In Defense of Income Inequality

[BigDaddy]

In Defense of Income Inequality
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
By: Peter Schwartz

Income inequality, in a free market, represents something good; the campaign against it rests on the egalitarian view that the most able should not be permitted to surpass the least able.

The issue of income inequality reveals one of the ugliest aspects of today's culture. The ugliness stems not from the existence of income inequality--but from the motives of those who denounce it.

Income inequality used to be a rabble-rousing issue of the left. Now it is being raised by mainstream figures, from the head of the Federal Reserve to President Bush, who are apologetically trying to offer solutions. But what is the actual problem they wish to solve? Certainly, it is not a growth in poverty. To the contrary, between 1979 and 2006--the period during which income inequality has supposedly become more acute--real wages for the median worker rose 11.5%. Even workers in the lowest tenth percentile had an increase of 4%.

No, the alleged problem is not that some are becoming poor--but that others are too rich. The complaint is that while the bottom tier enjoyed a 4% rise in income, the top tier enjoyed a 34% increase. The complaint is that over the past 25 years, the share of income of the top fifth of households climbed from 42% to 50%, while that of the bottom fifth fell from 7% to 5%.

But this development represents an injustice only if we use a perverse standard of evaluation. It is unjust only if we measure someone's economic status not by what he has, but by what others have--i.e., only if he benefits not by making more money, but by making his neighbor have less.

This is the standard of egalitarianism--the standard that demands a uniformity of income, regardless of anyone's ability or effort. It is the standard of envy, whereby a problem exists whenever some have more, of anything, than others. And the egalitarian's solution is to eliminate all such inequalities.

Egalitarianism is the antithesis of the valid tenet of political equality, under which we have equal rights. That is, we have the right to achieve whatever our ambition and talents allow, with no one permitted to forcibly stop us. Egalitarianism, however, is a denial of the individual's right to be left free. It is an abhorrent demand that some people be punished for achieving what others haven't. It is a brazen declaration that an equality of condition must be attained.

And how is it to be attained? By--as the Australians aptly phrase it--cutting down the tall poppies. No one is to be allowed to surpass his fellow-citizen. No one is to be allowed to rise. Which means that the most able must be brought down to the level of the least able. The equal spread of misery and privation is the only "equality" that egalitarians ultimately seek. This is why they extol socialist societies, where all suffer equal destitution, while vilifying capitalist societies, where all are free to advance according to their abilities and where the poorest enjoy greater luxuries than any citizen in a "worker's paradise."

Making others fall does not make you rise. While prohibiting a Thomas Edison or a Bill Gates from becoming fabulously wealthy does indeed reduce income inequality, it does not make the poor richer. Nonetheless, it is what egalitarians desire. They are motivated by what Ayn Rand called "hatred of the good": if they lack something of value, they want to make sure nobody else has it either.

Income inequality is an effect. The cause is the difference in people's economic production. Criticizing income inequality is like complaining that a computer carries a higher price than a paper clip. Price reflects an object's market value--and the money someone earns reflects the market value of his work. There is no fixed, pre-existing glob of income that somehow oozes disproportionately into the pockets of the rich. Wealth is created. The top fifth of the population have ten times more income than the bottom fifth because they have produced ten times more.

In a statist system, people advance through government favors and at the expense of the genuinely deserving. But in a free, capitalist system, income inequality represents something good. It means that exceptional individuals are free to do their productive best, and to reap their rewards. Whenever a Bill Gates arises to make his fortune, the income disparity between top and bottom increases--but so does everyone's standard of living. If so, why shouldn't we welcome an inequality--including a widening inequality--in incomes? And, instead of apologizing for this phenomenon, why aren't our leaders denouncing the egalitarian enviers who want to level us all?

Peter Schwartz is a Distinguished Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (www.AynRand.org) in Irvine, California. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 1995-2007 Ayn Rand® Institute (ARI).

[Rem7600]

Having been an employer at one time and an employee for a much longer time, I found that some people are just not worth the minimum wage. It's unfair to have to pay an employee a mandated amount for being a warm body and showing up for work. Production counts.

