A paramedic responds to "burger flippers" making $15 an hour.

Time to start giving 'em a choice:

1. "Employees" from now on are "owners" and they must invest their own time and money into the company and pay their part of the cost of running a business.

Raise their pay 25% but put that part into the company (kinda of like Union dues) and pay taxes on the increase.

OR

2. Become "temporary" and receive an hourly wage determined by the company "Owners".

Interesting take Patrick. I agree with the paramedic. I'm all for upward mobility and I want to offer incentives for successful people but somewhere along the line, wages have become scewed. My son and I were talking about this. We came up with the idea of limiting the top salary to 100 times the lowest salary in a company. It's still a pretty outrageous salary for the big-wigs with plenty of incentive to work your way to the top but might encourage a salary bump for the "little guy."

Actually, I have I no problem with the top guy (or gal) making 400 times more than the lowest paid worker, or even 1000 times more. Provided it is truly the "free market" at work.

Far too often, it seems to me, it is NOT the free market at work. Those at the top are often all a part of the same elite, went to the same schools, are members of the same frat and other organizations, etc.

They all seem to be scratching each other's back by sitting on the board of each other's companies. This is especially obvious when there is some sort of "golden parachute" for the CEO who runs his company into the ground - the employees get screwed while he walks away with MORE money than if he had stayed on.

It gets to be really obnoxious when so many of the elite are claiming to be for the free market when in reality they are all engaging in nepotism, cronyism, and plain old "let's stack the deck in our favor and screw the little people" actions. Such as claiming that they cannot find Americans who are qualified so they push for H1B visa applicants to come into the US simply so they can depress wages by adding thousands of job seekers to the labor pool. It really isn't a free market if you are manipulating it!

Of course, all the Sean Hannitys of the world will insist it's "class warfare."

Any displeasure over the extreme imbalance of pay is automatically class warfare. So suck it up, peasants.

Why are you angry about fast food workers making two bucks more an hour when your CEO makes four hundred TIMES what you do? It's in the bosses' interests to keep your anger directed downward, at the poor people who are just trying to get by, like you, rather than at the rich assholes who consume almost everything we produce and give next to nothing for it.

By that logic, why are you not angry over A-Rod making 4,000 times what you make for playing a game? Why do people who rail about CEO pay never rail about overpaid actors, athletes, and music personalities? Why is it okay that Kanye West makes millions, but a travesty that C. Douglas Mcmillon makes millions. Especially since, as CEO of a major corporation, Mcmillon's decisions have a greater impact on the world than West's.

CEOs are hired and paid handsomely because they bring set of skills to the table that is unique and valuable. Some CEOs turn out not to be worth the high pay and are let go - just like that highly paid free agent your favorite team had to let go in the off season. Others prove themselves worth the high pay and help the company.

No investor or lender has faith in a company because the workers are getting $15 an hour and benefits. No company's creditworthiness hinges on that. But it does hinge on who's calling the shots. Do the lenders and investors have faith in the management team? Do they have a grasp on the company's industry and impending changes in the marketplace?

Watch how stocks react to the quarterly Wall Street analyst calls. If a CEO is judged to not know what he's doing, the stock falls. The value of a company (as expressed in the stock price) does not hinge on the pay of the lowest people on the totem pole. It hinges on the perceived competence of the CEO. They're the A-Rods of the business world. They've worked hard and sacrificed to be a top player in that field.

========================================

Far too often, it seems to me, it is NOT the free market at work. Those at the top are often all a part of the same elite, went to the same schools, are members of the same frat and other organizations, etc.

That kind of short-sightedness is going to cost us in the long run - as it has in the past. In the forties and fifties, senior diplomatic and intelligence positions were only open to those who had gone to the "right" schools. Spy scandal after spy scandal should have exposed the flaws of that logic, but like any insular group, TPTB circled the wagons and insisted that restricting hiring pools to the "right" schools would prevent further scandals. Even today. Try to get job at the CIA or State Department with a degree from a state school.

