http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-min20.html

Apparently Senator Kennedy's efforts went like whispers into the ears of the cold-heart capitalists in the Republican-controlled senate. Oh well, I guess the American people will continue to suffer.

^of course they will. Isn't it sad when they have no trouble providing raises to themselves. But, when it comes to their fellow countrymen, they give them absolutely nothing.

Wasn't there a thread about this a while ago, with someone giving it a thumbs up? How the hell do people stay alive in your country? No wonder there's so much crime and homelessness. Of course there's going to be a flood of posts now from people saying that the economy can't afford to raise the minimum wage, blah blah. Why not? That's a complete load of bollocks. The minimum wage here is almost twice what it is in America. Plus, it's indexed to inflation and it hasn't hurt our economy. If anything, it's increased productivity because people don't feel like slaves when they're at work, they can afford to look after themselves so they're at work more often instead of home sick, and when they are sick, they can afford to get better and go back to work.

Of course it failed.  The morons voting on it don't have to support their families on $5.15 so why should they care?  I think they should get paid minimum wage to start and every time they get re-elected they get a dime or a quarter raise.  Then maybe they would understand what it would be like to be paycheck to paycheck.

Incidentally, they also voted down 94 - 6 a pay raise for themselves this year.

Remember, this is the federal minimum wage, which mandates that no state can have a minimum wage lower then the federal one, which is currently at $5.15.  While most states use the federal minimum wage, some don't.  The highest minimum wage in the country is in the state of Washington, where it's going to be $7.63 an hour.  Instead of having the imperial federal government dictate the states' minimum wages, lobby your own respective state to do it.

Also, there is still the question of wheather the minimum wage is even constitutional.

Incidentally, they also voted down 94 - 6 a pay raise for themselves this year.


I missed that.  :o

The latest Constitutional Amendment says that they can't see this pay raise until the next Congressional term, but it really doesn't matter since the incumbents usually stick around anyway :P

It would be nice to have a higher minimum wage, but most jobs that pay minimum wage aren't jobs that people would want to stay in for long  :-\\

I missed that.  :o


Yeah, they acted all high and mighty and voted against their usual annual pay raise a few days ago, saying it would "save the American taxpayers two million dollars."  Well that's nice.  Only another eight trillion of debt left to take care of.

It would be nice to have a higher minimum wage, but most jobs that pay minimum wage aren't jobs that people would want to stay in for long  :-\\


That doesn't matter. While they are in the job they should be getting enough to afford basics. My argument isn't that people should not expect to live on the minimum wage forever or whatever the arguments were the last time this topic came up, my argument is that the minimum wage should rise in line with the cost of living.

EXCELLENT SMITHERS!
http://learning.cc.hccs.edu/Members/cschweitzer/images/mrburns.jpg

Also, there is still the question of wheather the minimum wage is even constitutional.


Who the hell is asking that question? Who would want to continue to live in this country if there were no minimum wage?

Who the hell is asking that question? Who would want to continue to live in this country if there were no minimum wage?

Umm, I believe I just answered that question!

The Big Business lobby puts it this way:
"You raise the minimum wage, we layoff more workers.  You raise the minimum wage, we offshore more jobs.  You raise the minimum wage, we raise our prices!  You don't scr@w with us, little congressman!"

And no, the minimum wage is not Constitutional!  Why on Earth would it be?  When the Constitution was drafted, slavery was legal!  So, GWB, let's get down to brass tacks and abolish the minimum wage, and while we're at it, let's repeal that pesky 13th Amendment too!
:D

Senators who voted for a minimum wage increase (47):

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Senators who voted against a minimum wage increase (51):

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

--So four republicans voted for a minimum wage increase: Specter, Chaffee, DeWine and Santorum.  Two democrats didn't vote at all, but it wouldn't have mattered either way.

End NAFTA and CAFTA and then I'll support a minimum wage increase.  A minimum wage with all this "free" trade stuff would mean a pay cut for Burger King employees, from $5.15 an hour to $0.00 an hour.

Free trade agreements or not, you simply can't continue to pay people at 1997 rates with a 2005 cost of living. No wonder there's so much crime and people can't afford cars to evacuate from hurricane zones. I suppose if you keep people hungry, sick and poor, they can't rise up against you now, can they?

From my view, one of the problems with the whole minimum wage debate is that people seem to have a fundamental disagreement about what a minimum wage should provide.  Many people seem to think it should be a wage sufficient to support an adult's normal living expenses, some sort of 'living wage'.  Others perceive these jobs as largely appropriate for high-school and college students or others looking for short-term or supplemental income.

It would be interesting to see what would happen to high-school and college enrollment if the kids working those jobs for extra cash suddenly found that those jobs now paid enough they could actually get by.  I don't have a problem with jobs that only pay enough for "mad money".  If I hired a yardboy, I probably wouldn't pay him a living wage.

The fact that people too often have to try to support themselves and their families on these types of jobs is a separate and critical issue.

I myself am against a Federal "Minimum Wage".  And I have been for years.

To me, this should be a state (and local)  issue.  Each state (or city/county) should set it's own wage, depending on the local economy.  The consequence of raising it Federally is often damaging to regions where the current "minimum wage" is acceptible as a living wage.  And in the reverse, it stagnantes the wages in areas where it is not a living wage.

In LA, anything below $15 an hour is hardly a "living wage".  Even at $20 an hour, it is hard to get by.  But here in SE Alabama, minimum wage is very acceptible.  My rent is only $200 a month, and the new car lots advertise financing for people who make $200 or more a week.  Guess what?  Somebody making minimum wage ($5,15 per hour) 40 hours a week here makes enough to buy a new car!

Compare this to California, where the state minimum wage is $6.75.  That is a starvation wage if I ever saw one.  If they raised the Federal to $10 an hour, you will still starve in California (San Francisco has a minimum wage of $8.50).

