The Terrible Fear of Paying the Poor Too Much

Why do the poor keep looking toward the government to pull them out of poverty? If You really want to screw the rich then You need to form cooperative factories and stores. Why should You labor for the evil rich man when You can labor for Yourself. The best part about cooperatives is everyone is an owner and everyone has skin in the game meaning everyone has a vested interest in busting their arse. If you keep rellying on the government and the rich to help you then You are going to be holding your hand out for eternity. I for one long for the day that the rich are poor and the welfare class is either starving or working which is totally dependent on their choices.

a reply to: jkm1864

Okay let's do it. How much money does it take to form a co-op of factories and stores?

I have 0$ in the bank and maybe 30$ in assets!

Hope that our competition isn't so well entrenched that they can effectively muscle us out of the market!

Its all about the share holders.

Many of those share holders hand all their investment money to an investment banker to gamble with it for them. So its hard to blame the investors/shareholders directly.

Im sure most company's would love to increase all basic wages under $20k a year and make working for the company more attractive with happy workers. I certainly know a store manager would just put everyone's up 20% over night if they were allowed to.

I suppose CEO's feel compelled to pay themselves so much since they manage the big decisions that make the money to pay the share holders, so they deserve a large piece too and i think thats not actually bad. Just the sheer amount of pay is mind blowing compared to the 'grunts' (is how they see them) on the ground.

originally posted by: crazyewok


You obviously cant grasp simple mathmatics

Well, seeing as that I need to take off my shoes and socks to count above 10, I may need some help here.

originally posted by: crazyewok
You dodged and avoided the core issue.

No, no I didn't. I addressed it.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Resources on planet earth are finite, be it in money or raw material, get it? You might like to pretend its not but it is and anyone that really thinks resources are infinite on earth is blind.

So, in the 70's, when we were told coal/oil would run out, what happened?
In the 90's we were told oil was drying up, and we have found new reserves.
Natural Gas reverses are being discovered every day.
What resources exactly are you talking about?

originally posted by: crazyewok
Look whats happened with the value of the USD when the idiots in the goverment decided to print more money? It went down due to the fact money is not limitless.

Never said anything about paper money being infinite.
It is paper, backed by a guarantee. That is it. What it is backed by is the issue that created when we have today.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Now if the super rich are comsuming said resources increasingly at a expotential rate while the majority have little increase im resource distribution you end up with a massive problem.

WHAT resources???? Are they eating oil? Are they digesting food more then I am ?
You use the term "resources" in a very generic term. You need to detail exactly what/which resource you are referring to.
Money is not finite. That is how most here will define wealth, as everyone bemoans how much "money" one CEO makes over another.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Now unless your family name is rothchilds or rockfeller your going to be in for a world of hurt in a few decades time if the current trend continues.

Why is that? Will then reach into my paycheck and take my money???? Seems the Fed Govt has the corner on that.

originally posted by: crazyewok
This isnt about who has the rights to own what or decide what in a buisness we are talking about a vast economic problem which at best will mean the return to feudlism and at worse a complete collaspe of western civilsation IE the destructiom of the USA.

How is it not about ownership rights?
If I own the business, I get to decide how much I make and how much I pay to the workers.

originally posted by: crazyewok
O by the way you be suprised to hear I think a more free market and more compeition is the awnser. If the goverment had let the banks fail in 2008 we likley would have had a restart and better growth.

Well, we agree on one thing at least.

Yes, every bank, business or what ever should have been allowed to fail.

a reply to: squittles
Makes sense. Thanks for the thoughtful answer.

I will, however, just say that I believe the crushing of the middle class into the poor class are related, and therefore keeping the wage low for the poor is too. And in the end, it really comes down to the lack of respect for others and the sheer greed of the large employers.

a reply to: Biigs Yeah. Right. In the name of the shareholders. More and more of whom ARE the CEOs and higher ranking execs of one company or another. And the other sucker shareholders get their names used and are fooled by the creative accountants who cook the books to pretend to be showing a huge profit until their shares are virtually worthless too, by which time the crooks have divested.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: ketsuko

But you do have to avoid the problem of paying so low the goverment has to step in and top wages up so the streets dont end up looking like a African cesspit and thats not good either.

There needs to be some sort of balance, it has existed in the past so why not now?

That is the problem. The govt should not be stepping in to offset this. There is the biggest issue.