I once worked for a company in which the hiring managers restricted candidates for higher level jobs to those who came from a "good" school. Qualified internal candidates were overlooked as outsiders from Harvard and Princeton or Cal (this has to be the most over-rated school in the country) were snapped up to make a VP look good with so many "good" school subordinates. In the end, the company lost sight of the product it was selling and lost touch with its customer base. Market share kept declining, despite the many Powerpoint presentations created by the the Ivy League subordinates showing how to reverse the trend. Contrary to the evidence presented (mainly by me) showing that NYC was not the optimal place in which to open a new flagship store, plans went ahead to open the store there (who wouldn't rather attend a gala flagship store opening in NYC than in Denver?). The store failed to meet the rosy projections made by the Ivy League Panglosses.

The internal candidates passed over fled for greener pastures - pastures that kept stealing the company's market share, much to the bewilderment of the company's Ivy League management.

Any displeasure over the extreme imbalance of pay is automatically class warfare. So suck it up, peasants. ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 6, 2015 7:57 AM

So, when Sean Hannity uses the term, the term is to be met with derision, but when Noam Chomsky or Warren Buffett use it, it's okay?

Stirring up "displeasure over the extreme imbalance of pay" ("substituting envy for ambition") for political gain is an element of class warfare.

Hillary's making great strides stirring up resentment harping on her "wage inequality" meme - all while pulling in millions for herself ... uh ... for her foundation

And, Patrick, as far as your "extreme imbalance of pay," what ratio of pay between an unskilled laborer and a highly skilled CEO to you is "fair?" And how do you propose getting and keeping a highly skilled CEO for that rate?

Here's how this works in addition to whatever cronyism is occurring...

And let us not forget for a moment that "minimum wage" applies to people who merely do what they are told.

We have an operator out here whose supervisor told me, "She will not move unless she is told to." I knew that already... She makes a bit over $32/hr, and is not fireable due to political considerations. How do you like that, taxpayer?

No incentive? Whence the reward?

By that logic, why are you not angry over A-Rod making 4,000 times what you make for playing a game? Why do people who rail about CEO pay never rail about overpaid actors, athletes, and music personalities?

Because actors, athletes, and musicians (music personalities?) don't employ thousands of people and keep them at starvation wages in the interest of keeping themselves living high on the hog.

You might whine and mewl about the supposedly low-paid techies, makeup artists, grips, sound crew, ball boys, bat boys, etc. (I have no idea how much they make. But I get the feeling it's not starvation wages.)

But the actors, musicians, athletes have no control over how much these people make. That is the purview of someone else, like the executive producers, stadium owners, or whatever they are.

There. That was easy? Any more questions?

So, when Sean Hannity uses the term, the term is to be met with derision, but when Noam Chomsky or Warren Buffett use it, it's okay?

Strawman, Conan? I thought you were better, but I'm not overly surprised to learn that you're not.

For the sake of having to defend myself against accusations for supposedly believing things I never said...AGAIN!...no, I don't think "class warfare" is a legitimate argument when anyone uses the term.

For one thing, it's ludicrously hyperbolic, if not outright bullshit. No one is suggesting "war" against CEOs, like taking up arms and killing them and all their forces (whatever those forces happen to be). Noting the obscene pay disparity, and really not seeing a rational reason for it. "Unique skill set" does not justify earning 5000 times more than their lowest paid employee. It also doesn't justify a retirement plan that rewards you with a golden parachute for a bad performance. Utterly amazing to me. You can suck donkey balls as a CEO, and they'll give you more money than you would have made if you stayed on, just to get rid of you.

There is no such thing as class warfare. Merely noting an obscene, unprecedented, and unjustifiable pay disparity is not class warfare.

"Class warfare" is the panic button for anyone who can't handle being questioned about why this situation is the way it is.

And I would appreciate it, Conan, if you could confine your comments to me about things that I actually said, as opposed to inventing garbage that I never said, so I have to waste my time responding to a dishonest tactic.

We're still waaaay out from the election that I am quite sure will drive us to drink, yes?

Get started early with the Republican debate drinking game!

Merely noting an obscene, unprecedented, and unjustifiable pay disparity is not class warfare.

Merely noting it? Of course not.

By the way, can you define how the pay "disparity" is "unjustified?"

I'd think that would imply either person could do either job no?

"Unique skill set" does not justify earning 5000 times more than their lowest paid employee.

