Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"If you took the minimum wage from 1960 and indexed it for workers’ gains in productivity, it would be $22 an hour today. And why shouldn’t employees reap the benefits of their own improved labor practices?, she asked at the hearing, rhetorically."
An order of fries would cost $6 and there would be 40% unemployment within weeks. Many small business owners would close their doors before they'd go broke paying higher wages than they could possibly afford.
I think asking for a living wage is one thing. Asking to be completely taken care of and pampered for your entire life just because "I'm a human being!!!" is something else.
The point is that she is not asking for the minimum wage to be that high. She's saying that if employers were paying the same share of profits that they did in 1960, that's what the minimum wage would be. Companies are making bigger and bigger profits per employee than they used to. People are working harder and being more productive and not getting anything more for it.
I'm not sure how asking for a wage equal to your productivity is the same as asking to be pampered your whole life?
The point is that she is not asking for the minimum wage to be that high. She's saying that if employers were paying the same share of profits that they did in 1960, that's what the minimum wage would be. Companies are making bigger and bigger profits per employee than they used to. People are working harder and being more productive and not getting anything more for it.
I'm not sure how asking for a wage equal to your productivity is the same as asking to be pampered your whole life?
I don't think that statement applies to small businesses, which make up 52% of the American workforce.
Except, when you increase the productivity of the workforce, you reduce the need for workers. Supply and demand dictates a worker's wage will fall with a labor surplus. And the fact that the workers are more productive is irrelevant. They are not more productive because they are working any harder. They are more productive because someone else developed strategies, technology and mechanisms to boost that worker's productivity. Unfortunately, what this has resulted in is all the gains going to the top, mostly because of that pesky labor surplus. Life ain't fair, and there's not much Elizabeth Warren can do to change that.
. And the fact that the workers are more productive is irrelevant. They are not more productive because they are working any harder. They are more productive because someone else developed strategies, technology and mechanisms to boost that worker's productivity.
Correct; we probably should be paying robots bonuses. To a large degree, that drove many corps increases in productivity.
Throughout all our subsidiaries, they accounted for most of our productivity gains, reducing manhours per unit produced.
It is only rhetorical. Not a feasible at all. Then we would be buying $10 gallon of milk, $9 a gallon gasoline, $9 loaf of bread. Most small business will close down or downsize most of their employees. Making one do the work of many.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To a large degree, that drove many corps increases in productivity.