If the person working isn't doing a job that comes with a pay above $9hr, it isn't anyone's fault except the person doing the job. They need to work towards a better paying job, not have their income offset to be on par with some BS arbitrary number for what income level they should be at.

originally posted by: jhn7537

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Minimum wage will always be relative to the times. They could raise minimum wage to $25 per hour, but people soon forget that those increased wages just get passed back onto the consumers with higher ticket prices for goods and services....

You can hardly live on 25 dollars an hour.

$52k per year for a single is quite easy to live on, but if you have 9 children it may be tricky...

That wouldn't be bad for a single person , you are correct, but not for a family now days.

Don't you all have a wall street to occupy? Dear lord, the amount of work one must do to become a CEO is worth thousands of years the burger flipping all of you do. Work a job that requires minimum skills, you get a minimum pay. get over it.

originally posted by: ThichHeaded
Let me put it to you this way..

When I started working in the low 90s I think.. I was getting min wage... 3.25 in my state. Prices of things were as follows..

Cigs = .90
Gas = between 99 and 1.10 a gallon
Lb of ground meat = about 49 to 59 cents a lb..

Today min wage is 7.25 where I live.
Cigs = good ones marlboro 7 bucks, newport around 7.50ish.
Gas = 3.80 a gallon
A lb of ground meat = 5 bucks.

My translation, you can only fill a cup so far before everything in the cup over flows..
Meaning you can give all the money to the poor, it still doesn't make them feel rich.. It actually makes them poorer..

Ahh Inflation, goto love it.

Actually by your example the minimum wage did not increase significantly. However inflation did occour. But with a greater percentage of wealth being accrued in less hands the poor get shafted on the double, the inflation hurts them and they do no participate in the cashflow that has a part in driving inflation up.

Also today more people depend on subsidiaries than ever, so those contribute in driving inflation up. What it means is the dax dollars of the middle class subsidize the earning of shareholders and the top 1% .

Inflation wouldnt be the problem either. If you owe student loans run a mortgage whatever it works actually in your favor. Those whom get shafted are those who own a lot of greenbacks.

a reply to: macman

If the person working isn't doing a job that comes with a pay above $9hr, it isn't anyone's fault except the person doing the job. They need to work towards a better paying job, not have their income offset to be on par with some BS arbitrary number for what income level they should be at.

You just aren't getting it. When there are college-educated people having to work for minimum wage because of out-sourcing and off-shoring, how is it the fault of those college-educated people?

I see mixed messages from you.
You are irate, I get that much. BS abritrary number? It's a fact that it takes a certain amount of income to survive in this country. If people aren't earning enough, which they aren't, the government is stepping in to help them, which means they are subsidizing the humongous corporations that aren't paying enough.

I see that is not okay with you.
But why is it okay with you that the corporations are getting away with it?

There are lots and lots of people with educations who are working low-wage jobs just to get by, because their 'career choice' was outsourced to somewhere else. Who allowed that? Yeah, the government. It drained our economy, and you can't simply blame the people left behind with no work. The fault is, as you say, with the corporations whose greed and hubris overrides their 'nationalism' or whatever you want to call it.

And the way they did that? BY BUYING CONGRESS. How is it the workers' fault that their jobs were outsourced? That cheaper labor was found, and they were 'made redundant'? What do you expect THEM to do to survive?
Or do you even care?

If the business world would simply value their employees OVER THEIR PROFITS, no government 'handouts' would be needed.
But if government ALLOWS them to off-shore, out-source, and stop employing Americans...

see...they're in bed together. I think you get that. But you don't get the predicament that many people are in now...

originally posted by: macman

Well, seeing as that I need to take off my shoes and socks to count above 10, I may need some help here.

Whats that saying of your? Not my concern?

originally posted by: macman
So, in the 70's, when we were told coal/oil would run out, what happened?
In the 90's we were told oil was drying up, and we have found new reserves.
Natural Gas reverses are being discovered every day.
What resources exactly are you talking about?

Never said anything about paper money being infinite.
It is paper, backed by a guarantee. That is it. What it is backed by is the issue that created when we have today.

WHAT resources???? Are they eating oil? Are they digesting food more then I am ?
You use the term "resources" in a very generic term. You need to detail exactly what/which resource you are referring to.

1) Term resources can mean anything from Money, food, oil or even land.
2) The Earth is a Finite space. As such there is a limit to resources. Unless magic fairy's go around bringing stuff out of thing air at some point things run out. So far the human race has got lucky, the earths still a finite space.

originally posted by: macman
Money is not finite.

But you said and I quote

originally posted by: macman
Never said anything about paper money being infinite.

Get your points straight!
Looks like you more help than just getting those socks on!