It might, depending on the degree of difference in the skill sets and the ease of replacing one with either a machine or another employee. Unskilled labor is dreaming if it thinks it deserves pay comparable to skilled labor.

Like I've said before, companies are not judged a good credit risk because Bob is manning the call center in Boise. They're judged a good credit risk because the lender/investor has faith that the management team is competent. The right CEO can have a huge impact on the company's bottom line. Bob in Boise? Not so much.

You never said what degree of wage differential would be "justified" in your opinion, Patrick. And based on your comments, I'm willing to bet you haven't worked alongside many CEOs and have no idea what skills the job requires. You're like the disgruntled fan who thinks he could coach the team better than the current coach.

I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow.

Because actors, athletes, and musicians (music personalities?) don't employ thousands of people.... ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 6, 2015 6:05 PM

So, because they have zero responsibility for corporate strategy and managing employees, it's okay if they make millions, but the person who takes on the challenge of managing the enterprise with thousands of employees should have his/her wages curtailed and based on the lowest-paid employee's wages?

Sure, let's give CEOs a great deal of responsibility and low pay. That'll work out swimmingly.

Good luck finding a good CEO with that constraint.

...and keep them at starvation wages in the interest of keeping themselves living high on the hog.

Because that's what every CEO thinks about when reviewing the company budget, maintaining his own lifestyle.

Haven't worked with many CEOS, have you? They're not a bunch of fat cats trying to figure out how to pay for a new yacht. Their main concern is usually keeping the company afloat, growing the business, and, yes, controlling costs.

You've been watching too many Scrooge McDuck cartoons. CEOs don't spend their lunch hours rolling around in their money vaults.

...no, I don't think "class warfare" is a legitimate argument when anyone uses the term. ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 6, 2015 6:05 PM

You don't attack anyone but Hannity for using the term, hence the logical assumption that you're okay with others using it, just not him.

Chomsky believes that class warfare is the warfare being waged by the upper classes to keep the lower classes poor. So does Occupy Wall Street. As if every investment or move by a wealthy person is aimed at making sure poor people stay poor by getting himself a bigger piece of the fixed amount of wealth in this country.

Hegel and Marx believed all of history is the history of class struggle, ignoring all other motivations. Later pseudo-Marxists conned people by stirring up resentment against those who were economically better off, only to impoverish and oppress the people to whom they promised a better life.

News flash: wealth isn't fixed. The rich can become richer without the poor becoming poorer. Wealth is not a pie with a limited amount to go around.

For the sake of having to defend myself against accusations for supposedly believing things I never said...AGAIN!... ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 6, 2015 6:05 PM

That seems to happen to you an awful lot.

Perhaps you should work on expressing yourself better or on making more cogent arguments.

Strawman, Conan? I thought you were better, but I'm not overly surprised to learn that you're not. ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 6, 2015 6:05 PM

And there's the Patrick of old - ad hominem attacks and snide patronizing remarks.

Sadly, the civilized version of you didn't last very long.

It also doesn't justify a retirement plan that rewards you with a golden parachute for a bad performance. Utterly amazing to me. You can suck donkey balls as a CEO, and they'll give you more money than you would have made if you stayed on, just to get rid of you. ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 6, 2015 6:05 PM

On out-sized golden parachutes, we agree.

The Boards of Directors are failing in their fiduciary responsibility to the investors in agreeing to contracts that are not performance-based and that reward poor performance with huge payouts.

However, keep in mind that CEOs cannot control all conditions that confront a company during their tenure and want some security in the event an uncontrollable event assails the company. Same reason athletes have their bodies insured and models insure their looks.

Sometimes the Board of Directors can wreak havoc on the very person they hire who is doing the job they hired him to do - witness Carly Fiorina having to fight the dysfunctional HP board along with struggling to merge HP and Compac, all while fighting for market share in a highly competitive market. You don't wonder that the next person taking on that job would want some kind of income security.

I'd think that would imply either person could do either job no? ~ Posted by: Unix-Jedi at August 6, 2015 8:13 PM

Such comments do seem to imply that. It's like the guy who insists he could coach the team better than the current coach. The guy doesn't really understand the job and so, based on the tiny bit of the job that he's seen, he thinks he could do better. That almost anyone could be hired off the street to do that job.