I encourage states to be responsible for the workers in their own area.  If the wage is to low in that region, raise it and make it mandatory.  If people in a city/county do not make enough, encourage your local politicians to raise it themself.  They do not need permission from Washington to do this.

The people this hurts most is the small business owners and their employees.  They often can't afford to raise wages, and have to cut hours/people to make up the difference.  Especially in areas like this, where the current wage is already acceptible.

Ideally, I think Minimum Wage should be set on a city or county wide basis, with each state setting it's own minimum wage.  And it should be computed against the current standard of living and housing costs.  This way the people on the "bottom rung" in a region can still afford to live reasonably.

Most of all, I want the Government out of our day-to-day affairs.  If you think people in your community are not being paid enough, then do something about it.  Go to your local politicians, and demand they set a local wage.  You do not need guidance from Sen. Kennedy, or anybody else.

Here is a list of minimum wage levels, and state and local minimum wage standards:

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

All government-enforced minimum wage laws are bad for the economy and bad for the people they purport to help.  The law of supply and demand cannot be repealed.  If a government law artificially increases the price of employing people who are willing to accept minimum wage-type jobs, employers will hire fewer of them.

If you as a job hunter and legal citizen wish to take a $5-an-hour job offered by a prospective employer who sees that as the value of the job, why should that be against the law?  Why, in the land of the free, should the federal labor police be allowed to step in and prevent that free economic contract from taking place?

A minimum wage is what one earns in an entry level position. If an employee is still earning that after six months or a year, then he (or she) has not shown substantial improvement in his job skills. Or if he is developing marketable skills and not being compensated for them, he should find a new employer.

I know that there are many hard working people who seem to be “underpaid,” but suggesting that people should be compensated based on what they need and not on the value that they provide to their employers is absurd.  This merely increases the costs – and the sales prices of the goods and services that the employers provide – which must be passed along to consumers.  Which, in turn, increases the amount of money that these consumers “need.”

y'all should read the barbara ehrenreich book "nickel and dimed," it's really illuminating about this subject.

it doesn't surprise me that chafee and specter (re?) would cross party lines on this but rick santorum? that surprises me.

There are a number of erronious assumptions floating around about how wages are set.  The fed minimum is a floor below which most workers can't fall, but the assumption that wages reflect productivity just dosen't fit the facts.  In  fact, over the past few years, worker productivity has increased significantly but wages have remained stagnant because it is in the employers' interests to pay the lowest wage possible while keeping a competent work force.  Thats where profits come from.  Even the Census Bureau recongizes this, and reports regularly on "value added by manufacture per production worker wage $$$".  I don't follow those figures regularly, but there was a case, back in the 70's, where the average in Texas was $4.07 in value added for every wage $.  That, my freinds, is where profit comes from, and that is why we, as working people, need both a reasonable minimum wage and a strong union movement.

Senators who voted against a minimum wage increase (51):

Bennett (R-UT)
Hatch (R-UT)


This drives me insane.  The stupid people of this state continue to elect these two idiots (especially Hatch) just because they are of the right religious persuasion.  It doesn't matter what they do.  Hell, Hatch ran on a campaign that the previous Senator had been in office for too long...well, Hatch has now been in twice as long as the last guy. ::)  I can't stand that man.

(And I am a Republican.  I am just a thinking Repub and don't vote for a guy just because of the R after his name)

To me, this should be a state (and local)  issue. 

Bingo!

All government-enforced minimum wage laws are bad for the economy and bad for the people they purport to help.  The law of supply and demand cannot be repealed.  If a government law artificially increases the price of employing people who are willing to accept minimum wage-type jobs, employers will hire fewer of them.

If you as a job hunter and legal citizen wish to take a $5-an-hour job offered by a prospective employer who sees that as the value of the job, why should that be against the law?  Why, in the land of the free, should the federal labor police be allowed to step in and prevent that free economic contract from taking place?

A minimum wage is what one earns in an entry level position. If an employee is still earning that after six months or a year, then he (or she) has not shown substantial improvement in his job skills. Or if he is developing marketable skills and not being compensated for them, he should find a new employer.

I know that there are many hard working people who seem to be “underpaid,” but suggesting that people should be compensated based on what they need and not on the value that they provide to their employers is absurd.  This merely increases the costs – and the sales prices of the goods and services that the employers provide – which must be passed along to consumers.  Which, in turn, increases the amount of money that these consumers “need.”


Who shall decide what "work" is worth?  Capital or labor?  You know my answer.
Workers of the world unite!

y'all should read the barbara ehrenreich book "nickel and dimed," it's really illuminating about this subject.

it doesn't surprise me that chafee and specter (re?) would cross party lines on this but rick santorum? that surprises me.

I agree.  Ehrenreich rocks!  I look forward to reading her "white collar" followup, Bait and Switched.

Who shall decide what "work" is worth?  Capital or labor?  You know my answer.
Workers of the world unite!


I am suggesting that the value of someone's labor is what someone else is freely willing to pay for that labor.  If you are suggesting otherwise, then you are proposing to coerce the buyer into paying more than he would otherwise pay.  By this coercion, you are taking away some of the buyer's freedom.  Is that what you really want to do?

There are a number of erronious assumptions floating around about how wages are set.  The fed minimum is a floor below which most workers can't fall, but the assumption that wages reflect productivity just dosen't fit the facts.  In  fact, over the past few years, worker productivity has increased significantly but wages have remained stagnant because it is in the employers' interests to pay the lowest wage possible while keeping a competent work force.  Thats where profits come from.  Even the Census Bureau recongizes this, and reports regularly on "value added by manufacture per production worker wage $$$".  I don't follow those figures regularly, but there was a case, back in the 70's, where the average in Texas was $4.07 in value added for every wage $.  That, my freinds, is where profit comes from, and that is why we, as working people, need both a reasonable minimum wage and a strong union movement.


