years without getting a raise?

    Posted by USC1 04/07/2006 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person

    Well, somebody that was fired from job to job over a short period of time might.

    Hey....why don't we have a law making it more difficult to fire people, I understand they have that in Fra........

    Never mind!

    Posted by Mask at 04/07/2006 @ 2:26pm

81. Posted by MASK 04/07/2006 @ 1:26pm

    Even though I would not compare prima dona athletes and Hollywood stars to captains of industry in this social context, and

    I did not suggest that these people work for five times what the studio janitor makes,

    I ask them ALL the same question:

    How much is enough?

    Posted by drhammer at 04/07/2006 @ 3:16pm

82. Posted by DRHAMMER 04/07/2006 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person

    Well, Doc...what if they say "13,500 an hour is enough, thanks!"?

    Or how about this....we declare that $100,000 a year is "enough" for everybody, that's the "Maximum Wage", no bonuses, no stock options, nothing else. And that's it.

    Everybody earns EXACTLY the same, so that the guy making $1000 a year less than YOU....can't ask you if YOUR salary is "more than enough"?

    Posted by Mask at 04/07/2006 @ 3:54pm

83. OK MAASCH - ET AL. I want to thank you for taking on my "policy recommendation" for equitable distribution of corporate salaries.

    So far, MAASCH has yet to explain why a corporation should be allowed to pay hundreds of execs world-wide in excess of a million dollars per year, while it pays tens of thousands of middle management and lower substantially less than that.

    Yes, I know there was some vague pay incentive to "risk takers" that execs allegedly are; which is ultimately the age old argument about "skilled" vs "unskilled" labor compensation differentials.

    I am, afterall, the one that favors virtually unrestricted immigration and emmigraion to and from the US which depends on a low minimum wage.

    So, I understand ALL of the arguments. What didn't happen is MAASCH converting his argument into an actual reason why it should be so.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 4:59pm

84. Again, salaries are only high for ALL workers when they are high for ANY worker within the company. It is up to the Company to decide whether this (ultimatley) translates to fewer high-skill jobs, or a lower top end salary for the exec, to be able to afford more low skill employees.

    This makes economic sense: why should the exec in charge of low skill workers make so much money? There is afterall, no training, technology, or complicated management issues associated with a high skill workforce.

    Similarly, why should the exec in charge of high skill workers make so much more money? There is afterall, little difference between the high skill of the employee from the exec that manages them.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 5:05pm

85. Our problem today is companies like WALMART, EXXON, etc, pay top execs far in excess of what should be expected given the large amount of unskilled labor they manage. This money should be reallocated to the lowest paid workers - improving the overall economy by boosting consumer cash available for spending.

    There is no reason to keep executive salaries so high: it hurts the US economy with little benefit to share holders to do so.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 5:10pm

86. And, if 5 times is too narrow a spread - maybe 6 or 7 times. But, as has been asked over and over how much is enough??

    I don't believe in the blank check theory of compensation, thus we should be able to set a reasonable "cap" and "bottom" without seeming too socialistic, don't you?

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/07/2006 @ 5:20pm

87. Frei, compassionate as always, and grasping for irrelevant analogies, as usual

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 9:35pm

88. As noted earlier, a LOT of the same Hollywood stars who claim to be liberals and do a lot of fund-raising for the Democratic Party.

    Posted by MASK 04/07/2006 @ 1:26pm

    The economic model for entertainers - this applies to sports entertainers as well - is utterly different from corporate executive compensation. Make a valid point, please.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/07/2006 @ 9:45pm

89. You are child-like in your assertion that somehow limiting income to select earners is a form of compassion to the poor. That mentality is akin to doing your child's homework is showing you love them.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/07/2006 @ 9:48pm

    it's mentally akin to one child getting A's for the same answers other children get D's for.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/07/2006 @ 9:54pm

90. Fry, let's leave abortion out of the discussion. I think the point here is that we look at CEOs compensation in the context of wages that have been stagnant, a minimum wage that has declined and the ever widening gap between haves and havenots.

    you are so eager to carry water for the super rich that your arms must get very tired. what have the CEOs done to deserve these huge increases? innovation? productivity increases? or shipping jobs overseas, union busting, walking away from their pension promises to workers.

    It's good to have your snide sarcasm back again. as I have said before, by their posts, you shall know them, and you come across loud and clear.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 10:56pm

91. Let's leave affirmative action out of this discussion please...

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/07/2006 @ 10:04pm

    welfare queen affirmative action or lazy corporate welfare queen affirmative action?

    Posted by Will C. at 04/07/2006 @ 11:23pm

92. au contraire, I actually respond to your points, try it sometime. also sarcasm is not the same as wit.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 11:41pm

93. Fry, it's late over here on the east coast, but I will certainly entertain any notions you may propose in the morning.

    sarcasm is like salt, too much spoils the soup.

    go back and read some of my posts. you will find very little robinhoodism, I believe. there is a difference between social justice and robinhoodism. in this country the problem has been a reverse robinhoodism, with the gov't shoveling money at the rich and the corporations, this has been especially pronounced during this mis-administration.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/07/2006 @ 11:54pm

94. FREIHEIT insists that the anger generated by executive overcompensation (sweet little euphemism) has "nothing to do with reality." As Tom Frank showed in his book, "One Market Under God," Frei may be right. Most of the country, certainly the elites and middle class managers, live in a business thought bubble: reality is what the market says it is. The rest is utopian garbage, RobinHoodism, bad idelogical stuff only Old Europe types hang on to as the Global Economy sweeps them into the gutter. And whenever a few lowly types or crazed lefties speak up, they are told to devote themselves to matters of the heart or spiritual pursuits. No decent housing and no health care, but our self-help gurus will bombard you with books and articles on how to be "happy" without them--or for a few lucky ones, how to amass the wealth so you can afford them. Now, ain't reality grand?

