Minimum Wage

Eorzea Time
 
 
 
Language: JP EN FR DE
Version 3.1
New Items
users online
Minimum Wage
First Page 2 3 ... 23 24 25
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-03-23 00:31:29
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Zackan said: »
Bloodrose said: »
Let's see, most places require you have, or pass the ServPro exam, and have at least a valid certificate in Safety and Sanitation. Because food poisoning will *** kill someone.

You want to try that again?


Maybe

I know during my time working with pizza joints I never heard of either of those things.

I have a friend who works as a Waiter in a different state, i will ask him about it.

Ok he said it depends on the state.. which doesnt change my argument.

to recap: I am 100% against a Federal Min Wage... if a Min Wage MUST exist it needs to be decided at the CITY level.

The existence of a federal minimum... You realize there are parts of this country that are not states and are not entitled to many of those legislative powers, right?

Zackan said: »
Point is the company can TRY to pay zero.. but they will never succeed.. the market won't let the

Right, because high unemployment doesn't force people to take any job they can get and employers to capitalize on their desperation by forcing them to compete for the lowest possible compensation with dozens or hundreds of people.
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-03-23 00:33:31
Link | Quote | Reply
 
that's a completely different argument than you were presenting.

And it's not a technicality, it's a blatant reality.

Demand for jobs is also part of the free market capitalist economy. Without enough of a base rate of pay, how do you sustain it?

You can't. People will not have money to buy the products, unless those product prices reflect the relative wages people get as a whole.

Basically, if people are allowed to pay 0 dollars an hour for anything towards a hired employee (this is not volunteering), then they will, regardless of what slip of paper they have. People need money, and confidence in the products they buy, for capitalism to work, among other things required to make it work.
 Phoenix.Demonjustin
Offline
Server: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 661
By Phoenix.Demonjustin 2015-03-23 00:33:55
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Sorry for pulling up this old post, I wanted to reply but only just now got a chance. ;x

Odin.Jassik said: »
If you are blaming the media, what you're actually saying is that the American public is too stupid to understand that media is a for-profit industry that relies on ratings and ad dollars and can't be trusted as gospel. Which... sadly... I kind of agree with.
I think most people work too much for them to want to use their free time to research politics on their own. Having a new station tell you what's what is much easier and much more relaxing.

In a way, I blame both the media, and the people who trust it, while neither are truly at fault for what they do in a way.

Our media has become nothing more than a profit motive based industry, where information's accuracy is second to profits. That said, the news needs funds to continue to air, and so few are willing to fund something that will speak the truth, even when the truth differs from what they'd like to believe is reality. Are they really to blame? In a way, yes, because people need the news, but at the same time, they need money.

Our people work so much for so little, the time they have for family, friends, and entertainment/relaxation, often times seems to be a blessing more so than something well deserved. That said, society needs people to work, it's necessary, and these people have to work quite a lot for them to survive especially if they're minimum wage or near minimum wage employees. Are they really to blame? In a way, yes, because they're making the choice to spend their time on those other things rather than informing themselves politically via research on their own time. That said, who can blame them? No one wants to live a life of constant work, be it for a paycheck, or for accurate information.



So... I'm blaming the media, because the American public is too stupid to understand that media is for profit, yes, but I'm also blaming the media for their lack of integrity. Both are at fault, both have fairly good reason to be as they are. The funny thing is, ideally, were the wages higher more people would be able to take fewer hours. The reduction in work would afford them more time to inform themselves, which would lead to a more informed public, and the media would be forced to become more informative themselves to maintain viewership of anyone who actually cares about being informed. As a result, an informative media may actually become a more profitable media.

That's how I'd like to see things go at least, alas, I fear it impossible.



Zackan said: »
Well it is easy for politicians to not care about there constituents when only 30% of people turn out for a vote.
This becomes a circular system sadly. People don't turn out because they don't care, as no one represents them in the election. Those up for election don't care about representing their people, as they can win even without it.

It also goes back to the issue with uninformed people as well. We're at a point where politics comes down to who has more money. Who can get their name out there the most? That person, will win the election, because hardly anyone will do the research, all while the majority goes with the name they heard the most good things associated with.
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-03-23 00:36:27
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Zackan said: »
Bloodrose said: »
If a company can justify paying 1 dollar an hour for truckers to ship the company product over long distances, away from their families and friends for days, even weeks at a time, what's stopping them from justifying them paying 0 as the minimum wage?

Nothing legally.

Legally means nothing. The truck driver would NEVER accept $1 an hour! They would not drive for the company if at a MINIMUM they can't cover the cost of gas and food. (not to mention cost of the lease on there truck and many other things)

Point is the company can TRY to pay zero.. but they will never succeed.. the market won't let them!