Don, you seem to be implying that profits are bad.  On the other hand, I would argue that profits are a very good thing.  They enable employers to pay taxes and they help fund our 401Ks (which are a lot more reliable sources for retirement income than social security).  But most importantly, they help markets identify goods and services that consumers want, which enable investors to focus resources into things that people actually want and need.  As opposed to government investment, which does not have a profit incentive and continues to fund agencies and projects long after they become ineffective.

I am suggesting that the value of someone's labor is what someone else is freely willing to pay for that labor.  If you are suggesting otherwise, then you are proposing to coerce the buyer into paying more than he would otherwise pay.  By this coercion, you are taking away some of the buyer's freedom.  Is that what you really want to do?

You have a very idyllic and innocent take on economics.  Craftsman formed guilds almost as soon as the break up of feudal states in the middle ages.  With the advent of industrial labor, it took visionaries such as Big Bill Haywood of the IWW to insist that all workers must have the right to bargain regardless of "skill" level.  Big Bill is more spot-on today than he was even in 1915.  He differed with the AFL and CIO on the need to bring all skill levels into the union tent.  He said--and I don't have the exact quote--basically, if you allow only skilled tradesman into your union, you don't have a union, you have a club. 
If "skilled' labor is organized and "unskilled" labor is not, the bosses will disassemble skilled trades until they become unskilled.  It was not expressly for the exploitation of labor that mechanization took hold.  The fact that it no longer took a professional carpenter to build a chair was beneficial to consumers.  But if the men and women assembling chairs on the line could not bargain, they could be paid as little as the bosses wanted to pay.  If you wouldn't work for fifteen cents an hour, the next guy would.
Look at what has happened over the past thirty years in the meat industry.  A "butcher" was a highly paid tradesman up until the last twenty years.  Now the "butchers" at your local markets do very little butchering.  All meat products come "boxed."  The butchering process was mechanized starting in the 1970s, I believe.  Today meat processors are underpaid and overworked with no bargaining power and few benefits, if any.  They work long hours in extemely dangerous conditions out there in packing plants of Texas and Nebraska.  The bosses exploit migrant labor to the fullest.  This also cut the earning power of the meat dept. workers in your local Safeway or Stop & Shop. 
Management makes more profit, workers earn lower wages.

Your Chicago School illustration of the one-on-one worker and contractor negotiation is a con job of theory and has no bearing on the real world of labor versus management.

Don, you seem to be implying that profits are bad.  On the other hand, I would argue that profits are a very good thing.  They enable employers to pay taxes and they help fund our 401Ks (which are a lot more reliable sources for retirement income than social security).  But most importantly, they help markets identify goods and services that consumers want, which enable investors to focus resources into things that people actually want and need.  As opposed to government investment, which does not have a profit incentive and continues to fund agencies and projects long after they become ineffective.

Today, the difference between markets and marketing is as great as the difference between profit and profiteering.

Ja, think about it now, and believe later!
::)

Who shall decide what "work" is worth?  Capital or labor?  You know my answer.
Workers of the world unite!


And who should determine what work in your are is worth, somebody in your state/county/city, or somebody in Washington DC?

Why do so many people seem to fail to understand that standards of living are different in different areas?  If you think wages are to low where you live, why not get on your local officials to have them change the laws in your area?

I am sure that the standard where you live is different then it is where I live.  Why not set appropriate wage levels by region, instead of trying to set some kind of "National Level", which leaves most of the nation no better off then it was before?

Don, you seem to be implying that profits are bad.  On the other hand, I would argue that profits are a very good thing.  They enable employers to pay taxes and they help fund our 401Ks (which are a lot more reliable sources for retirement income than social security).  But most importantly, they help markets identify goods and services that consumers want, which enable investors to focus resources into things that people actually want and need.  As opposed to government investment, which does not have a profit incentive and continues to fund agencies and projects long after they become ineffective.


Its Carlos, Don is Spanish for sir, or knight. 

I'm not implying anything.  Good and bad are moral judgements, not economic ones.  I'm simply saying that profits are derived from the fruits on someone elses labor.  They are the result of value added which is not reflected in the wages of the direct producer, in other words, surplus value.

The fact that employers pay taxes on profits is meaningless, since if those profits were distributed as wages, the worker would pay them - and given the current tax structure, probably at a higher level than the employer.

401K contributions of employers are written off as part of the compensation of labor, wages in another form, as are health insurance primiums etc.  They come out of earnings, not profits.  Since they are not immediately taxed as part of workers' income they may be beneficial in the long run, but they are a part of total compensation and are written off the employer's profits as a business expense.

Profits don't identify what consumers want, markets do, through the laws of supply and demand, as Adam Smith discussed in The Wealth of Nations (1776), which results in changes in investment patterns.  But even when supply and demand are in equilibrium profits are assured because the direct producer gets less value in his/her wage that he/she adds to the product.

You have a very idyllic and innocent take on economics.  Craftsman formed guilds almost as soon as the break up of feudal states in the middle ages.  With the advent of industrial labor, it took visionaries such as Big Bill Haywood of the IWW to insist that all workers must have the right to bargain regardless of "skill" level.  Big Bill is more spot-on today than he was even in 1915.  He differed with the AFL and CIO on the need to bring all skill levels into the union tent.  He said--and I don't have the exact quote--basically, if you allow only skilled tradesman into your union, you don't have a union, you have a club. 
If "skilled' labor is organized and "unskilled" labor is not, the bosses will disassemble skilled trades until they become unskilled.  It was not expressly for the exploitation of labor that mechanization took hold.  The fact that it no longer took a professional carpenter to build a chair was beneficial to consumers.  But if the men and women assembling chairs on the line could not bargain, they could be paid as little as the bosses wanted to pay.  If you wouldn't work for fifteen cents an hour, the next guy would.
Look at what has happened over the past thirty years in the meat industry.  A "butcher" was a highly paid tradesman up until the last twenty years.  Now the "butchers" at your local markets do very little butchering.  All meat products come "boxed."  The butchering process was mechanized starting in the 1970s, I believe.  Today meat processors are underpaid and overworked with no bargaining power and few benefits, if any.  They work long hours in extemely dangerous conditions out there in packing plants of Texas and Nebraska.  The bosses exploit migrant labor to the fullest.  This also cut the earning power of the meat dept. workers in your local Safeway or Stop & Shop. 
Management makes more profit, workers earn lower wages.