Unix-Jedi:

By the way, can you define how the pay "disparity" is "unjustified?"

I'd think that would imply either person could do either job no?

I love how you think. I could never do it, myself, but I like the stark simplicity that you view the world. It's all so black-and-white for you. It makes establishing a position on an issue so gosh-darned easy, doesn't it?

Not like me, who tries to see both sides of the argument and the merits of both positions.

And as one who views the world through black-and-white-colored glasses, the middle ground never occurs to you. (Or Conan, apparently.)

With you, it's either CEOs make 5,000 times what the lowest paid employee makes. Or that means that either person could do either job, huh?

I guess perhaps the idea of the CEO only 500 times what his lowest paid employee makes, instead of 5000 times, never occurred to you. Or any other number between 1 and 5000. Fifty years ago, it was about 10 times as much.

Conan used the example of the guy in the call center. How much more should the CEO make than the guy in the call center? I don't know. How much money would you lose if you didn't have a call center? Figure that one out, then divide the difference among the employees who work the call center. (Imagining Microsoft without a call center.)

Conan:

That seems to happen to you an awful lot.

Perhaps you should work on expressing yourself better or on making more cogent arguments.

And yet you, in your very next comment to me, whine about me making snide, patronizing remarks. Hypocritical much?

I'm going to explain something to you, and I'll try to type slowly. Rude gets rude. Let that sink in. When you're rude, insulting, smug and patronizing to someone, you can expect to get that right back. Much as you might love the idea of flaunting a superior attitude while everyone else grovels in deference, it doesn't work that way. Honestly, Conan, a lot of times when I read your stuff, I get to thinking that I hope you're no one's employer. If you are, your employees must be absolutely roiling in resentment.

But to address your point, I would say, "Or, you could try reading what is written and responding to it, instead of inferring what was never said."

And the reason I criticize Sean Hannity for using "class warfare" is twofold: 1) He does it so much; and 2) he's the most inept at doing it. He cries class warfare any time anyone so much as brings up the income disparity. I use Sean Hannity because he is the king -- no, rather the court jester -- of class warfare.

It's like he learned a new phrase, "class warfare," and he never got tired of using it. The novelty just never wore off for him.

And if you're so bothered by how much the actors make, find out how much money everyone else makes who works on a movie. And if you don't like the difference, I would suggest going after the executive producers. They're the ones who make that decision, not the actors. Ditto the professional musicians and the athletes.

Not like me, who tries to see both sides of the argument and the merits of both positions. ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 7, 2015 1:15 PM

Well, thank God we rubes have you and your superior intellect to explain the complexities of the world to us. [/sarcasm]

And no, it's not a question of the CEO making 5,000 times the pay of the lowest-paid employee makes or else either person could do the job. It's a question of finding the right person for the job and paying them accordingly. And, yes, sometimes that means the CEO makes 5,000 times what the lowest-paid employee makes. And sometimes you find you've hired the wrong guy.

Advocating for one position does not mean you can't see the the other side's argument. It sometimes means you've considered the other side's argument and found it wanting.

And if you're so bothered by how much the actors make... ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 7, 2015 1:15 PM

I don't care how much the actors make.

Likewise, I don't go around saying there's an "extreme imbalance of pay" in how much the CEO makes versus what the lowest-paid employee in the company makes.

I merely pointed out that those who do blythely ignore the amount high-paid non-CEOs make when complaining about the "extreme imbalance of pay" between the CEO and the worker - without ever considering (or even being aware of) the amount of work that goes with being a CEO.

And the leftist politicians and activists stoke the fire of that resentment as much as they can to get votes and sway opinion, but they're doing the country a disservice.

I'm going to explain something to you, and I'll try to type slowly. Rude gets rude. ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 7, 2015 1:15 PM

Type as slowly as you want. I'm way ahead of you.

You're right, rude does get rude, and you've insulted me so many times that I've lost count. Without provocation, you've called me a coward, impugned my honesty, insulted my intelligence, and engaged in name-calling often enough that I've lost any patience I might have had with you.

I find your positions on issues naive and simplistic, but delivered with a smug superiority the betrays the presenter's lack of worldly experience. So, if you think I'm being rude to you, I suggest that you examine your own behavior to see the cause.