[KYCatBirdHunter]

I disagree that a minimum wage is a bad idea. The minimum wage ensures that if you have a job, you are making at least enough to survive. If a PERSON isn't worth minimum wage, fire them. The question would be is the POSITION worth minimum wage? If it's not, drop the position.

[BigDaddy]

MINIMUM WAGE, MAXIMUM FOLLY

E-mail this Page

About a fortnight ago, Mrs. Williams alerted me to an episode of Oprah Winfrey's show titled "Inside the Lives of People Living on Minimum Wage." After a few minutes of watching, I turned it off, not because of the heartrending tales but because most of what was being said was dead wrong. Let's look at it.
The show claims that 30 million Americans earn the minimum wage of $5 an hour. Actually, the federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, and 17 states mandate a higher minimum wage that approaches $7 an hour. At one point, Oprah did manage to clear up this aspect of the show's errors.
The U.S. Department of Labor reports: "According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers. Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15." (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm#2 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm#2))
Workers earning the minimum wage or less tend to be young, single workers between the ages of 16 and 25. Only about two percent of workers over 25 years of age earn minimum wages.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; forty percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents.
The U.S. Department of Labor also reports that the "proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less has trended downward since 1979."
Another issue that's not often taken into consideration is there's a difference between what a worker takes home in pay and his total compensation. Employers must pay for legally required worker benefits that include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, health and disability insurance benefits, and whatever paid leave benefits they offer, such as vacations, holidays and sick leave. It's tempting to think of higher minimum wages as an anti-poverty weapon, but such an idea doesn't even pass the smell test. After all, if higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwide poverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages.
Poor people are not poor because of low wages. For the most part, they're poor because of low productivity, and wages are connected to productivity. The effect of minimum wages is that of causing unemployment among low-skilled workers. If an employer must pay $5.15 an hour, plus mandated fringes that might bring the employment cost of a worker to $7 an hour, does it pay him to hire a person who is so unfortunate as to have skills that permit him to produce only $4 worth of value per hour? Most employers would view hiring such a person as a losing economic proposition.
Two important surveys of academic economists were reported in two issues of the American Economic Review, May 1979 and May 1992. In one survey, 90 percent, and in the other 80 percent, of economists agreed that increasing the minimum wage causes unemployment among youth and low-skilled workers.
Minimum wages can have a more insidious effect. In research for my book "South Africa's War Against Capitalism" (1989), I found that during South Africa's apartheid era, racist unions, who'd never admit blacks, were the major supporters of higher minimum wages for blacks.
Gert Beetge, secretary of South Africa's avowedly racist Building Worker's Union, in response to contractors hiring black workers, said, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances I support the rate-for-the-job [minimum wages] as the second best way of protecting our white artisans." Racists recognized the discriminatory effects of mandated minimum wages.
I'm trying to figure whether ineptitude explains the errors in Oprah's show or a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Walter Williams

[daking]

Big Daddy, you've got your economic head screwed on straight. I've been hearing this from one of my fishing buddies/professor of economics/PhD/consultants for the last ten years. You and he are right.

[AteUp]

I disagree that a minimum wage is a bad idea. The minimum wage ensures that if you have a job, you are making at least enough to survive. If a PERSON isn't worth minimum wage, fire them. The question would be is the POSITION worth minimum wage? If it's not, drop the position.


So that's the official wage for survival? Firing people isn't that easy. If you had 2 employees working for you and one was a great worker and one sucked, wouldn't it make more sense to pay the good one $7/hour and the bad one $4, instead of both getting the minimum wage?