    Posted by donescobar at 04/08/2006 @ 10:07am

95. Don, your point about elites is apt. I would add our fourth estate into that equation. that is the reason our news coverage is so slanted, they're all in on the fix.

    at one time, long, long ago the news divisions at the networks were something like noblesse oblige, something the networks were giving back in the nature of a public service, in exchange for the public airwaves that they use to make their pound of flesh.

    that is no longer so, ratings now drive the news, just like sitcoms, and so we are treated to tabloid style news coverage, with missing white women leading the parade.

    when a network personality changes jobs, that is now news for a week, with editorials, breaking news etc. the stuff of gossip columns like Brad and Jolie, now is treated as news, they even use the news to flog their entertainment programs.

    small wonder that we have an uninformed public, and a news cycle that barely gives one story time to sink in or be developed. that the news magnates would hold stories unflattering to the gov't until AFTER the elections is the most egregious of the news barons offenses. shades of yellow journalism.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 10:46am

96. I'd call it Red Journalism.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 10:56am

97. Noblesse oblige is as dead at NBC as it is in Harvard Yard. Lasch was not wrong when he detected a new and narrow selfishness and narcissism rising among "best and brightest" in the 1980s. Almost makes you wish for a return of the old WASP establishment.

    Posted by donescobar at 04/08/2006 @ 11:00am

98. Will, forgive for asking if you know the reference of yellow journalism?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 11:25am

99. ...bad idelogical stuff only Old Europe types hang on to as the Global Economy sweeps them into the gutter.

    Posted by DONESCOBAR 04/08/2006 @ 10:07am | ignore this person

    DONES

    You mean like the right to never be fired from a job? I think, from this week, we all know where THAT leads, non?

    Posted by Mask at 04/08/2006 @ 11:35am

100. MASAK

     Not ALL eggs in that basket are the same. As old Goethe once pleaded: As well as, not either or.

     Posted by donescobar at 04/08/2006 @ 11:43am

101. You mean like the right to never be fired from a job? I think, from this week, we all know where THAT leads, non?

     Posted by MASK 04/08/2006 @ 11:35am

     Yup... CPT

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 11:47am

102. Will, forgive for asking if you know the reference of yellow journalism?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/08/2006 @ 11:25am

     A have a vague recollection, but I couldn't give you a def without googling it

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 12:16pm

103. he press played a tremendous part in leading the charge toward America's involvement in Cuba. Two publishers, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, stood out among these opportunists. They perceived the conflict with Spain as their chance to increase circulation of their newspapers. Seizing upon the opportunity to capitalize on the growing spirit of American patriotism, Hearst and Pulitzer printed sensational anti-Spanish stories. Graphic illustrations commissioned from some of the country's most-talented artists and stories written by premiere authors and journalists of the day were fodder for fueling the flames of war. Together, Hearst and Pulitzer created a frenzy among the American people by reporting the alleged brutality of the Spanish toward the Cuban rebels. (However, acts of outrage committed by the Cubans were seldom mentioned.) By the time the USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbor, the pro-war press had roused national sentiment to the point that President McKinley feared his political party would suffer if he did not engage in war with Spain.

     the yellow in yellow journalism referred to a comic strip running in the papers called" the yellow kid"

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 12:28pm

104. thanks

     I knew it was something like that.

     Except the kid is now red and he just got caught with his hand in the cookie jar after years and years of publically claiming that he hates cookies

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 12:33pm

105. speaking of cookies

     I think I'll go get a couple

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 12:34pm

106. (i might even watch a few saturday morning cartoons for old times sake)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 12:36pm

107. FREIHEIT, I think that what we're talking about here is not what is "too much," but what is "too little."

     Posted by breasonable at 04/08/2006 @ 1:47pm

108. B, pithy and right on target. one of the first casualties of a country with only the very rich and the very poor is an open society, and we are increasingly on our way to that. Fry wears his compassion as if it were a rented tuxedo, to be returned when he tries to make rhetorical points.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 2:21pm

109. FREIHEIT

     Your post today at 1:32 pm: "It is clearly based on reality."

     On 4-7, 9:48 pm you wrote: "I understand your anger that they are overcompensated and it is unfair. It has nothing to do with reality."

     What "it" is based on reality, and which one isn't? Sorry to do this Clinton imitation, but what are you talking about?

     Posted by donescobar at 04/08/2006 @ 2:37pm

110. Fry, take a look at this:

     You'd think the economic recovery would lead to more savings. We're in the fifth year of an expanding economy. Corporate profits have nearly doubled since 2000. But ordinary workers aren't saving a thing.

     The answer is most Americans don't save because they can't save. Despite the surge in corporate profits, the median wage (half of Americans earning more, half earning less) has gone nowhere. In fact, if you figure in the effects of inflation, you find that most peoples' wages and benefits have been dropping. Add in the soaring costs of health care and fuel, and the picture is even worse. Americans aren't saving -- they're going into debt -- for the simple reason they're earning less and have to spend more.

     Robert Reich from TAP,www.prospect.org

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 5:57pm

111. FREIHEIT

     Whose problem is "moral?" The teacher in NC who makes $24,8000 a year? How is his or her problem "moral?" The new hires at NYC law firms and brokerages, yeah, they want to live the beautiful rich life right away, and even at $125,000 a year right out of law school, they go into debt. But they ain't everybody, and for thousands of Americans, it's the lack of money, not the absence of morality.

     Posted by donescobar at 04/08/2006 @ 6:22pm

112. What I'm critical of is the belief that bloggers here operate under the idea that they should have the right to determine what is "too much."

     Posted by FREIHEIT 04/08/2006 @ 1:32pm

     Government of the people baby.

     It's our country... we make the rules.

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 6:27pm

113. But is there a reason this wouldn't work?

     That is the reality I'm talking about.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 04/08/2006 @ 6:04pm

     and the reason is the national average income is in the neighborhod of 35 grand a year for every man, woman and child in America. Our economy won't support a hundred grand a year for every man, woman and child in America.

     Don't they teach you any thing over there in Commie China?

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 6:31pm

114. did you read that article, Fry? what part of it do you not understand?

     Think about this. Why dick around with minimum wage. Why don't we just give everyone $100k a year? Every man, woman and child.

     this is just the kind of stupid thing to say that makes me despair about your intelligence, and makes me wonder why I even bother with you at all. you really are doof and I will not waste my time with you any longer.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 6:31pm

115. I contend Americans are going into debt because we feel entitled to have more than we are willing to contribute.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 04/08/2006 @ 6:08pm

     but debt signifies we are willing to contribute for what we feel entitled to... ahead of time.