You're like on of those kindergarteners who whines that everyone who disagrees with him is mean and then wonders why no one wants to play with him.

I get to thinking that I hope you're no one's employer. If you are, your employees must be absolutely roiling in resentment. ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 7, 2015 1:15 PM

Actually, I've had employees reporting to me. They were quite happy ... and productive (moreso than under the previous boss - productivity increased 75% under my management while absenteeism and turnover dropped - and I was thanked by many of them for making coming to work tolerable again).

==============================

Fifty years ago, [CEO pay] was about 10 times as much. Posted by: Patrick at August 7, 2015 1:15 PM

Fifty years ago, the job of CEO was not as complex. A CEO rarely ran a multinational corporation and infrequently needed to worry about overseas results. There were almost 7,000 multinationals at the end of World War II and over 63,000 at the end of the 20th century.

Even medium and small companies without overseas subsidiaries are today competing globally whereas in 1965, they were almost solely domestic endeavors.

Entire industries have been disrupted with the pace of change today. Try to find a US manufacturer of textiles or steel.

In 1965, the top ten largest companies in the world were American manufacturing firms (that did their own manufacturing). In 2015, Chinese, Indian, and European companies have displaced them (most of the American companies at the top of the list now outsource their manufacturing).

The speed with which information permeates the market mean that trends can pop up and quickly overwhelm companies not prepared to turn on a dime.

Is that unfair to the unskilled labor of the world? Yes. Machines can now do the work of hundreds of laborers.

I'm reading a book on the 1900s and it opened with the Boxer Uprising in China where newly-built foreign railroads put hundreds of thousands of coolies out of work almost overnight and created massive unemployment and unrest in China. We're going through something similar today.

A high school diploma is simply not enough to compete in a job market in which the competition is not only with other humans in your own market but with machines and lower cost foreigners.

The computer age put thousands of clerks and secretaries out of work. In the 1950s, my dad entered a workforce in which every middle manager had a secretary. Today, even the CEO shares his administrative assistant with other executives.

The solution is not to whine about CEO pay disparities, but to imbue our high school graduates with usable skills as well as knowledge (and no, social media skills do not count as usable workplace skills). The speed bump on that road will be getting the students (and their parents) to understand. You can teach a man to fish all you want, but if he's happy being given fish, he won't put the lessons to good use.

The boss who I succeeded in the earlier story now works as a cashier in a grocery store. In 1982, she was able to get a job in middle management with only a high school diploma. Today, she cannot get that job without a college degree (if the job still exists).

And yes, Patrick, Sean Hannity is an idiot.

On that we agree, But I sense we're coming at that agreement from two very different directions and for two very different reasons.

Conan: And no, it's not a question of the CEO making 5,000 times the pay of the lowest-paid employee makes or else either person could do the job.

Well, that's not what you said, or rather, what you agreed with earlier.

From Unix-Jedi: By the way, can you define how the pay "disparity" is "unjustified?"

I'd think that would imply either person could do either job no?

And then you said: Such comments do seem to imply that.

So, in other words, because I say 5,000 times what the lowest paid employee is unjustified, that implies that either person could do the job. A statement you agreed with, right there.

Unlike you, I respond to what is said, not what I can infer from what is said.

And on the subject of your charming habit of cramming words into people's mouths, I never called you "rubes" either. Nor did I suggest that I am the only one here who tries to see both sides of an issue. I was simply having a little fun with the idea that either the pay disparity has to be 5000 times the lowest paid employee, otherwise you're insisting that either person could do either job. It's so...bifurcation.

Which, again, Unix-Jedi said, and you agreed with. Thank you for using the word "imply" this time. At least you know you're not responding to anything I've said but what you think is implied.

Conan: I merely pointed out that those who do blythely ignore the amount high-paid non-CEOs make when complaining about the "extreme imbalance of pay" between the CEO and the worker - without ever considering (or even being aware of) the amount of work that goes with being a CEO.

The amount of work? I don't think that's possible. Unless the custodian is a total slacker who naps in his supply closet the entire day, every day, it's simply not possible for one person to do 5,000 times the work.