Your Chicago School illustration of the one-on-one worker and contractor negotiation is a con job of theory and has no bearing on the real world of labor versus management.


While the gist of this post is accurate, there are a few errors.

Big Bill was already dead when the CIO was created, and it was created to represent unskilled workers in the mass production industries of the '30s.  The Wobblies did seek to organize unskilled and semi-skilled workers excluded by the creaft unions of the AFL.

"Mechanization", or the application of science to the productive process through the development of more efficient technology, is anchient.  The question is, who controls the process, and to what social end.  During the pre-industrial era, craftsmen devised their own technologies to serve their own needs.  Now, capital developes technology to serve its needs without regard to the needs of the worker.  So technologies are developed to do what they have always done, ie make work easier, more presice, and faster, but also to de-skill workers, which is to say to render the employer less dependant on the skills of the worker, making him/her easier to replace.  THis process developed at different speeds in different lines of work, but butchering was one of the first, during the 1820s, when butchers in Cinncinati (known at the time as "Porkopolis) were arrayed along a "disassembly" line, each making only 1 or 2 cuts in each carcass as it passed in front of them.  They were quickly replaced by less skilled workers who only knew how to make that one cut.

In a lazzie faire world, given the power and control of capital, workers do (as you suggest) always loose.  Hence the labor movement.  As Big Bill said, during the Lawence strike of 1913, while the city was under marshall law and patrolled by the national guard, responding to allegations that the  IWW advocated violance, "we advocate violenbce of the worst sort.  By keepiong your hands in your pockets, and staying on strike you are committing the most violent of acts, depriving them of your LABOR POWER. " LET THEM WEAVE CLOTH WITH BAYONETS".

Working people have sacrificed much, over many years, to achieve a reasonable standard of living, and a compromise compensation for their labor (not a fair compensation, for there is no fairness without equity).  The minimum wage is just one of the measures that contribute to that achievement, which is now under attack from the corporate elite and their lackies in the White House,  Congress and the courts. 

Read, if you would like to learn more, Harry Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital, Monthly Review Press, 1979 (and as accurate today as when it was written, and still in print).

Read, if you would like to learn more, Harry Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital, Monthly Review Press, 1979 (and as accurate today as when it was written, and still in print).



Isn't that the book that will get you a FBI file if you pay for it with a credit card?




Cat

While the gist of this post is accurate, there are a few errors.

Big Bill was already dead when the CIO was created, and it was created to represent unskilled workers in the mass production industries of the '30s.  The Wobblies did seek to organize unskilled and semi-skilled workers excluded by the creaft unions of the AFL.

"Mechanization", or the application of science to the productive process through the development of more efficient technology, is anchient.  The question is, who controls the process, and to what social end.  During the pre-industrial era, craftsmen devised their own technologies to serve their own needs.  Now, capital developes technology to serve its needs without regard to the needs of the worker.  So technologies are developed to do what they have always done, ie make work easier, more presice, and faster, but also to de-skill workers, which is to say to render the employer less dependant on the skills of the worker, making him/her easier to replace.  THis process developed at different speeds in different lines of work, but butchering was one of the first, during the 1820s, when butchers in Cinncinati (known at the time as "Porkopolis) were arrayed along a "disassembly" line, each making only 1 or 2 cuts in each carcass as it passed in front of them.  They were quickly replaced by less skilled workers who only knew how to make that one cut.

In a lazzie faire world, given the power and control of capital, workers do (as you suggest) always loose.  Hence the labor movement.  As Big Bill said, during the Lawence strike of 1913, while the city was under marshall law and patrolled by the national guard, responding to allegations that the  IWW advocated violance, "we advocate violenbce of the worst sort.  By keepiong your hands in your pockets, and staying on strike you are committing the most violent of acts, depriving them of your LABOR POWER. " LET THEM WEAVE CLOTH WITH BAYONETS".

Working people have sacrificed much, over many years, to achieve a reasonable standard of living, and a compromise compensation for their labor (not a fair compensation, for there is no fairness without equity).  The minimum wage is just one of the measures that contribute to that achievement, which is now under attack from the corporate elite and their lackies in the White House,  Congress and the courts. 

Read, if you would like to learn more, Harry Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital, Monthly Review Press, 1979 (and as accurate today as when it was written, and still in print).

Thanks, DC, I thought my info might be muddled, but I was too lazy to go look it up!
::)

It just sickens me every time I hear that...that nonsense about labor and capital being on equal footing in this country, and how these lazy workers twist the arms of innocent God-fearing businessmen until they fork over what their employees so richly don't deserve!
:D

I'm not implying anything.  Good and bad are moral judgements, not economic ones.  I'm simply saying that profits are derived from the fruits on someone elses labor.  They are the result of value added which is not reflected in the wages of the direct producer, in other words, surplus value.

What's wrong with profit?  Why should people be resigned to working for no gain?  Why can't they be rewarded monetarily for a service that people obviously want and need, which leads to the profits in the first place?

If you started a business with your own two hands and worked for decades to build it into a behemoth, wouldn't you want to derive monetary benefit from that work?  Wouldn't you want to take a little bit off the top for yourself since you provide labor and benefits to a whole workforce?

This isn't greed.  This is getting what you deserve because you worked hard at it.

Isn't that the book that will get you a FBI file if you pay for it with a credit card?




Cat


Yes dear, that's the book.


What's wrong with profit?  Why should people be resigned to working for no gain?  Why can't they be rewarded monetarily for a service that people obviously want and need, which leads to the profits in the first place?