     (sometimes generations ahead of time)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 6:33pm

116. The problem is moral, not economic. And American poverty has little to do with money.

     Posted byFREIHEIT 04/08/2006 @ 6:08pm

     Correct! lazy corporate wefare queens taking all the money for themselves. Which of course would mean that it has everything to do with money.

     Particularly the deadly sin of unmitigated Greed.

     (don't worry... we'll mitigate it)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 6:36pm

117. Wilber, Government of the people baby. Again, I agree. But when it comes to wages, your power is as a consumer, not as a voter.

     Posted by WILL C. 04/08/2006 @ 6:33pm

     Perhaps you didn't read my post Freibaby.

     let me post it agin.

     Government of the people baby. (baby...that's you)

     It's our country... we make the rules.

     Posted by WILL C. 04/08/2006 @ 6:27pm

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 6:41pm

118. This is beautiful.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 04/08/2006 @ 6:42pm

     Thank you

     not that praise from a doof means much

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 6:46pm

119. it's definatly up there with the meaningless drivel we get from the doof

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 6:52pm

120. so whicj is it: about votes or not about votes?

     make up your mind

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 6:54pm

121. correction... which

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 6:55pm

122. good

     now that you're no longer confused... make you case

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 6:58pm

123. Fry:"Okay, let me take a stab at why minimum wage laws are just a buck or two an hour.

     are you serious?

     look, I know that you are intelligent, or at least educated. you are probably also a nice guy. but I just can't wade through the idiotic comments, to get to the reasoned argument. you can't even acknowledge facts. and you a rarely sincere.

     the facts are clear, wages stagnant for workers, while corporate profits have doubled. that just can't be argued about, those are facts. minimum wages, which were introduced during the depression and have stood the test of time, are around $5.75 an hour, that is federal. individual states have higher minimums. none of them have a living wage. the federal minimum wage has not increased for 9 and a half years, that's theft. we have been through all this before.

     I have never argued for taking money away from the rich, though I do believe progressive taxation. the rich draw very many benefits from society, and they can afford their taxes. I can only conclude that you are a rich wannabe and that this has clouded your understanding. you live in a bubble of comfort and have no understanding of the real world.

     but all this would not matter if you didn't keep putting the most preposterous statements up , and if you could control your snide sarcasm. and that is why I cannot discuss with you, I just can't. es tut mir sehr leid. tschüss

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 7:11pm

124. JR

     don't get him confused. I'm still waitng for his case of why minimum wage laws are about votes.

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 7:14pm

125. But for you... I'm a (democrat) politician.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 04/08/2006 @ 7:13pm

     but your'e not

     try again

     (but after the pretend hour is over in Hamsterland)

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 7:15pm

126. Katrina

     How much is your salary??, you dont even have to mention the multi-million dollar inheritence you recieve.

     You right though, how dare CEOs pay themselves well, they only give direction to the success or failure of a company.

     Every-time i start to have some left-leaning feelings about an issue, this website quickly demostrates the insanity of a such a course of action.

     Posted by CPT at 04/08/2006 @ 7:18pm

127. You right though, how dare CEOs pay themselves well, they only give direction to the success or failure of a company.

     Posted by CPT 04/08/2006 @ 7:18pm

     Useing that line of reasoning Tommy Franks should have made 13,700 a day.

     but he didn't... and hamsters were running the country.

     strange

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 7:21pm

128. to have the money to pay 34.27% of income taxes in the world's remaining superpower.

     This argument isn't about soaking the wealthiest one percent

     it's about wringing them out a little

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 7:35pm

129. and also why all those taxdollars still can't cover the nations debt's that the spend spend spend conservatives are incuring

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 7:37pm

130. allow me to explain why I think the rich should pay more, they get a lot more services, services that are paid by ALL of our tax dollars.

     take the courts for instance. our civil court system is very expensive and if you've ever been to civil court it's mostly rich people suing each other.

     or take their neighborhoods. we all pay for the garbage to be picked up, but the rich neighborhoods are spick and span, while the poor neighborhoods are filled with trash, that doesn't get picked up as regularly.the streets in rich neighborhoods are paved real well, we ALL pay for that, the poor neighborhoods have pot hole covered streets.

     if a rich person gets murdered, the police snap to, they deploy a whole bunch of detectives, while when a poor person gets iced, it's soon forgotten. we ALL pay for that police department.

     the agencies regulating the stock market, we ALL pay for that out of our tax dollars, but most Wall st investors are the rich.the whole gov't apparatus benefits the rich far more than the poor, we All pay for that.

     now on top of that the rich can buy their politicians, and they do, with lobbyists, and all the rest of it. so this crap about minimum wage is about votes, it's actually the opposite. who benefits when the minimum wage isn't raised for ten years? the rich bosses of course. and why is the minimum wage not raised? because politicians are bought by the rich NOT to raise it.

     and if I hear one more time that the minimum wage is atax, I'll shoot the mo fo. a tax is a tax, a wage is a wage. a wage is what you pay someone to do a job. the right wing swine, that means you too Maasch and Fry, thrive on fudging distinctions, to bambnoozle us. not me.

     the rich buy the politicians, to give them huge tax cuts, throwing the country into debt. who pays the debt and the interest? why WE ALL do, and our children and grand children will.

     the gov't doesn't get a lot of revenue when the minimum wage is raised 50 cents, so that's a lie too. but the tax cuts starve the gov't, who gets cut? the pork, and the corporate subsidies? NO S

     you get the picture. we are told that corporate profits have doubled in the last five years. have the corporate tax contributions doubled too, NO FUCKING WAY.if the corporations are so good for america, the gov't should be rolling in money, but they're not are they? and while corporate profits have doubled should not wages have doubled too? who the fuck does all that work? the CEOs by themselves? no the workers do and when their wages do not rise, in the middle of 5 to 10% inflation who is screwing whom?