As for Sean Hannity being an idiot, yes, we do agree. That's why I use his name. As for why I think he's an idiot, he's the Peter Principle in action (i.e. a worker rises to his level of incompetence). I care less about his politics (if that were the case, I would just as soon go after Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh rather than a flyweight like Hannity), than the fact that he's in over his head.

While I can't quite put my finger on it, I find it offensive that he's been invited to share his views about politics. It's like asking a kindergartner to discuss Shakespeare's writings. Unless this kindergartner is some kind of prodigy, you won't even get to the basics on the topic. He might have seen a cartoon based on Romeo and Juliet or something, but that's about it.

The amount of work? I don't think that's possible. Unless the custodian is a total slacker who naps in his supply closet the entire day, every day, it's simply not possible for one person to do 5,000 times the work. ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 7, 2015 7:12 PM he amount of work?

How about the amount of work that went into creating the person that got the job?

I doubt the custodian spent years in school studying finance, management, business, marketing, etc. and years climbing the corporate ladder learning how an organization works.

And what does that prior work get you? I doubt the custodian could calm Wall Street's anxiety about the future performance of the company, but I'm pretty sure the CEO could sweep the floors.

There's an old joke about a high-paid maintenance guy that the new factory boss thought was overpaid. The old guy was the only one who could get Machine 4 to work right. One day, a new systems maintenance software was installed that the factory boss said made the maintenance guy obsolete, so he fired him. Then, Machine 4 broke down, despite the software. After all the maintenance guys in the factory told the boss they could not get 4 working, he realized he would have to call in the old guy. But the old guy refused to come and help, despite the pleadings of the factory boss. Finally, the factory boss asked, "What would it take to get you to come in and look at 4?" "$100,000," replied the old maintenance guy. "Fine' said the boss.

The old guy came into the factory carrying a single too box. When he opened the tool box, everyone could see it contained only two items, a hammer and piece of chalk. THe old guy took the piece of chalk in hand and listened to Machine 4 for a few minutes. Then, he made an "X" on the machine. He got his hammer and hit the machine as hard as he could on the "X." Mahine 4 whirred to life.

Unwilling to pay someone $100,000 to whack a machine with a hammer, the boss insisted on an itemized bill from the maintenance guy, figuring he could reject line items to reduce the tally. The next day, he received the old guy's itemized bill. It read "Whacking machine with hammer: $1. Knowing where to whack: $99,999."

That's the 5,000 times difference.

You know, minimum wage was established in the U.S. in 1938. If it had kept up with inflation, do you know how high it would be today? About $24/hour.

Yes, I do believe that CEOs are, for the most part, entitled fat cats looking out for their own interests. When they want to save expenses, what do they usually do? Decide they don't need 8-figure salaries (the average CEO makes $5,859/hr) and that the company needs to tighten its belt and everyone has to make sacrifices? Do they give up their obscene annual bonus?

No, they offshore jobs and make layoffs. Apparently, sacrifices are only for the peons.

If that doesn't convince you that the system is broken and that the middle class is due for annihilation, I'm sure nothing will. So, I won't waste any more time for you.

I'm sure the CEOs and the boards of directors appreciate your standing up for them. But don't expect them to show their gratitude. They'll quite happily, even gleefully, watch you get pushed below the poverty line, while they rake in more bucks in one hour than you would need to live an entire month, and keep it all in off-shore accounts. Leona Helmsley was quite right, you know: paying taxes...it's just so little people, isn't it?

You know, minimum wage was established in the U.S. in 1938. If it had kept up with inflation, do you know how high it would be today? About $24/hour.

If true then why do price comparisons show minimum wage today buys slightly more in material goods than it did 20, 30, and 40, yrs ago?

Actually, I overshot a little. It should be around 23.12 now, according to this site. Keeping in mind that the article was written in 2012, I allowed a 3% inflation rate per year and came up with 23.12.

If true then why do price comparisons show minimum wage today buys slightly more in material goods than it did 20, 30, and 40, yrs ago? ~ Posted by: lujlp at August 8, 2015 8:08 PM

Depends on what you're using to calculate inflation.

Also, keep in mind that when the minimum wage was established in 1938, competition from international companies was all but non-existent.

You could run a company or organization with higher wages and still have a viable enterprise.