If you started a business with your own two hands and worked for decades to build it into a behemoth, wouldn't you want to derive monetary benefit from that work?  Wouldn't you want to take a little bit off the top for yourself since you provide labor and benefits to a whole workforce?

This isn't greed.  This is getting what you deserve because you worked hard at it.



Certainly everyone who works deserves remuneration, but profits aren't remuneration for work done.  I once worked for a small manufacturing firm.  The owner DID work very hard at building his business, and paid himself a well-earned salary, (and substantial) which was deducted from total earnings along with everyone elses salary as a business expense.  Profit is what was left after those expenses were paid.  Since he was the sole owner, he got them as well.  If he sold stock some of that $$$ would have to be distributed as dividends.  But regardless of how hard he worked, without the difference between the value we workers added to the products and our wages, there would be NO PROFITS.  I say fairness doesn't enter into the picture because a fair exchange is an exchange of equalities.  The wage deal can never be that if there are to be profits.

What's wrong with profit?  Why should people be resigned to working for no gain?  Why can't they be rewarded monetarily for a service that people obviously want and need, which leads to the profits in the first place?

If you started a business with your own two hands and worked for decades to build it into a behemoth, wouldn't you want to derive monetary benefit from that work?  Wouldn't you want to take a little bit off the top for yourself since you provide labor and benefits to a whole workforce?

This isn't greed.  This is getting what you deserve because you worked hard at it.


Ay-yi-yi!  Neither DC nor I was saying there should be NO profits made in business, and you know it.  What the hell is wrong with this country!?\ As soon as you suggest the executive class shouldn't have the absolute right to bleed the workers of the world dry as a bone, you get set upon by this kind of knee-jerk defend-a-boss mentality!

try making a profit as a small businessperson in the economic environment in this country today. virtually every sector is dominated by some megamultinational conglomerate and ma-and-pa businesses have virtually no chance of making it. start a video store? blockbuster'll buy you out. wanna open a little hardware store? fat chance. home depot will swallow you whole.

really, the irony is that this "free market" -- with every good and service in this country administered by huge corporations with revolving doors leading back and forth from the government, and so in lockstep with government that really they might as well be thought of as extensions of each other -- really, it's starting to look a a lot like socialism. at least the worst part of socialism, with the government, or some huge bureaucracy, administering every aspect of your life.

try making a profit as a small businessperson in the economic environment in this country today. virtually every sector is dominated by some megamultinational conglomerate and ma-and-pa businesses have virtually no chance of making it. start a video store? blockbuster'll buy you out. wanna open a little hardware store? fat chance. home depot will swallow you whole.

really, the irony is that this "free market" -- with every good and service in this country administered by huge corporations with revolving doors leading back and forth from the government, and so in lockstep with government that really they might as well be thought of as extensions of each other -- really, it's starting to look a a lot like socialism. at least the worst part of socialism, with the government, or some huge bureaucracy, administering every aspect of your life.

That's the funny thing.  The Right loves oppressive centralized power--so long as it can't levy taxes rich people.  Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, Lockheed-Martin, they're all fine and dandy.  Wal-Mart in particular is ironic because so many of its employees end up on the public dole they hand out how-to pamphlets at some stores!  The fact Wal-Mart leeches off the welfare state doesn't phase conservatives. 

And just like the right-wingers on this very board, Sam Walton 'till the day he died would look you straight in the eye and earnestly say, "If you can do it better'n me, you can put me outta business tomorrow." 

As Rush Limbaugh said (rather as David Frum said for Rush), that's "the way things ought to be"!  I mean, this a market-driven economy, so if you're willing to work hard and play by the rules, you've got just as good a shot at it as ole Sam Walton, right?
::)

Ay-yi-yi!  Neither DC nor I was saying there should be NO profits made in business, and you know it.  What the hell is wrong with this country!?\ As soon as you suggest the executive class shouldn't have the absolute right to bleed the workers of the world dry as a bone, you get set upon by this kind of knee-jerk defend-a-boss mentality!



So now you are imposing a limit on the amount of reward someone is able to reap from their toils?

So now you are imposing a limit on the amount of reward someone is able to reap from their toils?


well, what's the ratio of the typical CEO to the average company employee, income-wise? something like 400 to 1. now is that CEO really working 400 times harder than the IT guy, or the woman in HR? is the CEO really 400 times smarter? and it's doubly funny because in many, most cases, really, the CEO's income isn't even tied to profits. the company can be posting a loss and the CEO cleans up anyway. even on pirate ships, the captain usually only took a share and a half of the spoils.

so, you know, in the kind of abstract system you're talking about, where profits are a transparent reflection of toil and success, yes, there should be no limit to profits. problem is, that's not the world we live in. this world where people own their own companies and collect the profits from them doesn't exist anymore. instead it's an economy dominated by these massive multinational corporation/big government allegiances where the spoils go to those who can game a corrupt system the best. and that's the kind of neo-socialist/quasifascist economy the republican government will continue to nail into place in this govenment. (and i mean fascist in the mussolinian sense, mussolini was big on fascism as constituted by improper corporate/government allegiance.)

i mean tom delay flew in a jet paid for by RJ reynolds to go to get booked and fingerprinted! that's so amazing.

well, what's the ratio of the typical CEO to the average company employee, income-wise? something like 400 to 1. now is that CEO really working 400 times harder than the IT guy, or the woman in HR? is the CEO really 400 times smarter? and it's doubly funny because in many, most cases, really, the CEO's income isn't even tied to profits. the company can be posting a loss and the CEO cleans up anyway. even on pirate ships, the captain usually only took a share and a half of the spoils.

so, you know, in the kind of abstract system you're talking about, where profits are a transparent reflection of toil and success, yes, there should be no limit to profits. problem is, that's not the world we live in. this world where people own their own companies and collect the profits from them doesn't exist anymore. instead it's an economy dominated by these massive multinational corporation/big government allegiances where the spoils go to those who can game a corrupt system the best. and that's the kind of neo-socialist/quasifascist economy the republican government will continue to nail into place in this govenment. (and i mean fascist in the mussolinian sense, mussolini was big on fascism as constituted by improper corporate/government allegiance.)