Legality means everything. If one truck driver won't accept 0, another will not accept 1 dollar an hour. They are not protected, so they have to accept what an employer is willing to pay.

There are people out there willing to accept less than minimum wage, because there are those who feel their education/training/etc. is worth more than that, but they have a harder time finding jobs willing to pay those, because they are in much shorter demand. Seriously, you talk about capitalism, and don't even understand the basics.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 913
By Zackan 2015-03-23 00:42:31
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bloodrose said: »
Zackan said: »
Bloodrose said: »
If a company can justify paying 1 dollar an hour for truckers to ship the company product over long distances, away from their families and friends for days, even weeks at a time, what's stopping them from justifying them paying 0 as the minimum wage?

Nothing legally.

Legally means nothing. The truck driver would NEVER accept $1 an hour! They would not drive for the company if at a MINIMUM they can't cover the cost of gas and food. (not to mention cost of the lease on there truck and many other things)

Point is the company can TRY to pay zero.. but they will never succeed.. the market won't let them!

Legality means everything. If one truck driver won't accept 0, another will not accept 1 dollar an hour. They are not protected, so they have to accept what an employer is willing to pay.

There are people out there willing to accept less than minimum wage, because there are those who feel their education/training/etc. is worth more than that, but they have a harder time finding jobs willing to pay those, because they are in much shorter demand. Seriously, you talk about capitalism, and don't even understand the basics.

I suppose you are right if your approach to life is that Humanity is generally selfish and evil.

Sorry, I am a cup half full kinda guy... I have hope in humanity, not despair.
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-03-23 00:43:38
Link | Quote | Reply
 
I'm a realist. I look at reality when reality matters.

I would like to believe the majority of people are good, but they aren't the ones necessarily driving for profits, just enough to live in relative comfort, without stressing about living day to day, or week to week.
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-03-23 00:47:01
Link | Quote | Reply
 
One thing that doesn't get addressed often enough is that executives aren't just black-hearted people who get off on paying people less to maximize profits, they are legally obligated to pursue profits and have a fiduciary liability to their shareholders. If the CEO of a publicly traded company chooses to offer better compensation instead of pursuing profit, they can be fired or even sued.
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-03-23 00:50:04
Link | Quote | Reply
 
I believe they can also face jail time?
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-03-23 00:54:22
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bloodrose said: »
I believe they can also face jail time?

I'm not sure about that, but if the DoJ didn't go after the bank CEO's, they wouldn't go after them.
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-03-23 00:57:13
Link | Quote | Reply
 
I know about the legal obligation to maximize profits, and that their shareholders can take them to claims courts for failing to keep profits up.

As I put it as a question, I believe they can be taken to court criminally because it can be seen as fraud, embezzling, or theft. Whether it's true or not, I'm not sure of, hence the question.
Offline
Posts: 42646
By Jetackuu 2015-03-23 01:03:49
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Zackan said: »
Capitalism.. its a crazy concept I know....
laissez faire capitalism is what you mean, and it is indeed crazy when you're talking about what is required for people to live.

If you took care of the basic needs otherwise then I'd agree with you, and let capitalism run rampant when people's lives aren't at stake.
 Lakshmi.Zerowone
Offline
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
user: Zerowone
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2015-03-23 01:05:59
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Not really due to the fourteenth amendment and the legal ramifications of recognizing corporate personhood and the fun an individual can have in the name of a company.

HSBC comes to mind with regard to recent activity that warrants pursuit of individual board members and principals by the DoJ.
Offline
Posts: 13787
By Bloodrose 2015-03-23 01:06:43
Link | Quote | Reply
 
I guess that makes sense.
Offline
Posts: 42646
By Jetackuu 2015-03-23 01:08:27
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Zackan said: »
to recap: I am 100% against a Federal Min Wage... if a Min Wage MUST exist it needs to be decided at the CITY level.
why?
Offline
Posts: 42646
By Jetackuu 2015-03-23 01:12:05
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
corporate personhood
/facepalm

Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
HSBC
used to have one of their cards...
 Siren.Lordgrim
Offline
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
user: Lordgrim
Posts: 2020
By Siren.Lordgrim 2015-03-23 01:14:27
Link | Quote | Reply
 
[quote="Odin.Jassik" pid=2854395][quote="Bloodrose" pid=2854387]I believe they can also face jail time?[/quote]

I'm not sure about that, but if the DoJ didn't go after the bank CEO's, they wouldn't go after them.[/quote]


CEO'S and Banksters are not untouchable. I give Iceland a lot of credit for standing up to the poison that put them in financial turmoil. They as a nation are doing better since they jailed the bankers ect responsible.

But regarding minimum wage if your working 40 hrs a week I firmly believe that you should not be in poverty. I find it disturbing that CEO'S make almost 200% more now yet wages and benefits stagnant and rarely rise.