     this thing with the foreign trade deficit. here's the deal, and a very raw one it is too. the corporations sell 35 billion worth of products. that money goes into the pocket of the rich and their corporations. the 150 billion shortfall, who pays for that, why we ALL do, that's the nation's debt.

     so Tories and Tories in liberal garb can prattle on about politicians votes, whom do the politicians dole out the goodies? not the poor and not the middle class, but, you guessed it. the rich and the corporations

     During the fifties, our golden age, the top tax rate after the first million was 90%, it did not seem to hurt innovation or ambition. the lie is that if the rich have to pay more no one will work hard to become rich and no one will innovate, pure lies.

     now I'm not suggesting that we return to a top rate of 90%, but perhaps it should rise instead of falling.

     and the war? who profits? well the rich and the corporations, big time, GE, Boeing, Haliburton etc. remember corporate profits have doubled. who pays for the huge deficits that are paying for the war. why we ALL do. and who dies? well, the unfortunate ones do.

     I know I have worked myself into a righteous froth, a selfrighteous froth I'm sure I will be accused of. but I just couldn't stand the callous lies from our Tories in disguise anymore.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 10:14pm

131. sounds good to me

     Posted by Will C. at 04/08/2006 @ 10:27pm

132. wow johannesrolf!!! excellent post. because it comes from u, i found the "i'll shoot the mo fo" part just hilarious.

     :) :) :)

     Posted by loveloki at 04/08/2006 @ 10:34pm

133. I'm gratified that I'm not just shouting in the wind. and Maasch and Fry, that epithet, well I don't know how that got in there, I love you both, I just can't waltz with you anymore, my dance card is filled up, for now.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 10:56pm

134. and another thing, when a big corporation sheds its pension obligation, read promises made to workers in exchange for labor peace, who do you think picks up the tab? why we ALL do.

     why are GM and Ford facing bankruptcy and Toyota and mercedes aren't? because the american companies are paying huge health care costs,and pension costs, while the japanese and the germans, and the , well just about everyone else, the gov't picks up that tab.

     now when those companies go belly up who pays, for the ruined cities, for all those people out of work, why we ALL pay. they used to shoot strikers who wanted to unionize, today they just ship the jobs overseas, who pays for that? why we ALL do.

     a working man used to be able have his wife stay home with the kids, maybe have a little cottage in the country and send his kids to college, no more.instead our gov't pours the nation's wealth down that rat hole that is Iraq,so we can all feel "safe".

     a guy who makes 20 million pays the same tax as a guy who makes $200 000. now I wish I made that, but my envy doesn't blind me to that injustice. oh but the tax cuts kept the economy humming. hell with that kind of deficit spending the economy of Albania or Nepal would be humming.

     we are told, look at the europeans, they don't have our economic growth, no shit Jack, they don't have the deficits that they will be paying just the interest for generations.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 11:26pm

135. ever wonder why they get five weeks of vacation in germany, while you get maybe two weeks? maybe the fact that we spend more on the military than almost all the other nations of the world combined.

     that money comes from you and you and you too Maasch and Fry. that's why they have bullet trains in europe and Japan and we have AMtrak, for now.

     that military establishment could not keep the WTC victims safe, and that very expensive war in Iraq, keeping us safe? yea, Iraqis won't attack us here now, right? er, well they didn't attack us here before either. and that attack on Iran? you'll be paying for it at the pump while you're filling up that Hummar, the day after we attack Iran oil will be $100 a barrel. or more, and you can forget about allies. we'll have vassal states, but no friends.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 11:34pm

136. well, enough, my new handle here will be "insufferable bore"

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 11:35pm

137. OK... I am tired of reading the ignorant comments about how high a percentage of income taxes the top 1% of income earners pay. You are missing the elephant in the room.

     Earned income is one thing. Unearned income is entirely different. More often than not, capital gains are rarely taxed (due to the tax laws allowing unrealized capital gains to pass on to the next generation, and essentially resetting at the new, current value. No taxes are ever paid on that money. Oftentimes ever. So the argument about how people shouldn't be taxed twice on their income is a moot argument. Earned income is typically taxed 3-5 times, whereas unearned income/capital gains are, again, often never taxed.

     For example... let's say I buy a piece of real estate, it appreciates, then I die. I can then pass that property to my heirs without any income tax liability, and my heirs can then sell the property, and be responsible for exactly ZERO taxes. The only time there would be taxes on such a transfer of assets would be estate tax, which as we all know is in the process of being eliminated. The same is true for stocks.

     The bottom line is, there is much income and wealth that is NEVER touched by taxes. It's funny that the lion's share of that wealth is held by the top 1% of people in this country.

     JOHN MAASCH:

     You spoke earlier about your boss, who made his way in this country and is highly successful. He was successful due to his own efforts, sure. But do you honestly think that his moving to this country, and taking advantage of the social, financial, economic environment in this country didn't have a substantial effect on his success, and indeed probably was the preucursor for that success? Hence, shouldn't he be forced to give back to society as sort of a "success duty"? I mean, if you tax those who have not been successful at a higher aggregate rate (which we do and have done for quite a while now) than those who have been successful, can you really expect those on the bottom to have a very high probability at success? Society is designed in such a way that those who have been successful should pave the way for those who have not had as much success. That's the nature of democracy, whether you like it or not.

     Posted by jorcheim at 04/08/2006 @ 11:48pm

138. good one Jorchy

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/08/2006 @ 11:52pm

139. interesting thing is the only definition of success is "lot's of money"

     once we get rid of the lazy corporate welfare queens we can begin to change that definition

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 01:19am

140. It's been touched on in this thread but I'd like to state it here clearly: In today's global economy, ALL markets are manipulated. It's a very simple cooperation between governments that ARE businesses (China, Japan) and governments RUN by businesses (USA, Europe). NO market is allowed to function freely. That would screw up the system: shareholders would complain; CEO's would have to decrease their take. To therefore argue that the minimum wage should somehow be left to the Invisible Hand is flat-out stupid. The fuckers you guys vote for DEPEND on idealists like you to believe in the free-market myth. Without your whole-hearted, simple-minded support, their flim-flam would fall apart.