i mean tom delay flew in a jet paid for by RJ reynolds to go to get booked and fingerprinted! that's so amazing.



http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gif





Cat

well, what's the ratio of the typical CEO to the average company employee, income-wise? something like 400 to 1. now is that CEO really working 400 times harder than the IT guy, or the woman in HR? is the CEO really 400 times smarter? and it's doubly funny because in many, most cases, really, the CEO's income isn't even tied to profits. the company can be posting a loss and the CEO cleans up anyway. even on pirate ships, the captain usually only took a share and a half of the spoils.

so, you know, in the kind of abstract system you're talking about, where profits are a transparent reflection of toil and success, yes, there should be no limit to profits. problem is, that's not the world we live in. this world where people own their own companies and collect the profits from them doesn't exist anymore. instead it's an economy dominated by these massive multinational corporation/big government allegiances where the spoils go to those who can game a corrupt system the best. and that's the kind of neo-socialist/quasifascist economy the republican government will continue to nail into place in this govenment. (and i mean fascist in the mussolinian sense, mussolini was big on fascism as constituted by improper corporate/government allegiance.)

i mean tom delay flew in a jet paid for by RJ reynolds to go to get booked and fingerprinted! that's so amazing.


The CEO also owns and/or runs the company.  I know you don't think it's "fair" that he earns so much more than the employees under him, but if you consider that the CEO has the ultimate decision of personnel, stock offerings, business planning, etc. etc., which leads to the growth and success of his company, then you can't say that he doesn't work as hard as his employees, even if he gets to golf every other day and his minions don't.  He just works in a different capacity.  Without the CEO, you do not have the right personnel or business decisions to drive this success.

Let's take Bill Gates, for example.  Bill right now is worth upwards of $50 billion (give or take with this seesaw economy, but still a lot).  Can you successfully argue that Bill isn't worth every penny?  I've got a significant portion of my personal stocks, retirement plans, and college savings plans supporting the fact that he is, because his efforts and decisions have formed Microsoft into one of the most secure investments in the world today.  Without Bill Gates, there IS no Microsoft, and most of you wouldn't be on this messageboard or even on a personal computer.

Unless you're using Linux, but I'm too lazy to learn that :P

really, it's starting to look a a lot like socialism. at least the worst part of socialism, with the government, or some huge bureaucracy, administering every aspect of your life.


Honestly that's a misconcepted view of socialism. When the philosophy is mishandled as it has been in the past, this can be the way things are perceived.

If you look at the typical Scandinavian country you will find heavily socialised democracies, yet you would be hard pressed to say that the state controls every aspect of a Scandinavian citizen's life. I read an article in a French Swiss magazine called P.M.E. entitled "Les secrets du modèle scandinave, ce qu'ils font mieux que nous" (The Secrets of the Scandinavian Model, What They're Doing Better Than Us). According to this, the World Economic Forum's top ten in Growth Competitiveness for the year 2004 is dominated by the Scandies, with Finland occupying the number one spot, Sweden the third, Denmark the fifth, Norway the sixth, and Iceland the tenth. This despite the heavy socialist influence. Those who equate socialism of any dose with economic ruin have been misled. The same goes for those who equate it with totalitarianism.

The CEO also owns and/or runs the company.  I know you don't think it's "fair" that he earns so much more than the employees under him, but if you consider that the CEO has the ultimate decision of personnel, stock offerings, business planning, etc. etc., which leads to the growth and success of his company, then you can't say that he doesn't work as hard as his employees, even if he gets to golf every other day and his minions don't.  He just works in a different capacity.  Without the CEO, you do not have the right personnel or business decisions to drive this success.

Let's take Bill Gates, for example.  Bill right now is worth upwards of $50 billion (give or take with this seesaw economy, but still a lot).  Can you successfully argue that Bill isn't worth every penny?  I've got a significant portion of my personal stocks, retirement plans, and college savings plans supporting the fact that he is, because his efforts and decisions have formed Microsoft into one of the most secure investments in the world today.  Without Bill Gates, there IS no Microsoft, and most of you wouldn't be on this messageboard or even on a personal computer.

Unless you're using Linux, but I'm too lazy to learn that :P


Bill Gates is an exception.  Do the names Skilling,  Lay, Ebers and Kowolsky mean anything to you?  Or the Adelphi family?  They are  much more typical.  Not only didn't these clowns own the companies they worked for, they drove them into the ditch at the expense not only of the workers' jobs but of their retirement as well.  Read some history about life in Lazzie Faire America and about the "self made millionaries of the 19th century.  JP Morgan got rich selling defective guns to the army during the Civil War, Rockefeller blew up cometitors' refineries, Gould and Harriman manipulated stocks and ripped off farmers.  Meanwhile, steel workers worked 12 hour shifts, and sometimes 24 hour shifts.  The fact that some of us have retirement plans beyond Social Security, can afford college, own a computer, and maybe go out to dinner occasionally is the result of hard fought battles (sometimes resulting in death, like at Ludlow CO. and so many other places) on the picket line, in the courts, and in the legislature.  If, as the Bible says, "the laborer is worth his hire" and we want to discuss a "fair day's pay" then the worker should recieve in $$$ the value he/she adds to the product.  THAT would be fair.  But telll that to the boss.  I think it was Samuel Slater, the founder of the US textile industry, who said "I hire my workers for the smallest sum I can pay them, and keep them only as long as they can do my work".

I'm not saying that the management of a large, complex firm is easy, but it isn't that hard either, especially with a good support team, but none of them are worth what they are paid.