We need to realize that trickle down economics does not work we have been lied to a point where we think its the truth. Growth starts from the bottom.
 Bahamut.Kara
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Kara
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-03-23 03:27:48
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Odin.Jassik said: »
One thing that doesn't get addressed often enough is that executives aren't just black-hearted people who get off on paying people less to maximize profits, they are legally obligated to pursue profits and have a fiduciary liability to their shareholders. If the CEO of a publicly traded company chooses to offer better compensation instead of pursuing profit, they can be fired or even sued.
Anyone can sue anyone else in civil law (probably under breach of contract) but the shareholders would have a seriously hard time proving loss for providing other stakeholders (in the case employees) in the firm with better benefits. It also depends on what class of shares the shareholders own (voting or not-voting).

The shareholders that have sued CEO's for excess compensation have an uphill battle and that should be easier to prove some sort of loss.

Shareholders have only so much leverage and control on a firm, depending on how much that firm chooses to "listen to the market" and the type of ownership. For example Google has been heavily criticized by brokers for keeping large amounts of cash on hand rather than issuing dividends or stock buy backs, but google considers it an asset. To be used in keeping agile and flexible in regards to new technology development and competitors. They have stated that shareholders know what type of firm Google is (fast paced technology business) and therefore should understand what type of company they are investing in, otherwise they can sell their shares. Google has also been criticized for it's large R&D budget.
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-03-23 05:04:54
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bloodrose said: »
I believe they can also face jail time?
No, not jail time.

Shareholders agreement is not a binding contract, nor is it a law.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-03-23 05:06:41
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Bloodrose said: »
I believe they can also face jail time?

I'm not sure about that, but if the DoJ didn't go after the bank CEO's, they wouldn't go after them.


CEO'S and Banksters are not untouchable. I give Iceland a lot of credit for standing up to the poison that put them in financial turmoil. They as a nation are doing better since they jailed the bankers ect responsible.

But regarding minimum wage if your working 40 hrs a week I firmly believe that you should not be in poverty. I find it disturbing that CEO'S make almost 200% more now yet wages and benefits stagnant and rarely rise.

We need to realize that trickle down economics does not work we have been lied to a point where we think its the truth. Growth starts from the bottom.
Shoo, go away, the adults are talking. We don't need your childish opinions.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-03-23 05:11:34
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
One thing that doesn't get addressed often enough is that executives aren't just black-hearted people who get off on paying people less to maximize profits, they are legally obligated to pursue profits and have a fiduciary liability to their shareholders. If the CEO of a publicly traded company chooses to offer better compensation instead of pursuing profit, they can be fired or even sued.
Anyone can sue anyone else in civil law (probably under breach of contract) but the shareholders would have a seriously hard time proving loss for providing other stakeholders (in the case employees) in the firm with better benefits. It also depends on what class of shares the shareholders own (voting or not-voting).

The shareholders that have sued CEO's for excess compensation have an uphill battle and that should be easier to prove some sort of loss.

Shareholders have only so much leverage and control on a firm, depending on how much that firm chooses to "listen to the market" and the type of ownership. For example Google has been heavily criticized by brokers for keeping large amounts of cash on hand rather than issuing dividends or stock buy backs, but google considers it an asset. To be used in keeping agile and flexible in regards to new technology development and competitors. They have stated that shareholders know what type of firm Google is (fast paced technology business) and therefore should understand what type of company they are investing in, otherwise they can sell their shares. Google has also been criticized for it's large R&D budget.
Absolutely true.

The only thing that shareholders have a say on is who the board of directors are. If you get a group of activist shareholders together and convince the rest of the shareholders (or more than 50.001% of all shareholders) to vote you into the board, then you can start changing the structure of the company through who the board hires as the CEO. That is the limit of their power, and the purpose of the board.

This concept applies to publicly traded companies only. Privately held companies have a whole different approach, and nearly all of those companies are owned by a single shareholder.
 Leviathan.Chaosx
Offline
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
user: ChaosX128
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-03-23 07:42:55
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bloodrose said: »
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Bloodrose said: »
You're assuming the government (modern government) makes any kind of sense.
The government is just a bunch of people elected by the constituents, so...
I can't tell if you're agreeing, or disagreeing, or a little of both.

Watching US politics, I find it hard to believe anyone really believes the politicians on either side are really out for their constituents.
Edit: Ok, not *that* hard for some areas.
It is what it is.
Offline
Posts: 913
By Zackan 2015-03-23 09:36:16
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Jetackuu said: »
Zackan said: »
to recap: I am 100% against a Federal Min Wage... if a Min Wage MUST exist it needs to be decided at the CITY level.
why?

