A minimum wage of 7.25 while certain CEOs rakes in 11k an hour seems extreme.
I want to comment on more than just this, but I want to touch on this right off the bat.
This is, by far one of the most abused talking points. Let’s ignore the fact no one ever talk about how bad it is baseball players, actors and Oprah make that kind of money, just CEO’s.
Secondly, think about the situation. Most of those people work for public companies. What are people always complaining that public compainies are “too focused on”? Short term profits. Therefore, wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that these people are, in fact, very much worth this amount of pay and that everyone is actually benefitting from them making this much? Yes, it is reasonable to conclude that.
Makes for a good talking point, but when you boil it down, you are talking about institutions that are going to pay the least amount they can for a CEO, paying these people what they are paying them… With that being the case, let basic logic follow you though the rest.[/quote]
Think about the statement as it is? “Conclude that these people are, in fact, very much worth this amount of pay and that everyone is actually benefitting from them making this much? Yes, it is reasonable to conclude that.”
I don’t know that the statement makes sense in itself. I don’t see how you can ever say that anyone is overpaid or underpaid given this is just sort of a conclusion without any premises backing up the statement.
All I read is, “IF, people benefit from a person getting paid a certain amount, they deserve it.” I don’t see how slave wages are bad, so long as ‘people’ benefit in your analogy.
It fits perfectly with what happens, people at the bottom stay at the bottom and have little to no social mobility, so long as people at the top are raking in record profits (benefit) things are all good. So from the wealthy perspective it’s win win, laborer gets paid less so I get more, and I benefit. Typical psychopathic, but that’s how I just interpreted your post buddy.
I don’t agree. Maybe I painted it completely wrong, but that’s how it looks to me.
Also, a lot of the time when we talk about owners or powers, we are talking about corporate CEO’s not small business owners. And it goes right back to my analogy that we seem to agree with about parasitic enterprises, the sort that bring poverty to storefront locations and the comparison of Costco to Walmart.
If Costco is an indicator of how corporations can be non parasitic, then the whole argument is awash because they demonstrate there is room in CEO’s pockets and stock value to make room for the employee at the bottom, this way EVERYONE can walk away without feeling ripped off. Well, maybe except for the self important CEO. When he gets shorted, he might not be able to afford another summer home. When the middle class gets shorted, they may not be able to afford tuition for their children, when the poor get shorted, the kids go to work.
When kids go to work early without education, they trap themselves (most do) in the lower class.
This is the way I see the big picture. You as a business owner, small or medium are caught in the middle, and you are the most important type of puzzle piece in the game.
Not only do people need social mobility within corporations, but small businesses need financial mobility and stability amongst corporations (they are who you are competing with, and threatened of being eaten by). Right now the country isn’t as focuses on the latter, but it needs to be, because you are in competition with both corporate models (Walmart and Costco).
What still gets me is how you are so pro corporation. But I’m always interested to hear your point of view and where our fork in the road is, we usually see eye to eye on quite a few things.