Minimum Wage Solution

Interesting idea. That basically means that the CEO of McDonalds will earn a lot less than the CEO of a tech company, since tech workers earn a lot more than burger flippers. Also we can expect a lot more companies contracting their cheap work to other companies to avoid this rule. Or they will replace their cheapest workers with machines. Or they will have a bit higher paid workers who do higher paid roles fill in for the lower paid work, to eliminate those jobs. It might also mean that CEOs will earn less than other corporate executives who don't have this constraint. Being a CEO will be more about the achievement rather than having the highest pay in the company. Or maybe they will just get a foreign CEO and find ways for him to earn money in indirect ways, maybe with foreign accounts to avoid this rule.

 

Or CEOs still get their insane pay but their employees can actually pay the bills.

 

Or the CEOs find a way around the rule, which is a lot more likely. They'll figure something out. Why can't we just raise taxes on them?

 

The biggest cost to those on or near minimum wage is housing. Most of them rent, and rent will always increase to precisely the maximum that landlords know renters will pay. The higher you make minimum wage, the higher rents will increase. A better solution imo would ignore the minimum wage. A program that incentivizes home ownership while decentivising investment in additional property as a means to generate wealth would stabilize the costs of housing and thus stabilize the biggest cost of those in the lower income brackets. Instead of just getting them more money for the 'fat cats' to figure out how to part them of, we should be reducing the cost of necessities like housing

 

I believe that wages and salary ceiling should be based upon a company/corporate revenue not really across the board.

 

I don't disagree but that was a pretty big omission from your list of what ifs. Yes they'll probably look for loopholes but if they didn't, following the rules % pay rules is more likely then taking a paycut just to pay lower level people less.

 

If I'm a CEO, I'm not going to be able to justify to my board or directors dramatically raising staffing costs just so I can keep my personal salary really high. A CEO pay cut is far more likely than an across-the-board pay increase. I will probably just allow my official salary to be reduced, and find other sources of income that get around this rule. Or I will figure out some sort of way of increasing the minimum pay through some trick like contracting, automation, or job scope changes.

Even if this rule boosts the pay of the poorest employees, it disproportionately helps the minimum wage folks, but not help the middle class employees at all. And a simple minimum wage increase has a similar impact without all the loopholes and the chance of CEOs leaving the country. We could also just increase taxes on the CEOs (which might also result in them leaving the country), and at least we will get revenue to pay for all the programs Bernie is promising everybody.

 

I do support higher min wage only in selected high end cities

 

Employees owning a business is not socialism..

 

All of what you said already happens under the current system. Automation will always advance regardless of raising the minimum wage. Companies already contract out work to companies that can do it for less.

 

So the government wants to regulate salaries not just at the low end, but also at the top end.

What about those people in the middle? Should government stick its nose into their salaries? When does this end? The answer is: it doesn't end. There will always be a next step to advance the scope of governments' control over our lives.

 

My point is that the policy suggested by the OP will only accelerate this process and not even achieve the intended consequence. My recommendation is minimum wage increase if you want to increase wages for the poorest workers through government action.

 

Not all wages are intended to be a "living wage".

The overwhelming majority of people making minimum wage are part-time younger high school and college kids.

These types of rules abandon the concepts of the labor market for authoritarian government nanny states.

 

Yeah...

I dont see that price anywhere.

https://disneyland.disney.go.com/tickets/

 

If people are willing to accept the job at the rate the company agrees to pay based on the rates we pay for service.... what exactly is the problem?

 

Why is the progressive left so anti free will?

 

Simple question.

When the company experiences losses.. will the employees forgo their paychecks or infuse their own capital into the business to keep it afloat?

 

And how many of you and you pro-business owners paid into the startup cost or value of the company? None.

What you have is a profit sharing program disguised as an employee owned business.

The point is, at some time in your companies history somebody took the initiative, took the risk, invested the capital and started the grocery store. And.. it want the employees.

 

Its unbelievable how totalitarian some of you are.

Good lord...

 

Before I'll have any discussion regarding MW, it must be understood that MW baselines are going to be different, not only in each state, but also from city to city...therefore any idea of a federal MW solving any problem is impossible. The cost-of-living index varies extremely between, for example, San Francisco and Mayberry RFD, and every place in between...there is no one-size-fits-all MW that can work. The current federal $7.25/hour and the guesstimates of $15/hour are nothing but political Band-aids...political BS.

Lastly, everyone needs to stop meddling in the private sector trying to force-solve problems that cannot be solved...

 

MW used to be tied to inflation. In fact it still is in most developed countries. The $15 MW is merely playing catch up to what should've been happening for a while.

 

1) Wealthy is a relative term. In a village in Africa a person with 10 chickens is Wealthy unless someone has 3 pigs then that person is wealthy. Of course if someone else has a cow then all the others are indeed poor. But if that cow owner comes into town he'll find his pride based on being wealthy badly abused. So while no one gets poorer in absolute terms they do become poorer in relative terms as someone increases their wealth.
2) Too often people in one side or the other are too selective in their use of the term CEO. Smaller businesses with an owner/CEO tend to compensate their employees better because they work closer with them. On the other hand the big corps have a board of directors that hire and set the salaries of the CEOs and each other. There is an alarming frequency that there are boards made up from a small pool if CEOs sitting on each other's board and are deciding compensation for each other. It then becomes a case of who you are as opposed to your skills. Do you really believe Hunter Biden was paid all that money in Ukraine for his wise leadership?
3) If you believe someone that works doesn't merit a livable wage then that means some simply deserve to die. I can't put my response to that here as a mod would delete the whole post.

 

On both ends of the spectrum. I'm starting to wonder if we should just delete the word "compromise" from the dictionary.

 

The problem is that there isn't even power between sides. An employee has no bargaining power because there are always others willing to work for less.

 

That's a dumb idea. It would just mean that big businesses are even more worth getting a job at, and fewer people would want jobs at smaller businesses. Wal-Mart would get tons of new employees from this policy, but your local convenience store? Outta luck. If you want to give all the power to big business and make them even fatter cats while damaging the poor, then this is a good policy. I don't think that;s what you want, however, unless you plan on blaming capitalism when it fails in order to use as propaganda for a revolution, which I know that some people plan to do, as they have already done after the failure of minimum wage laws.