[

Why is that? Will then reach into my paycheck and take my money???? Seems the Fed Govt has the corner on that.

originally posted by: macman
How is it not about ownership rights?
If I own the business, I get to decide how much I make and how much I pay to the workers.

Yes on a small medium scale that works well.

But let say a mega corp or group of them with similar interests gets enough money to buys 99% of land in the USA(or insert other western country) and 99% of its resources. Therefore they can rigg all markets in there favor and control property prices and reduce the majority of Americans to tenenets rather than property owners, they can have the power to extort, bribe and control the political scene. You thing they should be free to do that if they have enough wealth? How is that freedom for the majority that then live at there whim? You just replace government tyranny with cooperate tyranny.
You think it ok to do that?

originally posted by: macman
Well, we agree on one thing at least.

Yes, every bank, business or what ever should have been allowed to fail.

I don't see what your complaining about then!

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao


I respect your replies and counter arguments in this thread. Small business is what makes a thriving working and middle class, which ideally work together to help lift the each other up. However, your arguments fit that class dynamic, which simply isn't the topic of this thread. Stated a different way, the middle class seeks to achieve greater profits for itself while working for and with the working class it employs.

Not really. I am a small business owner. I work for a publicly traded company. I deal with Fortune 500 companies and small companies as well in both my business and day job. I have several relatives that run large corporations and small 2 person shops. I see it as a whole, because I deal with all aspects day in and day out.

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
Companies such as Wal-Mart, which is a low-skill employer, build themselves on the toil of their employees and, more to my point, their owners do not qualify as middle-class.

But, the owners all started somewhere. They rose from what ever class to where they are today.
Work, or toil as you call it, is an action that is rewarded with an agreed to amount based on what others pay and what the person brings.

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
In all reality, low-skill does not mean that the employees are worth starvation wages which lead to massive profits for a corporate entity. If a company thrives on the fact that they pay next to nothing for labor, they are a bad company.

Low skilled means low skilled. If the market drive them to be paid $20 an hour they would. Since low skilled workers are abundant, turn over is high and it is a low to little skill required position, they are paid accordingly.

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
Wal-mart is not a "bad" company. Their infrastructure is immense and deserving of every dollar they're paid. I will argue that it is a greedy company in that infrastructure becomes a given and a lesson to competitors, and the massive profits that their infrastructure reaps them should "trickle down" to the janitor on up, as opposed to just up.

Greed is a subjective term that is used by the envious.

It doesn't matter if the company takes in $1 or a trillion. The janitor is paid what their skill level and the market drives at.

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao

(We'll forget about the over-seas slaves that they own for the moment)

Well that is good, because I really could care less about other countries.

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
Where you blame low-skilled workers for envy I (and others in this thread) could blame the ultra-rich dynasty of the Waltons and their share-holders for greed in excess.

Yet greed is being defined by you unto them. You have determined what they should make and anything outside of that is not necessary. Who are you to define what someone else is to earn, keep or need/want?

Envy is very much definable in this situation. You and others look to those that have more, and want it.
Sounds like you and others need to be educated in how to be successful like those you envy, instead of trying to tear them down to your level.

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
I hate to relate to Judeo-Christian values in this, but the move is apt. I ask you, how is it that the sin of greed is more noble than the sin of envy?

Oh good hell.
This whole notion here on ATS to attempt to drive heavy taxation, welfare and handouts as Christian is the biggest load of BS.

Christianity is not driven by rendering unto Cesar. Nor is faith measured in how much is given from a paycheck.

Faith is faith in Christ and/or God. Period.
It has nothing to do with giving money to anyone.

originally posted by: macman

If the person working isn't doing a job that comes with a pay above $9hr, it isn't anyone's fault except the person doing the job. They need to work towards a better paying job, not have their income offset to be on par with some BS arbitrary number for what income level they should be at.

But if they don't get some money to offset there low wages they wont be able to work towards a better job as they will be dead or broken in a cycle of poverty.

Look at the 3rd world, I mean the worst places. They cant work to better them self as they are so poor they can even afford a simple education or are so ill and starving they are stuck in a downward cycle.

Its just not as simple as saying "if you dont earn enough get a better job"
To do that you need money for education on top of money just to fed yourself or provide shelter.

You want parts of the USA to look like Sudan or Zimbabwe?

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

What in the hell are you talking about?

originally posted by: namehere


see that's the thing you and other like minded people don't get, at the rate things are going it wont just be a threat for much longer. it will become civil war against the rich especially with how popular more socialist policies are becoming with younger generations who are quickly becoming more and more of a majority, all the right conditions for such a conflict are quickly forming right now within the next 10 years.