     Posted by bookmanjb at 04/09/2006 @ 05:37am

141. As many posters imply, if not boldly state, the marketplace of "ideas" is the real, supposedly/idealistically level playing field. The "marketplace" for goods and services has a number of logical fallacies preventing even the "good" to evidence itself, much less the "better." These fallacies include "supply and demand" itself which places our capacity to reason on a par with the beasts, i.e. instinctual "dog eat dog" social Darwinism; Thorsten Veblen's odious precepts of "conspicuous consumption" and "planned obsolescence;" the law of diminishing returns; and lastly, but most fundamentally important in my opinion on this non-comprehensive listing, the predication of scarcity rather than abundance. There's truly no honor among thieves and "bread eaten in secret does taste better" IN THE SHORT TERM!

     Thanks for using your valuable resource, your time, to read these words. As my mother, at 80, still reminds me: "we've got more time than money."

     Posted by lewwelge at 04/09/2006 @ 09:14am

142. I notice no one offered any critique of FREIHEIT's proposal...

     Why NOT make the Minimum Wage $100,000 a year?

     Posted by Mask at 04/09/2006 @ 10:21am

143. JORCHEIM writes (4-8, 11:48 pm): "Society is designed in such a way that those who have been successful should pave the way for those who have not had as much success." Well, maybe in Norway or Finland, but that "should" in our drive-for-success society is mostly a "won't." That is why we pretend so hard that class does not exist in America, that any boy or girl can become president etc etc. Americans love their myths but hate to confront their realities. We have learned to closely guard our "success" (money, status...) and increase it at the expense of others. We protect and increase our piece of the pie, we generally don't invite others to take a bigger share. I've seen the behavior of the pecking orders in academic and corporate America: the assistant professor who just got tenure and the manager just promoted to director do not mentor or encourage the ones still striving to get there. The other man's or woman's failure protects my success. From college admissions to the corridors of power, that's the prevailing attitude. I agree with your "should." But only a huge shake-up, a dismantling of the system and its values, could awaken that "should" here.

     Posted by donescobar at 04/09/2006 @ 10:26am

144. I notice no one offered any critique of FREIHEIT's proposal...

     Why NOT make the Minimum Wage $100,000 a year?

     Posted by MASK

     Well, I have a different modest proposal: Let's start all public school teachers at $82,500 per annum and entry-level investment bankers at $21,250. Just watch the best and the brightest university grads head for the classroom. Let's cap corporate lawyer income at $48,750 and pay lawyers who accept indigent clients $200 per hour. Child care providers with post-doc credentials start at $74,300. Real Estate agents get their deserved $6.50 per hour plus whatever commission their clients think they have earned. Unfortunately the entire insurance industry would collapse as a result of the top executives meriting only $1.89 per hour. Anyone got other suggestions for appropriate pay scales?

     Posted by bookmanjb at 04/09/2006 @ 11:00am

145. JB, the one payscale which would really make a difference is the compensation paid to congressman and senators. let's pay them , say the median US income, what is that 30,000, then they can work equally for those at either end of the median.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/09/2006 @ 11:33am

146. JOHANNESROLF

     Nice, but the Abramoffs of the Beltway would have to up the "contribution" ante. How about a really modest modest proposal: a mandated living wage, adjusted to region and community, enough for food, housing, education and health care. The rest, at least for now, is daydreaming. Nothing is likely to change in the upper and middle ranks. I'd be happy with just some economic/social safety net for the bottom.

     Posted by donescobar at 04/09/2006 @ 11:45am

147. I notice no one offered any critique of FREIHEIT's proposal...

     Why NOT make the Minimum Wage $100,000 a year?

     Posted by MASK 04/09/2006 @ 10:21am

     I did

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 12:14pm

148. maybe it's because that was not a serious argument, but sarcasm

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/09/2006 @ 1:19pm

149. FREIHEIT

     The few bucks an hour may seem "measly" to you, but from conversations with those who earn measly wages, they often make a difference by the end of the week. Better that pair of shoes for the kid for the measly few bucks than pie in the sky.

     Posted by donescobar at 04/09/2006 @ 2:25pm

150. $100k is no sillier in this context than a measily extra buck or two an hour, since no one can really define a living wage.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 04/09/2006 @ 2:18pm

     But we can define the average yearly wage and call that the living wage. That number is somewhere between 33000 and 35000 depending on whose numbers you use (I've read in places where it says the average yearly wage is as high as 46000 a year but for this argument I'll use the lower figures)

     Only a retard or a conservative would suggest we raise the minimum wage to 100 K a year. Our economy can't support it. But it can support a wage of 16.83 hr (what you need to be paid to make 35000 a year).

     But the money isn't available because the lazy corporate welfare queens want it all for themselves

     13,700 an hour? You got to be fucking kidding me!

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 2:53pm

151. Frei,

     We also have a government standard for poverty. This is also arbitrary, but receives little criticism because it is (I believe) generally felt that anyone at or below that level is indeed quite impoverished. Same for the minimum wage--no one wants to see adults working for such a wage, but who has the balls to declare to the people in McDonald's or Wal-Mart that they should feel lucky that our government has decided to prop up their lives with an arbitrary figure?

     As for LL's nonsense a day or two ago: yes, many of us have choices about our incomes. I could trash my non-profit job and start flashing my Econ degree on my way down the yellowbrick road. I am blessed with that option should I find myself with my car and house repossessed. We are not talking about those of us who have such options. Many do not, and the reasons for this are far more complex than the "I worked hard for this and I deserve what I've received in compensation" line.

     The issue at hand, which has been discussed to death but my computer's been out since last week, is how to rationalize an economy that produces such stunning wealth while producing such unimaginable poverty. The point is that neither exists without the other in our system. This is not Mali, where poverty seems to be a given. Yet many here are willing to accept that many who are active participants in our economy get not just pennies in comparison to the big boys, but shavings of pennies as a wage for doing their part.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/09/2006 @ 2:54pm

152. Every single person here is missing the point, including Katrina V. CEOs of publicly traded companies generally don't have any real power; they are highly paid shill cheerleaders for their companies and as long as they can cook the books (or lo and behold actually make real money like Exxon) properly, then they'll get fat paychecks.