Today, companies from China, India, and Southeast Asia compete directly with American companies in markets around the world and compete with lower labor costs. Container shipping has made shipping a product around the globe cheap, so no longer is distance a barrier to entering a market.

Comparing the minimum wage in 1938 to 2015 without considering the changes in the global economy makes about as much sense as ignoring air conditioning's effect on the population growth of Florida.

The article to which Patrick linked uses 1968 (the peak year for the minimum wage) as the baseline for adjusting the minimum wage to overall income growth, not inflation - just a bit disingenuous.

The real issue is not workers making minimum wage, of whom 48% were between the ages of 16 and 24 in 2014. The real issue is the near-minimum wage workers, who made up 30% of all workers 18+ in 2014.

The solution to getting those folks out of their low-wage positions is to increase their skill sets. And that cannot be done by placing the social welfare burden of supporting them on companies who can simply refuse to hire them. It lies in building a better education system - perhaps one in which graduates of the easiest degree program is not put in charge of educating our people.

When we start hiring math and science majors, instead of education majors, to teach our children math and science, then we'll have become serious about educating our people in math and science. Education is not about fostering self-esteem through medals and inflated grades, but about building actual skills.

Until them, we're shifting the domestic social welfare burden to job-creators through minimum wage laws that don't reflect the realities of the modern global economy.

"- just a bit disingenuous."

Let's be straight, that's disingenuous on the part of the writer of the article in using 1968 as the baseline, lest Patrick pitch another conniption fit about being misquoted or having words put in his mouth.

Let's be straight, that's disingenuous on the part of the writer of the article in using 1968 as the baseline, lest Patrick pitch another conniption fit about being misquoted or having words put in his mouth.

Actually, I picked up on that in your previous post; the clarification was unnecessary, but thanks, anyway.

I did enjoy how you called a "conniption" of mine. I pointed out what you did, you denied, so I dug up your quotes and proved it. You suddenly shut up on the topic after that. Gee, wonder why.

I was able to do that because I don't approach others' comments wondering what dirty little insinuations I can make from their statements; I simply respond to what is written.

Maybe someday you'll try that yourself.

Patrick, refusing to be dragged into your self-indulgent "that's not what I said" argument vortex is not the same as giving up. So, wonder no longer.

And, Patrick, I'm not the only one you've accused of misquoting you or putting words in your mouth; of not responding solely to the literal words you typed and not to the tone or implications conveyed by those words. So, again, you might want to look inward for the source of the problem..

Maybe someday you'll try that yourself. ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 9, 2015 1:35 PM

Tried it. With you, simple interactions don't work.

I'm sure the CEOs and the boards of directors appreciate your standing up for them. But don't expect them to show their gratitude. They'll quite happily, even gleefully, watch you get pushed below the poverty line, while they rake in more bucks in one hour than you would need to live an entire month, and keep it all in off-shore accounts ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 8, 2015 5:58 PM

If I can no longer provide a service to this world, perhaps that's what I deserve.

No one owes you a job. You get a job because you offer a service to the world - and get paid commensurate with the market value of your skills.

Leona Helmsley was quite right, you know: paying taxes...it's just so little people, isn't it? ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 8, 2015 5:58 PM

Leona Helmsley is hardly the prototypical CEO. She's actually an outlier. And is widely recognized as not only a horrible boss, but a pretty miserable excuse for a human being. So, keep dragging her up as an example in your Dickensian fantasies of CEOs rolling around in their Scrooge McDuck money vaults and dreaming of ways to fire people so they can pay for yet another yacht.

Conan: Tried it. With you, simple interactions don't work.

Well, gee, if it's that bad, just remember: I'm not forcing you to respond to me. Hell, I'm not even asking you to. Wouldn't bother me in the least if you chose not to.

Conan: If I can no longer provide a service to this world, perhaps that's what I deserve.

Again, with the bifurcation. Throughout this exchange, you reveal a remarkable tendency to see the world as black-and-white.

And I love your suggestion that those who get pushed below the poverty line are those that can "no longer provide a service to this world."

If only...

For the record, there's no such thing as "unskilled labor." Every job requires some skill. Maybe it doesn't take years and years of schooling, but believe it or not, some of your high-powered CEOs would be completely lost if they were forced to do maintenance work.