I've always wondered if an employer ever tells an employee, "The minimum wage is $5.50/hr. You're not worth $5.50/hr but the government says I can't pay you any less.":eek:

[huntr467]

I am an employer and have been an employee. I have family, friends with kids 18-27 who are in the job market.
One thing is for sure, with todays cost of living, it is not possible for a single person to survive on their own with a car , room and board, car insurance and fuel bills on minimum wage. Do the math.
When you have a percentage of workers only earning minimum they are only surviving, they are not spending money and contributing to the economy.
If everyone only earned enuff to survive on, where would this country be? There would be no need for all the extras. And soon employers that make all the extras would go out of business and soon jobs would be lost and so on and so on...
I think employees should earn what they make and I don't believe in keeping an unproductive employee but I do think minimum wage is a good idea for ensuring a healthy economy.

[BigDaddy]

I am an employer and have been an employee. I have family, friends with kids 18-27 who are in the job market.
One thing is for sure, with todays cost of living, it is not possible for a single person to survive on their own with a car , room and board, car insurance and fuel bills on minimum wage. Do the math.
When you have a percentage of workers only earning minimum they are only surviving, they are not spending money and contributing to the economy.
If everyone only earned enuff to survive on, where would this country be? There would be no need for all the extras. And soon employers that make all the extras would go out of business and soon jobs would be lost and so on and so on...
I think employees should earn what they make and I don't believe in keeping an unproductive employee but I do think minimum wage is a good idea for ensuring a healthy economy.


No disrespect, but did you read my last post? The minimum wage does not ensure a healthy economy. In fact, the minimum wage is an impediment to economic growth. The fact remains very few people in the US earn minimum wage. Those few that do make the min. wage usually don't stay at that rate very long. Others that do stay at the min wage are usually young kids just looking for a little extra cash or someone that does not exert any effort at all.

I disagree about your statement that people can't survive on min. wage. You may not have a lot of "things" including a car, but I bet you can provide enough food, clothing, and shelter to "survive".

Your last statement suggests you are in favor of unemployment. You can't have it both ways; "earn what you make" and the "minimum wage".

[huntr467]

NO I am not pro unemployment.. I believe there are minimum wage jobs that deserve minimum wage , Flippin burgers , baggin groceries etc..
And those reports and surveys you qouted are from the stone ages. they have nothing to do with today.
you say the min wage earner may not have a car but can survive??? how they gonna get to work? Oh I forgot hores, bikes etc.:rolleyes:
Also in your article 40 percent of min wage workers live in $60000 annual income housholds....my point exactly they cant afford to move away from home.
And lets dont forget it says 63 % get raises in the first yr. Were they the normal .25 or .50 woo hoo.
The other thing that cracks me up is that I read so much on this forum about how great the economy is because some government report or reporting agency says it is. Yet when I read the paper or the net their reports and figures travel from one side of the sprectrum to the other in a week...People tend to see and hear what they want, when they want and until somethinig happens to affect them its not relevant to their well being.
And if min. wages are and impediment to economic growth then how is it that this so called great economic growth of the last few years occurred with min. wages in effect?
Like I have posted in other threads about the economy, from what I see here in the real world, not on the floor of the NYSE, the economy is not what they want you to believe it is. The cost of living has greatly exceeded the increase in wages. Heck gas alone has done that.

[BigDaddy]

NO I am not pro unemployment.. I believe there are minimum wage jobs that deserve minimum wage , Flippin burgers , baggin groceries etc..
And those reports and surveys you qouted are from the stone ages. they have nothing to do with today.
you say the min wage earner may not have a car but can survive??? how they gonna get to work? Oh I forgot hores, bikes etc.:rolleyes:
Also in your article 40 percent of min wage workers live in $60000 annual income housholds....my point exactly they cant afford to move away from home.
And lets dont forget it says 63 % get raises in the first yr. Were they the normal .25 or .50 woo hoo.
The other thing that cracks me up is that I read so much on this forum about how great the economy is because some government report or reporting agency says it is. Yet when I read the paper or the net their reports and figures travel from one side of the sprectrum to the other in a week...People tend to see and hear what they want, when they want and until somethinig happens to affect them its not relevant to their well being.
And if min. wages are and impediment to economic growth then how is it that this so called great economic growth of the last few years occurred with min. wages in effect?
Like I have posted in other threads about the economy, from what I see here in the real world, not on the floor of the NYSE, the economy is not what they want you to believe it is. The cost of living has greatly exceeded the increase in wages. Heck gas alone has done that.