     Wall Street and the Fed (which essentially are one and the same) hold all the cards. The reason why the middle class is evaporating and real wages are dropping is because there isn't any manufacturing left. It's impossible to have a stable middle class without manufacturing (look at how much better off middle class Germans are than the American or British middle class for example). Unfortunately Wall Street, given its obsession with quarterly earnings, does not like American companies that make things, because they require long term investments for plant and equipment.

     And then there's the Fed, where the corruption begins.

     Posted by jake1234 at 04/09/2006 @ 4:59pm

153. Funny how the "cost of living" or "inflation" measures have seemingly not been too influenced by continued rising fuel costs of late. What's up with that theorists?

     Posted by lewwelge at 04/09/2006 @ 5:35pm

154. the minimum wage has always been just that, the minimum, poverty wages actually. the fact that it has gone down and down for almost ten years is more than just a scandal, it is a national disgrace and a shame. the knuckleheads who argue that an increase hurts the poverty workers or argue against a minimum wage at all, are so far out of touch that they are barely human at all. for them this is some abstract notion, for the workers, and they are workers like you and I, it is a matter of survival. I can only say that you disgust me Fry and Maasch,

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/09/2006 @ 6:51pm

155. Eleanor Roosevelt famously said "no one can make us feel inferior without our permission." However, like you J-Rolf, I view words as abstrations with barely a tickling trickle of effect compared with the grindingly frustrating disappointment of cashing/depositing a too-little check after a full forty hour work-week is done.

     Posted by lewwelge at 04/09/2006 @ 9:27pm

156. More typically, even minimum wage earners are paid every other week to cut down on payroll paperwork and employer expense. Day-workers, paid in cash and frequently unreported, certainly no benefits or protections, are the most exploited but, as an unrecalled arrogant French aristocrat once famously said, "the rich and poor are both free to sleep under bridges."

     Posted by lewwelge at 04/09/2006 @ 9:32pm

157. lewwelge, of course the illegals are worse off than minimum wage workers. the reason? that they are NOT protected by minimum wage laws. it is however not only the immigrants who are illegal. their employers, greedy selfish pigs, are also illegal. their hiring of illegal immigrants is against the law.

     the society has a great interest in protecting the weakest and neediest, that has been so for 100 years, see Bismarck and Franz Joseph. the exploitation of the minimum wage earners is a multipronged offense against decency. the politicians who have turned their back on the lowest paid legal workers are one aspect. the employers are another. now of course, any employer can choose to pay their help more, and many do. those are not the ones we are speaking of here and now.

     when greedy employers pay their help a poverty wage, with the contrivance of the politicians, who do you think picks up the slack? we ALL do with our taxes. the same immoral twits who are slamming the minimum wage are screaming the loudest about taxes.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/09/2006 @ 9:47pm

158. Stow it away with other similar offensive words like fag, kike and nigger for good. Thanks.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 04/09/2006 @ 10:45pm

     let's see... My name is not Wilber

     and I gave you a choice between retard or conservative.

     and you chose

     that's more than you gave me

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 10:59pm

159. peace isn't your way

     sorry... apology not accepted

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 11:10pm

160. right

     you were talking to Wilber

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 11:14pm

161. $13,700 an hour? According to salary.com Oprah takes in $75,000 an hour making her the Queen of greed!

     Posted by KThomas928 at 04/09/2006 @ 11:18pm

162. how many other imaginary friends do you have?

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 11:22pm

163. another one bites the dust

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 11:34pm

164. and it's almost time

     Posted by Will C. at 04/09/2006 @ 11:34pm

165. how can the average schmuk who finds this stuff out possibly come to any conclusion other than the obvious? the obvious is that in this amoral ayn rand nihilist world the ony option is to fight. it appears that a significant portion of those who have are unwilling to change. they only wish to enrich themselves. they have no notion of patriotism, only class loyalty, yet they are always the first to accuse others of fomenting class conflict. how hypocritical in that they have been waging class warfare against those weaker than themselves for quite some time now. the only option left to the schmuks is to fight back...and the more avaricious the wealthy, the more radical the schmuk must become. for only when the rapacious wealthy (who are not all the wealthy) are scared and faced with retributive class war will the schmuks gain any ground.

     of course a global economic collapse might well be the only and inevitable solution. we are approaching a 1929 moment. too much laissez faire capitalism is capitalism's own worse enemy. furthermore i question just how much these gigantic corporations represent the true ideals of capitalism itself. they are supported by taxpayer money, propped up by the government they purchase, and still treat the average schmuk like their enemy...

     immigration? there would be no illegal immigration were those who hire illegals prosecuted to the full extent of the law - what hypocrisy. where is the dignity of work? if we need burger flippers and checkout cashiers and janitors and maids, why do we denigrate them so, not just in pay but in words and attitudes?

     but with the average shmuk for whom we fight swimming in a sea of idiotic trivialities, a pop cultural fantasy land controlled by the very folks who rail at the schmuk's laziness and stupidity...what a mess...

     there are many good ideas out there too, on the "left" (which seems to mean "anythng other than amoral ayn rand nihilism"), but when the amoral ayn rand nihilists own the information dieminating apparatus, how difficult it proves to get this message out.

     nah, i guess we just wait til it all comes crashing down. i fear the dems are just too bought and paid for to really do something even if they do get back in control. they are part of the problem. sure, i'll give them one more chance this fall, maybe next, but we as a nation need a few constitutional ammendments aimed at reforming...

     a) campaign finance b) electoral process so as to allow resonable chance for 3rd+ party candidates to be elected

     ultimately we need to massively simplify and standardize our tax code too, eliminating the labrynthine nature of income taxes while instituting a corporate tax code that rewards socially progressive policies, not encouraging wastefulness and socially regressive activities...

     also some form of universal healthcare and pension mobility/security must be enacted.

     or just wait til it comes crashing down and the schmuks beg for/demand "socialism"

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/10/2006 @ 12:43am

166. LEWWELDGE - you asked why the government's statistics don't show an increase in inflation given the fact that oil prices have been elevated for quite a while. The simple answer is that the inflation indices have been altered so many times over the past 30 years that they don't really measure inflation anymore. Nobody in the media seems to notice that the cost of housing, higher education, heathcare, oil, and groceries have been climbing sharply, while the consumer price index figures that the government releases have been remarkably tame.