Because 'cost of living' as all of you are preaching is not a 1 size fits all.
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-03-23 09:48:10
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
One thing that doesn't get addressed often enough is that executives aren't just black-hearted people who get off on paying people less to maximize profits, they are legally obligated to pursue profits and have a fiduciary liability to their shareholders. If the CEO of a publicly traded company chooses to offer better compensation instead of pursuing profit, they can be fired or even sued.
Anyone can sue anyone else in civil law (probably under breach of contract) but the shareholders would have a seriously hard time proving loss for providing other stakeholders (in the case employees) in the firm with better benefits. It also depends on what class of shares the shareholders own (voting or not-voting).

The shareholders that have sued CEO's for excess compensation have an uphill battle and that should be easier to prove some sort of loss.

Shareholders have only so much leverage and control on a firm, depending on how much that firm chooses to "listen to the market" and the type of ownership. For example Google has been heavily criticized by brokers for keeping large amounts of cash on hand rather than issuing dividends or stock buy backs, but google considers it an asset. To be used in keeping agile and flexible in regards to new technology development and competitors. They have stated that shareholders know what type of firm Google is (fast paced technology business) and therefore should understand what type of company they are investing in, otherwise they can sell their shares. Google has also been criticized for it's large R&D budget.

Agreed, I don't see executives actually ending up in court, but removal alone can be very damaging to a person's career.
 Seraph.Ramyrez
Offline
Server: Seraph
Game: FFXI
user: Ramyrez
Posts: 1918
By Seraph.Ramyrez 2015-03-23 09:52:00
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Destroying someone's career for seeking to better the lives of their employees.

God *** bless America.
[+]
 Bahamut.Milamber
Offline
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: milamber
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2015-03-23 12:18:37
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
One thing that doesn't get addressed often enough is that executives aren't just black-hearted people who get off on paying people less to maximize profits, they are legally obligated to pursue profits and have a fiduciary liability to their shareholders. If the CEO of a publicly traded company chooses to offer better compensation instead of pursuing profit, they can be fired or even sued.
Anyone can sue anyone else in civil law (probably under breach of contract) but the shareholders would have a seriously hard time proving loss for providing other stakeholders (in the case employees) in the firm with better benefits. It also depends on what class of shares the shareholders own (voting or not-voting).

The shareholders that have sued CEO's for excess compensation have an uphill battle and that should be easier to prove some sort of loss.

Shareholders have only so much leverage and control on a firm, depending on how much that firm chooses to "listen to the market" and the type of ownership. For example Google has been heavily criticized by brokers for keeping large amounts of cash on hand rather than issuing dividends or stock buy backs, but google considers it an asset. To be used in keeping agile and flexible in regards to new technology development and competitors. They have stated that shareholders know what type of firm Google is (fast paced technology business) and therefore should understand what type of company they are investing in, otherwise they can sell their shares. Google has also been criticized for it's large R&D budget.
Absolutely true.

The only thing that shareholders have a say on is who the board of directors are. If you get a group of activist shareholders together and convince the rest of the shareholders (or more than 50.001% of all shareholders) to vote you into the board, then you can start changing the structure of the company through who the board hires as the CEO. That is the limit of their power, and the purpose of the board.

This concept applies to publicly traded companies only. Privately held companies have a whole different approach, and nearly all of those companies are owned by a single shareholder.
Mmm, depending on what you mean by "say". Often, in addition to members of the board of directors, you will have measures/other items which are placed up for vote, which may or may not be simply advisory.
Two I can think of recently have been with regards to employee stock options, and changing of voting rules (e.g. first past the post vs. ballotage).
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-03-23 13:07:13
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Don't forget, a lot of shareholders (very minority interest shareholders) vote by proxy, so there is generally no real debate on the issues at hand.
 Shiva.Onorgul
Offline
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
user: Onorgul
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-03-23 13:43:47
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Zackan said: »
My point is you get paid for what sets you apart.
You sure don't. I work as a temp and I've got a repertoire of clients who vie for my work (most of them are from out-of-town so it's not feasible to hire me directly). They get upset when I'm not available, they rely on me to go above and beyond the requirements of the job, and they typically use me as an unpaid supervisor.

And I still go home with the exact same (laughable) paycheck as my slack-***, pothead co-workers who literally drive over to the casino the second they get paid.

Why do I tolerate it? Well, technically, I don't, because I'm looking for a better job, but since this next quote fits so well...

Zackan said: »
The truck driver would NEVER accept $1 an hour!
Sure they would, if that's the difference between working and not. Or would you rather that people who are getting paid pennies give up their employment and go on the government dole?
 Leviathan.Chaosx
Offline
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
user: ChaosX128
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-03-23 13:48:09
Link | Quote | Reply
 
It seems like people can't just be happy with what they have. They always have to compare themselves to others and want more and more while making themselves miserable in the process.

Just be happy with what you have.
[+]
First Page 2 3 ... 23 24 25