Do you think the min wage is "fair"? You think we should raise min wage? Or do you think it should stay the same? What you don't understand is that if you raise min wage above what the market would pay, 2 basic things do happen. 1. Unemployement rises. 2. Goods/services become expensive. If goods are more expensive (inflation) and unemployment rises you are not going to see economic growth. Everything has the be considered in relative terms. If we raise the min wage to $25 per hour, do you think everyone will live nice middle class lives. If it were that easy, I wold be all for it. It is not that simple. Go to Seattle where employees at Starbucks make 15 per hour. You say wow, that's great. But you have to remember everything costs more in Seatlle, so really what's the difference?


I don't want my company to pay the guy in the mail room $15 per hour, when he is only worth 5.75. You see because my company is forced to pay someone in the mailroom $15 per hour, they may decide not to give me a raise, may lay me off, automate the mail process which causes the mailroom to lay off several people, and/or the cost of our products go up to off set the cost. By the way I started in the mailroom of my company making 5.75 per hour. I make considerbly more than that now and I thankful that I had an oppurtunity to move up in the company. If they were forced to pay the low man on the totem pole 15 per hour, I probably would not have had the oppurtunities I have had.

Since when you gotta have a car to survive? Since when is living in a home where the household income is 60,000 a terrible thing. Some folks need to wake up realize how good we have it today. We need to quit worrying about what's fair and I'm mad cause Johnny down the road makes more than me. Grow up, get a job (or 2), put in your time, and work hard. You will prosper because we live in a nation that has the market mechinisms in place to reward those that are willing to work! Some are going to make more than others and rightfully they should. If you see it any other way you are promoting nothing more than communism.

[huntr467]

I believe min. wage should increase. It's been 10 yrs since the last min. wage increase (federal) to $5.15. No it does not need to be $15 either:rolleyes:
Ok ...so how do you propose people get to work? And just how far is to far to drive for that $5.15 an hour with fuel at $3 a gallon?
Ther is nothing wrong with living in a household with $60000 income what I was getting at is kids (young adults) can't move out of those homes because making min. wage or even $7.00 an hour it is very difficult to make ends meet.
I have never been one to worry about Johnny down the road and at 40
and retiring in a couple years I have worked my share and put in my time.
Communism... not hardly.
But I do think those multi million dollar bonuses paid to ceo's are a crock. It's all about stock price. Which hey that makes the dow look good and the economy even better...let that money trickle down back into the real economy through wages and give people freedom to purchase...increasing demand. whats wrong with that good ol fashioned cycle?
My father still believes in the old way too....work more,,, work harder it's makes for good character but does not guarantee success in todays world.

[KYCatBirdHunter]

also, however callous this makes me sound, you set a minimum wage and you also cut out a lot of jobs that are worth less than the minimum wage. And I'm a firm believer that if you can't find yourself a job or a way to be useful at a job that's worth minimum wage (just about anything), I suppose you can starve. That's what capitalism is all about: competition.

[BigDaddy]

Sounds like you have done good for yourself. Congratulations. Do you not think others can do the same? You think they need help from gov't, I mean taxpayers. Don't give me that, "CEO's of big companies make too much money". They are responsible for millions of jobs in this country. Look after yourself and you will be better for it and so will society.

I don't care how someone gets to work. If I don't have a car, I can walk. BTW, an avg. person can walk 3.5 miles per hour! If you want to eat and pay rent walk to work. Whatever it takes. Why should I, the taxpayer, have to supply Johnny w/ a car to get to work!

People need incentives to work and work hard to earn more. If I know I can loaf and still make $10 per hour, just cause the gov't says I deserve it, I will loaf. What a crock! You want productivity in this country to go down the drain?