     Well, here's a very detailed explanation & fascinating read.

     http://www.weedenco.com/welling/Downloads/2006/0804welling022106.pdf

     Posted by jake1234 at 04/10/2006 @ 12:52am

167. "Hence, shouldn't he be forced to give back to society as sort of a "success duty"? "

     He does. He has a payrole of over 400 people. Imagine the taxes he pays, the payrolls he sends out, with their taxes, the food his employees buy, the housing they buy(along with all the taxes that generates) the services they buy and the demand that creates for more people to provide those services...I can go on all day. I would say that this one man contributes more to the economy and "pays back society" 100 times more than most. More than the "tax the rich because they have the money crowd" idiots even comprehend.

     I can't imagine where the statement "minimum wage is a tax" was attached to me, but I deny it. A wage is a wage.

     Many of us just disagree as to how one arrives at what the mim wage shold be. It seems so arbitrary.

     I also believe that we as a society should not tax income, rather, tax spending with a variety of exemptions, but it has fallen on deaf ears here and no one has interest. People here have actually said they believe that the total wealth in the world has never changed , but just deflated and moves around the world at the expense of one group to enrich another. Frightening fundamental misunderstanding of how any economy works.

     Most here believe that one enriches him/herself at the expense of his neighbor. With this belief one will never venture out of the tax the rich more paradigm. Nor will he build wealth, which is the corner stone of enterprise, as opposed to just earning high wages. 90% tax rates...how long would one work under those conditions? Why bother? Incentive killer.

     THIS IS NOT A PROTECT THE RICH DEFENSE, BUT A LET THE WORKERS KEEP THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR. The system can be rearranged to work more efficiently and fairly.

     Too late and too tired. Good nite.

     Posted by john maasch at 04/10/2006 @ 01:15am

168. Sorry, if I'm missing the posts explaining this....but would somebody please explain (again)....

     Why NOT make the Minimum Wage $100,000 a year?

     Posted by Mask at 04/10/2006 @ 09:52am

169. Freiheit, one last time. you have this ALL backwards. the politicians in wash, and that thing with the war was again rhetorical 3 card monte,the minimum wage laws have been on the books since the 30s and while they have never been generous, they have never deteriorated as much as in the last ten years.

     the politicians, instead of trolling for votes with the minimum wage, have turned their back on the working poor by NOT raising the minimum wage. an' dats a fact. and this continuing bullshit with the 100 grand minimum wage, that is maliciously stupid, I don't make 100g and I wager that 95% of the posters here don't either. in light of what the working poor suffer in this country that is also maliciously callous, your phony protestations not withstanding.

     the working poor are poor for life, not hitting a dry patch as you so sanctimoniously report.and no I will not agree to disagree. I will never stop challenging comfortable pompous twits, who pretend to know what is best for the poorest among us.

     what the poor most of all need is more money, and raising the minimum wage a few dollars will not be a windfall but rather justice in that it would bring it in line with inflation. your comment about a measly dollar or too betrays your protestations of compassion.

     in your case I will simply ignore you because you are not an honest discussion partner, but rather a rightwing ideologue. shame on you, and that is probably the kindest thing I can say at this point.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/10/2006 @ 10:24am

170. you are fairly wrong, Frei, I have been selfemployed for over 30 years, see many many posts, describing my work. I have has many unpaid apprentices during this time, and briefly hired an assistant, whom I paid between $12 and $15 an hour, she was a performing artist. the business is run by my spouse and partner.

     my stance on this issue is shared by 70 years worth of governments and the voters, it is you who are an island.

     but I'm tired of your fraudulent arguments. you have no facts, you have no idea how poor people live, in other words you are in a bubble, and a selfish swinish one at that.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/10/2006 @ 11:13am

171. Because I don't believe it should be the role of the government to determine wages?

     how else would you describe your stance? and don't give me that libertarian crap. that's just a euphenism.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/10/2006 @ 11:15am

172. we actually know what would happen if the gov't, federal AND states by the way, didn't mandate a minimum wage: the lowest workers would be paid $3 an hour, not a poverty wage, but a slave wage. that's what Fry is advocating. and if that's not disgusting, what is?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/10/2006 @ 11:39am

173. I don't ususally stand with MAASCH on issues, but he asks exactly what I ask, why not make minimum wage much higher. I disagree with the flat-rate $100,000, only because that is more than most small business owners make themselves.

     However, as I advocated at the outset, if a company can pay it's highest paid employee $1,000,000 (let's say), then it undermines the argument that the company cannot afford higher salaries for all.

     Thus, in a company with a top end salary of 1 million, the lowest salaried worker shouldn't be less than (let's say) $100,000. To MAASCH's point, why not? How is incentive being hurt?

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/10/2006 @ 12:42pm

174. SORRY - NOT MAASCH - I MEANT MASK

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/10/2006 @ 12:42pm

175. c'mon people, make it much higher? what planet are you on. the damn thing has gone down for ten years. it will take a lot to just bring it up to account for that loss to inflation. I support a living wage as a minimum. as I stated before any employer is free to pay as much as they want, as no one is advocating a maximum wage for the poorest workers. for CEOs, that's a different story, and one that has been extensively explored on this thread

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/10/2006 @ 1:02pm

176. Obviously, the minimum wage has gone down - all average Americans salaries, in net present value terms, are down from the early mid-90s.

     The point I am making is that setting a high minimum wage for companies that pay at least one multi-million dollar salary will not cause the econimic chaos or hardship purported by neocons.