What popular Socialist programs?

Like this Govt Healthcare thing??? Yeah, I will surely wait to see that be popular.

And as for civil war?
Been told that one was coming since I was young. Between the haves and the have nots.

Seems that the have nots clearly have not learned how to be successful in life. And the only thing they know how to do,, I guess by your statement, is riot and such.

No wonder they aren't successful in life.

Really what it will take is an economic "coup" of sorts.

Its actually quite simple, but certainly not easy.

Simply put your resources into companies that carry a model you agree with. Its kind of like voting, but with the wallet (theres even a saying along those lines ).

The problem is that the workers who actually bring products to life, even those who invent them in the first place, do not tend to profit from the product as much as the large entity that brings it to market (in the standard way of bringing a product to market).

Heck, people are more than willing to sell themselves and their ideas out to these corporations, "or else."

Another thing to try, for employers, is to actually consider new and innovative pay scales and company structure. For my own company, I am working on a plan that will pay the people who make the most REAL impact on bringing a product to life. Meaning, the people who actually are the backbone of the company will receive pay strictly based on their contribution. In that, we have come up with a variable called RWV, or real world value. It is a modifier in an equation that raises pay above a baseline according to how much that person actually contributes to the company. Keeping track of all this is the difficult part. But in the end, the "floor workers" have a good chance to make more than the owners of the company. And in the end, all of us profit due to pay that is DIRECTLY equated to a real world value (rather than fiat, or just upholding the social standard of a corporate oligarchy).

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: macman
People are paid what their skill is worth. If their skill is worth $8 an hour, then they should be paid accordingly.
If their skills are worth $10 gazillion a year, then they get it.

What a foolish idea. Have you no understanding of economics?

People are paid only as much as it takes to maintain enough of them to run a business. Businesses only pay more for some people because they expect more productivity or because nobody with the skills necessary for the job will settle for less.

I think you basically restated what I put, in just different words.

originally posted by: crazyewok
But if they don't get some money to offset there low wages they wont be able to work towards a better job as they will be dead or broken in a cycle of poverty.

If i wasnt living at home when i got into my profession i would have never got past the first few role and probably wouldnt have been free to go on the courses and such to get the next role because id be too busy looking after my cheap breaking faulty house.

I stayed at home till i was 22 and could really afford a place and NOT use every penny i had maintaining it and myself.

Everyone is also so independent these days, hardly anyone car pools, they would rather not move in and share bills they need trier space (aka sit on the sofa and facebook all night which we all know you can do anywhere with a laptop......).

Things change and therefore so does the laws and attitudes.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: squittles

I pretty much agree with your assessment.

But looking at it from the workers viewpoint and min. wage....."If you pretend to pay me, I'll pretend to work and steal from you"

So does the business suffer from low worker productivity and theft or make the workers grateful for the job with a decent wage and perks.

I have been in business a long time and it's my experience that loyal and happy employees increase profits far in excess of the money you save by paying min. wage.

I have sold some of my enterprises to others and watched it tank due to being motivated by pure profit and greed rather than the team approach.

The style of leadership I learned was from the military, where I was to delegate credit to my subordinates when things went right, and take the blame when things went poorly. And to never take advantage of my position to make things easier for myself. I actually did work for a CEO who was awesome - I ran into him at an airport once, and his bags were delayed - I offered to wait for them and pick them up for him. He said "Nonsense, I won't ask you to do that" - he proceeded to buy me dinner while we waited, and when his bags arrived, when I said "I'll go get a cab", he said "No, not necessary, we'll take the subway - why spend money we don't need to?"

That's the kind of guy you'll work for - someone who isn't feathering his own nest, and basking in his own importance. Who shared the pain, and shared success. Conversely, when you pay people the minimum, that's what they'll do - the minimum.

What many companies will do is start someone at,say, minimum wage - and will see how they work out. If they're a complete dud, well, not much lost. If they stick, if they perform, they'll raise their salaries, and quickly. That's a much smarter way to manage than to just try to extract every last drop of blood out of your employees.

Those that abuse their employees, that will permanently keep them at starvation wages, don't tend to survive. Competition works at all levels - a company needs to be competitive to survive - for that, they need good employees. But there's competition for good employees - a good worker won't stay at an abusive company, they'll move on to greener pastures. Abusing employees may work in the short-term, but Darwinism ultimately applies - badly-run companies, that mistreat its workers, don't tend to survive.