[Bray]

Let the market set the price for your job. If you don't like your job or the money you make then learn new skills, work harder, just do what you have to do move up. That's capitalism. You are rewarded for high demand jobs. If you show me someone who make minimum wage I will show you someone who deserves it. Our system works the way it works for a reason. If you shift the price of a job in one direction the market will shift to compensate. Simple economics. The idea that you can change the welfare of someone that makes minimum wage is arrogent and ignorant. In our economy the market will determine the price of your job. Supply and demand. When the government interviens the market doesn't run as effeicently. Just look at the welfare system. Government intervention at it's finest!

[westkybanded]

Simple market economics teaches that currency is valued just like any other commodity... Supply and demand...

Raising the minnimum wage does nothing but put more currency into the market. It defeats it's purpose by devalueing the dollar, thereby raising the price of goods and services.

[huntr467]

Talk about extremist.....just a little hike in min. wage will go a long way for people in those jobs.
Min wage does not come from taxes or the government and it's not a hand out so how do you think you are supplying a car for someone because you pay taxes?
. If an employer puts up with someone loafing thats their fault not pres. Bush's. Get rid of them and get the next guy. They will find a job they can fill.
And you really think that guy running exxon deserved that outrageous bonus?? give me a break! ANd that he is responsible for thousands of employees? whatever... thats like saying Bush is responsible for me....not hardly. There are so many more people involved with the success of those companies than just the one great CEO.
And walking to work is fine if I live close to work ...but come on. If I live 7 miles from work I walk 4 hrs a day ...work for 8 and still be productive. Get real.

[Bray]

Talk about extremist.....just a little hike in min. wage will go a long way for people in those jobs.
Min wage does not come from taxes or the government and it's not a hand out so how do you think you are supplying a car for someone because you pay taxes?
. If an employer puts up with someone loafing thats their fault not pres. Bush's. Get rid of them and get the next guy. They will find a job they can fill.
And you really think that guy running exxon deserved that outrageous bonus?? give me a break! ANd that he is responsible for thousands of employees? whatever... thats like saying Bush is responsible for me....not hardly. There are so many more people involved with the success of those companies than just the one great CEO.
And walking to work is fine if I live close to work ...but come on. If I live 7 miles from work I walk 4 hrs a day ...work for 8 and still be productive. Get real.

Like I said show me someone on minimum wage and I will show you someone that deserves it. Yes the CEO of Exon Mobile deserves his bonus, didn't you hear Record setting proffits. The demand for your job sets the price for it. You don't make what you want? Get over it and do something about it. Don't expect the government to just come in and give you a raise. If the government increases minimum wage more money will be in the market. There will be more supply than demand. The value goes down.

[BigDaddy]

Talk about extremist.....just a little hike in min. wage will go a long way for people in those jobs.
Min wage does not come from taxes or the government and it's not a hand out so how do you think you are supplying a car for someone because you pay taxes?
. If an employer puts up with someone loafing thats their fault not pres. Bush's. Get rid of them and get the next guy. They will find a job they can fill.
And you really think that guy running exxon deserved that outrageous bonus?? give me a break! ANd that he is responsible for thousands of employees? whatever... thats like saying Bush is responsible for me....not hardly. There are so many more people involved with the success of those companies than just the one great CEO.
And walking to work is fine if I live close to work ...but come on. If I live 7 miles from work I walk 4 hrs a day ...work for 8 and still be productive. Get
real.

Well this was fun. I guess I have had enough for today, but I do want to make one point. If you think that taxpayers do not absorb the cost assc. w/ min. wages, then I am for sure ready to end this friendly debate. Some I guess just refuse to see the truth. I try to see the other side of this debate, but I can't understand why anyone would advocate taking away from those that are productive members of society to give to those that are not. You say "Communism...not hardly". Communism is nothing more than a communal arrangement, where everyone shares the fruits of their labor. Reminds me of what we are talking about here. We have seen how well that's worked in past civilations. :rolleyes:

One quick story from one of my favorite books, The Noblest Triumph,.
Goes something like this. There are a field of piegons collecting grain for the winter. They are working rapidly trying to collect as much as possible before the cold sets in and the grain is gone. But you see there is this one big fat piegon just sitting there not doing anything. His lack of efforts does not interfere w/ him being able to eat. He just sits and watches the others work hard and he samples the fruits of their labor. Well, eventually some of the others take notice and see that they too could stop working and still get to eat. Then all the others stop working, but a few "modest" birds. What happens? They starve. There was no incentive for the birds to work hard, they had to share. They did not get to keep there own fruits of their labor. You see they lived in a communal arrangement. This is an example of what commuism/socialism is all about.