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/10/2006 @ 1:13pm

177. I'm puzzled by the hostility to a "living wage." Let's say you're a janitor in Framingham, MA, making $7.75 an hour, and MA decides that a living wage in Framingham means a raise to $10.50. This raise, in the first week alone, will allow the janitor to buy a pair of shoes for his daughter. The increase over the next two weeks gets his son a warm jacket so he won't freeze waiting for the school bus. Now, if this kind of thing is done in a few places and then spreads, just what will the effect be? Would it really doom our economy, close down businesses, destroy the "free" market and plunge us into European socialist hell? Or, can these "measly" (FREIHEIT's term) increases be absorbed into the market, and at what price to whom? I'm for the shoes and the jacket. Let the market adjust. I'm willing to pay an extra ???? for what? Has anyone tried to figure this out?

     Posted by donescobar at 04/10/2006 @ 1:27pm

178. don,Let's say you're a janitor in Framingham, MA, making $7.75 an hour,

     that would make you luckier than most minimum wage earners, whose mandated wage is $5.75, $10.50 would be practically heaven for them.

     I do of course agree with your points, and I am gratified that most of us here are in agreement, excepting the usual right wing loons and of course Fry, who is a special loon in a world of his own. it must be a drag to hold such nasty views.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 04/10/2006 @ 1:33pm

179. I disagree with the flat-rate $100,000, only because that is more than most small business owners make themselves.

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO 04/10/2006 @ 12:42am | ignore this person

     BECAUSE....are you saying that a "flat-rate $100K" salary isn't fair because that's "more than most small business owners make themsleves" and therefore isn't fair to them....

     or that the small business owners couldn't AFFORD to pay such a wage?

     If the former, then it's about "fairness" to a CEO, right?

     If the latter, then you're on track....to saying that there ARE limits to what a minimum wage can be, without crippling the business that provides the jobs.

     Posted by Mask at 04/10/2006 @ 1:48pm

180. JRolf,

     So what if the wage for unskilled work went down to $3/hr? What would be the consequences on a macro basis? First, illegal immigration would stop as the incentive to come here for jobs that pay even less than $3/hr would be erased. Second a number of illegals would pack up and go back.

     The Macro effect of that would be that either fruit would rot in the fields and Walmarts would be dirty or the employers would pay enough to get their fruit picked and get their store clean.

     As cruel as you seem to think the minimum wage is for those individuals stuck with it, it is still sufficiently high to continue to draw in new entrants into the labor pool.

     Posted by freedomplease at 04/10/2006 @ 4:08pm

181. And therefore raising the minimum wage makes us all feel better because we're not being so cruel, but at the same time we're encouraging the free (and illegal) flow of migrant workers thus perpetuating the length of time it takes for the market to spring back into the workers favor.

     The overall consequences of the altruism effectively serve to keep wages low in the long term, keeping corporations happy AND keeping the underclass thankful to the Democrats who champion small and meaningless rises in the minimum wage.

     Posted by freedomplease at 04/10/2006 @ 4:13pm

182. MASK - A $100,000 a year minimum is not affordable to most small business owners.

     I maintain that the incentive for better quality goes up, and the overall economy dramtically improves when you raise the minimum wage to employees who work for employers that can afford it.

     I always proposed a flexible, minimum wage based on the highest salary in the company. Obviously, if it's a small business that makes lots of money - say $1,000,000 a year as a right-wing plant on a left-wing blog - then your minimum wage staff writer (the guy you hire to sit here an type all day) should make no less than 1/5 to 1/10, by all accounts. And, there is no hardship case to show otherwise.

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/10/2006 @ 5:15pm

183. Exxon is in a market with a cartel dominating, so when the going is good they get some fat profits, not sure what the talent of the CEO or free markets have to do with it.

     Posted by hvmiller at 04/10/2006 @ 7:41pm

184. Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO 04/10/2006 @ 5:15pm | ignore this person

     "employers that can afford it"...great, now, we're getting somewhere.

     Okay, WHO DECIDES if the employer can afford it. Your "base line figure" works wonderfully...with a company that is up and running and making a profit. How about a NEW company, where profitability is low, but you've locked-in your 1/5 Scale of Wages?

     And not every business model is "a manager at the top and worker bees at the bottem of the pyramid who 'really do all the work'". What if the owner/CEO is the one responsible for innovation and creative ideas for new products, and the "guys at the bottem" are simple constructors whose jobs require little creative input or ability? (I can cite examples if you like in both furniture manufactering and computer software creation).

     If a guy comes up with "The Widget", builds it into a massive company, but any kid straight out of college can put one together with a blind-fold on....but "to be fair" the guy who actually created the product, marketed it, stayed up nights trying to get the company profitable, can only make 5X what the kid putting Tab A into Slot B.

     Such a system of "easily defined salaries" would eliminate innovation, reward systems, and ultimately result in a spiral of inflation.

     But....hey....it would be "fair".

     Posted by Mask at 04/11/2006 @ 06:39am

185. Such a system of "easily defined salaries" would eliminate innovation, reward systems, and ultimately result in a spiral of inflation.

     Posted by MASK 04/11/2006 @ 06:39am

     So here's my choice. Make five times what the guy on the floor is making or make what the guy on the floor is making.

     I don't know if five times more is worth it. I mean it's only five times more. I mean what would I do with five times more money then I'm making on the floor. Who needs five times more money anyway?

     There isn't a human being working on the floor anywhere on the planet that wouldn't like to make five times more money than they are making.

     Posted by Will C. at 04/11/2006 @ 09:45am

186. ....and it shouldn't lost on the thread that this is the CEO of EXXON we are talking about! Biggest profit margins of any industry on the planet in history (saw on evening news) and they cry about not making do. They (oil execs) also lied to Congress about their involvement in Cheney's "secret energy task force" which allowed industry to dictate policy.

     BTW...what is it they do to command such a large salary anyway?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 04/11/2006 @ 11:03am

187. Who needs five times more money anyway?

     Posted by WILL C. 04/11/2006 @ 09:45am | ignore this person

     Who are YOU (or any guy you want to vote in) to decide that?

     Posted by Mask at 04/11/2006 @ 12:38pm

188. Who are YOU (or any guy you want to vote in) to decide that?

     Posted by MASK 04/11/2006 @ 12:38am

     I'm the guy who swore to form the more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

     any other questions?

     Posted by Will C. at 04/12/2006 @ 12:40am