"... and get paid commensurate with the market value of your skills."

That's so naive, it's charming. (And here comes another lecture about how "smug and pedantic" I am, oblivious to the tone of your own posts.)

I asked a question earlier which you never bothered to address. You used the example of the person who works the call center...I suggested that we pay the call center employees according to how much money you think you'd lose if you didn't have a call center.

That's so naive, it's charming. ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 10, 2015 2:56 AM

Funny. I tell you your posts are naive and you immediately turn around and call me naive.

Shades of "I know you are, but what am I?"

I'd quote you, Patrick, "I thought you were better, but I'm not overly surprised to learn that you're not," but I never thought you were better and your "neener-neener" reply only confirmed that.

I asked a question earlier which you never bothered to address. You used the example of the person who works the call center...I suggested that we pay the call center employees according to how much money you think you'd lose if you didn't have a call center. ~ Posted by: Patrick at August 10, 2015 2:56 AM

Ever work in or with a call center? I have. With several, in fact.

All right, let's do the math.

According to Deloitte, 51% of call centers have

50% of organization with call centers reported that less than 10% of their call centers were outsourced. 60% reported that less then 10% of their agents were remote (work at home). So, most call centers are in-house and using company-paid space.

The average annual turnover rate for a call center's full-time employees is high, about 26%. For part-time employees it climbs to 33%. That high turnover means more time spent by management juggling work loads and rearranging schedules.

The average call center spends about $4,000 to acquire an employee and $4,800 training him. In a 100-agent call center, that's over $225,000 per year in turnover costs. In fact, 70% of that call center operating costs, according to one report, are personnel-related.

According to Deloitte, the majority of call centers run on an annual budget ≤$10,000,000.

In all, they ain't cheap to run.

Call centers are not revenue generators. They exist for customer retention.

72% of people today prefer to get information online as opposed to calling a call center or talking directly to an company representative.

Online self-help wizards, pdf product manuals available for download, and other Web-based resources are reducing the loads on call centers.

So, let's assume an older customer base (less tech savvy) with 50% of the customers calling the center. The at risk population is the 20% of calls that are not resolved to the customer's satisfaction. That means the portion of the customer base that is at risk is 10%.

The money the company would lose if it did not have a call center is the cost of acquiring 10% of its customer base. That depends on the size of the customer base and the cost of acquisition per customer.

You'd have to reduce the the cost of not having a call center by the money saved (the cost of having one) to get the net cost of not having one.

Likely, the call center employees being paid by your proposal would take a pay cut, Patrick.

Of course, call centers do provide some benefits that are hard to quantify. They provide a single point of contact for customers. They relieve non-contact employees of customer-facing duties. They provide a single source of customer feedback and a way of compiling that feedback into usable data. They concentrate customer care expertise into single operational unit. They help to define the customer experience with the company and provide sometimes the only human voice within the company a customer hears.

According to Deloitte, 51% of call centers have

That should be, "According to Deloitte, 51% of call centers have ≤100 employees."

Maybe it doesn't take years and years of schooling, but believe it or not, some of your high-powered CEOs would be completely lost if they were forced to do maintenance work.

And believe it or not, all of your custodians (in your original example, it was a custodian - I'm to use only your exact words, remember) would be lost trying to explain EBITDA and EPS to Wall Street analysts trying to determine the target stock price for the company for the coming year.

You blindly refuse to see that there is any facet to a CEO beyond the greed that you and the Occupy movement insist is the sole and total motivation for anyone who is in charge of a company.

In Patrick-world, CEOs are bumbling idiots who could not run a floor waxer if called upon to do so - despite the fact that many of them probably did just that in the jobs they got while in high school or college. Or do you think they were grown to adulthood in a pod with "greed is good" being subliminally piped in on a continuous loop?

And no, you did not say exactly that in one of your posts so, of course, I'm putting words in your mouth by asking the question.

I'm not forcing you to respond to me....

Other than my quixotic quest to stamp out your brand of stupidity on this forum, you're right. Good bye.

Pardon me, Patrick. Instead of stupidity, I should have said naivete. I'm falling into your habit of being rude to those with whom I strongly disagree. I shouldn't let you drag me down to your level.

Good-bye. And I will hold you to that implied promise.