welfare vs wages

[jms62]

I am all for a minimum wage hike as it hasn't kept up with inflation. A move to 9 bucks would seem right. From what I have been reading this would not trigger hyper inflation. I personally am more concerned about deflation as the middle class losses more and more buying power.

Getting back to this minimum wage thing, people continue to amaze and disappoint me. I am now seeing a Fight for 15 movement where they are calling for the minimum wage to go to 15 dollars. Really they have the balls to ask for doubling of wages for an unskilled job. I was good at 9 but unless you rein this absurdlty in I will have to join the dark side and say fuk you no increase whatsoever.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by jms62

I am all for a minimum wage hike as it hasn't kept up with inflation. A move to 9 bucks would seem right. From what I have been reading this would not trigger hyper inflation. I personally am more concerned about deflation as the middle class losses more and more buying power.

Getting back to this minimum wage thing, people continue to amaze and disappoint me. I am now seeing a Fight for 15 movement where they are calling for the minimum wage to go to 15 dollars. Really they have the balls to ask for doubling of wages for an unskilled job. I was good at 9 but unless you rein this absurdlty in I will have to join the dark side and say fuk you no increase whatsoever.

J, this is essence of the discussion - if they can be forced to pay 9.00 an hour, why not 15.00?

From an economic standpoint, Employers will either have to (A) raise their prices, or (B) cut staff to accommodate the imposed sanction.

This is where the lefty's lose it. They don't get that prices must stay competitive or shoppers will go elsewhere, so in order to keep prices stable, employers will need to cut staff to pay for the wage increases.

So now the workday is scheduled so that an assistant manager at Walmart can run a cash register, mop a floor, chase shopping carts, etc. an hour or two a day: Mid-level employees will take on more menial responsibilities, so they can cut the # minimum wage jobs to compensate for the rise in wages.

If I have a store that employs 50 people, 35 of which are minimum wage employees, and I'm forced to raise what I pay them from 7.25 to 9.00 an hour, I have to find a way to accommodate a 19.4% pay increase.

I will still get the work done, only I'll do it with 28 minimum wage employees.


The very people who they think this is going to help is exactly who it negatively impacts the most.

[Danzig]

or they could always take another look at how they pay the higher ups. i bet a 1% decrease to the ceo of many companies would more then compensate for the raise to most of the peasants.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

or they could always take another look at how they pay the higher ups. i bet a 1% decrease to the ceo of many companies would more then compensate for the raise to most of the peasants.

I'll take that bet.

Another case of 'if you want/feel it, it's true' never mind the numbers.

According to a Forbes article I found the CEO of McD's was paid $8.75 million in salary in 2012.

An employee that works an average of 30hrs./week would work 1,560 hrs. in a year. At $2 higher an hour the added salary per employee would be $3,120/year. Dividing that into $8.75 million you get 2,804 employees.

According to the second article cited, McDonald's employs 760,000. That 2,804 that would be covered (if the CEO was to forfeit all his salary) would represent 3 tenths of one percent of all US Micky D employees.

Under your premise a 1% decrease in salary would be represent $87,500 and that divided by $3,120 would cover 28 employees.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-pay-gap.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talki...170436977.html

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I'll take that bet.

Another case of 'if you want/feel it, it's true' never mind the numbers.

According to a Forbes article I found the CEO of McD's was paid $8.75 million in salary in 2012.

An employee that works an average of 30hrs./week would work 1,560 hrs. in a year. At $2 higher an hour the added salary per employee would be $3,120/year. Dividing that into $8.75 million you get 2,804 employees.

According to the second article cited, McDonald's employs 760,000. That 2,804 that would be covered (if the CEO was to forfeit all his salary) would represent 3 tenths of one percent of all US Micky D employees.

Under your premise a 1% decrease in salary would be represent $87,500 and that divided by $3,120 would cover 28 employees.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-pay-gap.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talki...170436977.html

They have been paying 2 to do that position and 2012 compensation is 40 Million.
http://insiders.morningstar.com/trad...n.action?t=MCD

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

http://insiders.morningstar.com/trad...n.action?t=MCD

She did say CEO. But using your numbers (Total Executive Compensation) not sure how many executives that covers but at $67.58 million, forfeiting 1% would make $675,000 and that would cover a $2/hr. raise for 216 employees per year. Not sure about the remaining 759,784 employees?

BTW Another failed 'hail Mary'.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

http://insiders.morningstar.com/trad...n.action?t=MCD

that's amazing, isn't it?

but yeah, they can't afford to pay more to the people actually doing the work in the stores, the ones actually interacting with the customers on a daily basis. no customers, no business. the employees on the front lines are who they deal with, not the high paid execs. unreal.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's amazing, isn't it?

but yeah, they can't afford to pay more to the people actually doing the work in the stores, the ones actually interacting with the customers on a daily basis. no customers, no business. the employees on the front lines are who they deal with, not the high paid execs. unreal.

I couldn't think of an easier CEO position than McDonalds. You build them and they come.