The problem I have with the "pay the worker the value he/she adds to a product" is this:  In high school, I worked at a factory on an assembly line....now, each of us had a specific job (thanks to the union, noone knew how to do more than 1 job on the line) assembling CD storage units....now, the unit itself only sold for $9.99, and none of the parts were more important than the others (well, maybe the padded feet) and there were 5 of us on the line....how do you determine what "value" each of us added to the product?  Do  you base it on how many we make in a day?  A week?  A month?  A year?  The person trimming the case could say "My part was more valuable because without mine, it would collapse"....I could say "Yeah, but without the inserts, you just have a box".....the next person could say "But, without the frame, the inserts would just fall out".....and so on.  Now, let me say that this was a facility for disabled adults and I was considered a "skilled, model worker", but they made the same wage as I did:  $4.50/hr + bonus based on # of units produced/week.....using the "skilled/unskilled" worker argument, I could argue that I was worth more because I was considered a "skilled" worker in that environment......


You may have been considered skilled, but were you really? You put together plastic cases, and you were in high school. What particular skill set you above the rest of them? You said the majority of the workers were disabled, so maybe your non-disability rendered you more skilled, but they couldn't use that simple fact alone to determine your wage because it would be discrimination.

So now you are imposing a limit on the amount of reward someone is able to reap from their toils?

Oooh-hoo-hoo! My heart goes out to the those put-upon corporate executives "toiling" away over their tax-deductible five-Martini "power lunches." 
;D ;D ;D

The problem I have with the "pay the worker the value he/she adds to a product" is this:  In high school, I worked at a factory on an assembly line....now, each of us had a specific job (thanks to the union, noone knew how to do more than 1 job on the line) assembling CD storage units....now, the unit itself only sold for $9.99, and none of the parts were more important than the others (well, maybe the padded feet) and there were 5 of us on the line....how do you determine what "value" each of us added to the product?  Do  you base it on how many we make in a day?  A week?  A month?  A year?  The person trimming the case could say "My part was more valuable because without mine, it would collapse"....I could say "Yeah, but without the inserts, you just have a box".....the next person could say "But, without the frame, the inserts would just fall out".....and so on.  Now, let me say that this was a facility for disabled adults and I was considered a "skilled, model worker", but they made the same wage as I did:  $4.50/hr + bonus based on # of units produced/week.....using the "skilled/unskilled" worker argument, I could argue that I was worth more because I was considered a "skilled" worker in that environment......

Ah, here you have the "value-added" argument, but you miss where the corporations really consider value to be added.  It's not in raw materials, it's not in assembly, and it's not in shipping.  For the cost of 82 cents the assemblers put together some combination of plastic and silicon the human race has done just fine without for ten thousand years.  The value is added by the Madison Avenue sh*t-mongers who ratchet the widget's consumer price up to $99.99 via you-gotta-have-it ad campaigns!
::)

Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket.
--George Orwell

Oooh-hoo-hoo! My heart goes out to the those put-upon corporate executives "toiling" away over their tax-deductible five-Martini "power lunches." 
;D ;D ;D


I doubt they care what you think ;)

I doubt they care what you think ;)

Uh, yeah the do, didn't you get that memo?

Honestly that's a misconcepted view of socialism. When the philosophy is mishandled as it has been in the past, this can be the way things are perceived.


yeah, i sorta grabbed onto that one particular aspect of socialism -- public-sector control of the market -- because when you're talking to a conservative a lot of times that's the easiest way to get them to challenge their view that what we have in this country is a free market, because a lot of times it gets defined in conservative ideology as opposed to socialism in a very facile kind of way. it's sort "WE have free markets, THEY have socialism," and they're completely different. so i'm not saying that this form of government (in the US) is like socialism properly instituted, more like it actually resembles the phony, rhetorical, bugbear socialism that conservatives are constantly making reference to. does that make sense? i'm not sure i'm explaining it very well.

that said, im not sure socialism would work in this country the way it's taken hold in certain countries in europe, agrarian cultures in south america and southeast asia etc. free enterprise is just too much a part of the american national identity. unforunately i think, and somebody made this point elsewhere, that something much more like imperialism -- and verging on fascism -- is taking hold here hidden in the trojan horse of free enterprise, but i still say a reasonably regulated form of capitalist-democratic government is probably the best bet for america.

yeah, i sorta grabbed onto that one particular aspect of socialism -- public-sector control of the market -- because when you're talking to a conservative a lot of times that's the easiest way to get them to challenge their view that what we have in this country is a free market, because a lot of times it gets defined in conservative ideology as opposed to socialism in a very facile kind of way. it's sort "WE have free markets, THEY have socialism," and they're completely different. so i'm not saying that this form of government (in the US) is like socialism properly instituted, more like it actually resembles the phony, rhetorical, bugbear socialism that conservatives are constantly making reference to. does that make sense? i'm not sure i'm explaining it very well.

that said, im not sure socialism would work in this country the way it's taken hold in certain countries in europe, agrarian cultures in south america and southeast asia etc. free enterprise is just too much a part of the american national identity. unforunately i think, and somebody made this point elsewhere, that something much more like imperialism -- and verging on fascism -- is taking hold here hidden in the trojan horse of free enterprise, but i still say a reasonably regulated form of capitalist-democratic government is probably the best bet for america.



The problem with American policy-makers is their ideal city seems to be Dickensian London.
::)

Oooh-hoo-hoo! My heart goes out to the those put-upon corporate executives "toiling" away over their tax-deductible five-Martini "power lunches." 
;D ;D ;D


I'm the guy wo serves this type of meal to all the big Dallas corporate fellas whenever their company sends them "business golfing." I have to be unfailingly pleasant and agreable with a bunch of mildly overweight future heart attacks shouting at the top of their lungs after their fifth Woodford Reserve scotch and water about how their taxes are too high, and about what a lesbian whore Hillary Clinton is. I bow my head in shame on a regular basis over it as well. My job sucks.