If you ever read another book in your life you should p/up Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It changed my life to a degree. Opened my eyes to the a lot of ideas, but I guess most important I learned that it was moral and right to earn as much as you can in life even if it means being a little selfish along the way. Not only do you make yourself better, you contribute great things to society. If more people had that attitude the world would be better off for sure.

[Bray]

Some people just don't understand how capitalism works. My freshman year of college in Economics this girl behind me asked the proffessor, "why doen't the government just print more money so that there won't be any poor people?". At which point the professor laughed and tryed to explain it to her. If I learned one thing from that class it was this, There is no free lunch. If you give unskilled workers more money two things are going to happen. There will be more unskilled workers in the future and inflation will rise. The market will balance it's self out and workers earning minimum wage will make almost the same amount as before (wages-inflation). The true victims are going to be those who make above minimum wage. They will not receive a raise and will be able to buy less with what they have now. In order to try to create more money for those who probably don't deserve more you are taking it out of the pocket of those above the poverty line. There is no free lunch.

[huntr467]

BigDaddy;413854]Well this was fun. I guess I have had enough for today, but I do want to make one point. If you think that taxpayers do not absorb the cost assc. w/ min. wages, then I am for sure ready to end this friendly debate. Some I guess just refuse to see the truth. I try to see the other side of this debate, but I can't understand why anyone would advocate taking away from those that are productive members of society to give to those that are not.

You don't think we as tax payers didn't absorb the cost of Exxon Mobil's ceo's bonus. Ha So you condone paying extra for fuel as long as the profits go to the productive ones of the compnay :rolleyes:

And a min. wage hike is not taking away from productive members giving to non productive members ...thats called unemployment and SSI.

And people in min. wage jobs are not all unproductive....when is the last time you had some one making min. wage help you at a store or serve you a burger thru the drive thru, they were productive enough to get you what you wanted....tell little Johnny at DQ next time how unproductive you think he is for making min wage. Ok

[Bray]

You don't think we as tax payers didn't absorb the cost of Exxon Mobil's ceo's bonus. Ha So you condone paying extra for fuel as long as the profits go to the productive ones of the compnay :rolleyes:

And a min. wage hike is not taking away from productive members giving to non productive members ...thats called unemployment and SSI.

And people in min. wage jobs are not all unproductive....when is the last time you had some one making min. wage help you at a store or serve you a burger thru the drive thru, they were productive enough to get you what you wanted....tell little Johnny at DQ next time how unproductive you think he is for making min wage. Ok

Tell Johnny to go out and get a real job if he is wanting to get a raise. He is apparently unskilled and unambitious. He can easily be replaced if need be. The supply of availible workers is so great that DQ can hire all the workers they need at 5.15. Conversly the supply of Surgeons is so small that they must be paid high salaries due to the competion amongst hospital for their services. It is supply and demand. Quit crying about it. If you honestly think a minimum wage increase is in the best intrest of tax payers then you are truly uninformed about capitalism and how our economy works. If a company has to pay it's workers more than their job is worth then that company is going to have to do one of two things. 1) Charge more for products (inflation) 2) Buy materials at cheaper prices (decrease in quality). Pick your poision.

The tax payer will be paying more for goods (inflation) or buying products more often (less quality). Although the tax payer directly paying for the wage increase as they would for someone on SSI they are paying for the increase in inflation.