I'm the guy wo serves this type of meal to all the big Dallas corporate fellas whenever their company sends them "business golfing." I have to be unfailingly pleasant and agreable with a bunch of mildly overweight future heart attacks shouting at the top of their lungs after their fifth Woodford Reserve scotch and water about how their taxes are too high, and about what a lesbian whore Hillary Clinton is. I bow my head in shame on a regular basis over it as well. My job sucks.


there's honor in work, man. i wouldn't worry about it, their sins are theirs alone. besides, you're in a unique position to learn more about how they tick, and that's good. know thy enemy, yeah?

i find right-wingers weirdly, perversely fascinating.

The problem I have with the "pay the worker the value he/she adds to a product" is this:  In high school, I worked at a factory on an assembly line....now, each of us had a specific job (thanks to the union, noone knew how to do more than 1 job on the line) assembling CD storage units....now, the unit itself only sold for $9.99, and none of the parts were more important than the others (well, maybe the padded feet) and there were 5 of us on the line....how do you determine what "value" each of us added to the product?  Do  you base it on how many we make in a day?  A week?  A month?  A year?  The person trimming the case could say "My part was more valuable because without mine, it would collapse"....I could say "Yeah, but without the inserts, you just have a box".....the next person could say "But, without the frame, the inserts would just fall out".....and so on.  Now, let me say that this was a facility for disabled adults and I was considered a "skilled, model worker", but they made the same wage as I did:  $4.50/hr + bonus based on # of units produced/week.....using the "skilled/unskilled" worker argument, I could argue that I was worth more because I was considered a "skilled" worker in that environment......


When you are dealing with un- and semi-skilled work (which is what most people in manufacturing, service, etc do (regardless of how their jobs are catagorized - I'll come back to this) it is clear that they all add the same value to the product, just as the function of every station on n auto assembly line is essential.

At one time, the extent to which one was skilled depended on the ability to manipulate tools and raw materials to produce a product.  As businesses took the function of developing technology away from the craftsmen they added two dimensions to the technology they created.  First, they used technology to gain more control over skilled labor, and then they used it to de-skill labor.  that is to say, to reduce all manual labor to the animal level.  Not only does that make labor ever cheaper, it also reptures the link between conceptualization and execution, which is what destinguishes human labor from all other forms.  But since that techniology is still operated by humans, they are being used in non-human ways.  This harkens back to Aldouse Huxley's Brave New World except that we don't breed epsilon semi-morons as they did in Huxley's negative utopia.  My father use to be a first class wood lathe operator in his day.  Standing in front of his machine with the bits in his hands he could turn just about anything you could make on a lathe.  Today's lathe operator programs his machine, inserts the bits in a sliding, revolving turret, and pushes the "on" button.  This work is still usually defined as "skilled" because of tradition and because of the power of the unions, but I'd bet $$$ to donnuts that my dad could still put the average lathe operator to shame with the hand held chissles.  My point, to hammer it home, is that skill is now a political/power issue.


I'm the guy wo serves this type of meal to all the big Dallas corporate fellas whenever their company sends them "business golfing." I have to be unfailingly pleasant and agreable with a bunch of mildly overweight future heart attacks shouting at the top of their lungs after their fifth Woodford Reserve scotch and water about how their taxes are too high, and about what a lesbian whore Hillary Clinton is. I bow my head in shame on a regular basis over it as well. My job sucks.


Soounds like it does.  I once worked the graveyard shift in a manufacturing plant (I know more about the insides of gas hose than you would want to kn ow) and occasionally spoke with the plant manager before he knocked off for the day.  He always reeked of booze.


there's honor in work, man. i wouldn't worry about it, their sins are theirs alone. besides, you're in a unique position to learn more about how they tick, and that's good. know thy enemy, yeah?

i find right-wingers weirdly, perversely fascinating.


I agree that there is honor in work, no matter how menial, and I believe that everyone should contribute their labor to the commonwealth (not the state) by trying to support themselves.  In return, all those who work should at least get a minimum wage.

And one last thing - the Wal- Mart CEO came out in favor of raising the fed. min. - I guess so low income customers can spend more in his stores.  Oh, and we don't do Wal-Mart.

And one last thing - the Wal- Mart CEO came out in favor of raising the fed. min. - I guess so low income customers can spend more in his stores.  Oh, and we don't do Wal-Mart.

You don't?  I always pictured you and Cat down there every Saturday morning stocking up on cheap-o household gadgets and shoot 'em up video games for the grandkids!
;D

I guess the CEO of Wal-Mart is in favor of raising in wages when he knows he's not going to have to!

You don't?  I always pictured you and Cat down there every Saturday morning stocking up on cheap-o household gadgets and shoot 'em up video games for the grandkids!
;D




SSSSHhhhhhh. You aren't supposed to know about that.  ;)  :D ;D




Cat

SSSSHhhhhhh. You aren't supposed to know about that.  ;)  :D ;D




Cat


Just tell me this, dear, who has been driving you into Rutland behind my back, and when?

Just tell me this, dear, who has been driving you into Rutland behind my back, and when?

You know, Rutland can be quite a fun town if you have right guide!
;)

Just tell me this, dear, who has been driving you into Rutland behind my back, and when?




Can you say "Evil Twin?"  :D


You know, Rutland can be quite a fun town if you have right guide!
;)


Oh yeah. Real fun-the "Land of the Ruts".  ;D ;D ;D




Cat

Remember, this is the federal minimum wage, which mandates that no state can have a minimum wage lower then the federal one, which is currently at $5.15.  While most states use the federal minimum wage, some don't.  The highest minimum wage in the country is in the state of Washington, where it's going to be $7.63 an hour.  Instead of having the imperial federal government dictate the states' minimum wages, lobby your own respective state to do it.

Also, there is still the question of wheather the minimum wage is even constitutional.
Tell that to a single mom who is working at a minimum wage job who can barely afford to feed,clothe, and keep a roof over the head of her kids much less afford things like health care and prescriptions...

Tell that to a single mom who is working at a minimum wage job who can barely afford to feed,clothe, and keep a roof over the head of her kids much less afford things like health care and prescriptions...

Present said single mom, and he will!
::)