[huntr467]

The tax payer will be paying more for goods (inflation) or buying products more often (less quality). Although the tax payer directly paying for the wage increase as they would for someone on SSI they are paying for the increase in inflation.
Ok so why are we paying so much for products of less quality today. seeing as how min. wage has not been raised in 10 yrs.

I am not crying about nothing...just don't see the how you can sit there and complain about a min. wage hike becuase it's gonna cost you more.......and condone corporate earnings with large outrageous bonuses for ceos. You honestly don't think that their earnings aren't costing tax payers more???
And don't even start about health care If you think that $150 for a few ibuprofen while your in the hospital,,,,and the cost of dr's fees are ok then you must be a Dr.

[Bray]

Ok so why are we paying so much for products of less quality today. seeing as how min. wage has not been raised in 10 yrs.

I am not crying about nothing...just don't see the how you can sit there and complain about a min. wage hike becuase it's gonna cost you more.......and condone corporate earnings with large outrageous bonuses for ceos. You honestly don't think that their earnings aren't costing tax payers more???
And don't even start about health care If you think that $150 for a few ibuprofen while your in the hospital,,,,and the cost of dr's fees are ok then you must be a Dr.

Corporate earnings are as high as they are becuase their demand is so high. If a CEO has his/her company performing above the S&P 500 he deserves a bonus just the same as a coach who wins a national championship. Sucess should be rewarded. The price of OIL is determined by demand (mostly). If a CEO gets a 100 billion dollar bonus do you think that the price of oil will shoot up to cover the cost of 100 billion dollars? Ofcourse not, the other oil companies will keep their prices the same and outsell the first company. Demand sets the price of goods more than some CEO's bonus. That's why Walmart is so sucessful. The sell high demand products for cheaper, thus the demand for their product goes up and other companies are forced to lower their prices. A ceo's bonus has little to do with oil prices and you are crazy to think otherwise. In a highly competitive market the demand ALWAYS sets the price, simple economics.

Healthcare is a whole different issue. High costs associated with it is largly due to a lack of suffecient tort reform. I don't even want to start on that issue.

Does a CEO not deserve a Bonus when his company performs well?
Does a High school dropout who decided to flip burgers for a living deserve a raise?

[grouser68]

Corporate earnings are as high as they are becuase their demand is so high. If a CEO has his/her company performing above the S&P 500 he deserves a bonus just the same as a coach who wins a national championship. Sucess should be rewarded. The price of OIL is determined by demand (mostly). If a CEO gets a 100 billion dollar bonus do you think that the price of oil will shoot up to cover the cost of 100 billion dollars? Ofcourse not, the other oil companies will keep their prices the same and outsell the first company. Demand sets the price of goods more than some CEO's bonus. That's why Walmart is so sucessful. The sell high demand products for cheaper, thus the demand for their product goes up and other companies are forced to lower their prices. A ceo's bonus has little to do with oil prices and you are crazy to think otherwise. In a highly competitive market the demand ALWAYS sets the price, simple economics.

Healthcare is a whole different issue. High costs associated with it is largly due to a lack of suffecient tort reform. I don't even want to start on that issue.

Does a CEO not deserve a Bonus when his company performs well?
Does a High school dropout who decided to flip burgers for a living deserve a raise?


Bray, many disabled and handicapped persons work for min. wage.I would guess the percentage of burger flippers who are also high school drop outs is very minimal.I would also guess many min. wage earners are high school and college kids trying to make it through school and get a good education.

[Bray]

Bray, many disabled and handicapped persons work for min. wage.I would guess the percentage of burger flippers who are also high school drop outs is very minimal.I would also guess many min. wage earners are high school and college kids trying to make it through school and get a good education.

I am a college kid making it through school working 30 hours a week. I don't make minimum wage (although the propsed increase would give me a raise). I have an 18 hour semester and am doing quite fine.

Although there may be some handicapped and disabled that work for minimum wage the majority of them are completely dependant on the government or recieve some assistance. Don't get me wrong there are some who deserve more than minimum wage but the majority make minimum wage for a reason.