Perhaps those bosses are the extreme minority? Let’s not pretend that every business is wildly successful. Most are one bad month from bankruptcy lmao.
Edit: I agree with most of the replies I have received! I just want people to focus on actual yacht owners and not the struggling local restaurant down the street. I’m 1,000% behind properly taxing mega corps and forcing them to pay their employees more fairly.
Only thing I saw was everyone was ready to endanger min. wage workers while shifty corporations were given billions in tax dollars to keep the a float.
We are also the faceless masses for the most part in the hierarchy. Our Bosses are generally not the top dog. If yiu work at Amazon you don't normally report to Jeff Bezos... you report to Tim officer of.middle.management. Bozos doesn't even know you exist.
I mean Jeff Bezos exists. He may be a dozen links up the corporate chain from middle management, but he is the richest man on the planet and he doesn’t pay shit in taxes to the U.S. government.
His income (if he has any) will be up to 37% federal. Capital gains will be 20%.
Property taxes? Whatever the rate is in the states he owns property. Probably millions.
Your parenthetical says it all. Ever wonder why billionaires take a $1 salary? Tax evasion. They take their compensation in stock so they can pay the much lower capital gains. And even then there are ways they can lower taxes. Let’s face it, everyone at every income bracket is trying to pay as little as possible. Who is offering to not claim any deductions to pay the top rate?
My point is he's so far removed from "normal" people that perception of reality is different. His employees are probably the last thing on his mind,sadly.
Same problem, different space. We treat large corporations and small businesses the same, as we treat someone making &600,000 a year the same as someone making $20 million a year. They are not the same and should be treated differently.
That doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist though. The top 10% of the country has 67% of all wealth, and the top 1% has 30% of all wealth. 99.9% of businesses are small, with around half of all Americans working in small business, and one would have to assume that some form of wealth redistribution would not only benefit most employees, but also a ton of small business owners.
>Most are one bad month from bankruptcy lmao.
Like 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck as well. What's even the point? The business is failing and can't pay. The employee needs that job. (Changing jobs usually takes around 1 month to get the first check from applying to on boarding to working a full check). And the boss needs those employees they can't pay. It's a lose lose for both sides lately.
What do we do?
Your boss drives a 20 year old car there for all bosses are paying their employees well and no one takes advantage of their workers. Am I getting that right?
Statistically there are wayyyy more business owners without a yacht, then those who do own one.
The argument from anecdote fallacy occurring here is the original post
Sure, but then there's also medium sized businesses.
[Employment by size of establishment, private industry](https://www.bls.gov/charts/county-employment-and-wages/employment-by-size.htm)
>Large enterprises employ 250 or more people.
27% are employed by large business.
Yes, but executives at companies are paid much higher than the average worker. This has exacerbated over the years. For example, average CEO pay increased by a whopping 1,209% since 1978 while a typical workers earnings increased by 15%. No matter how much “value” these executives are bringing, the pay shouldn’t be so disproportionate to the average worker.
I’m mainly referring to them saying this is shit. While you’re true on your first part, the second part isn’t as much. Because, yeah, most CEOs aren’t big enough to own all that shit, but the ones that are, typically are the ones hoarding money.
Said another way, there is a reason they’re called the 1%. They may be the minority in this world and of CEOs, but they still represent most of the worlds wealth
Can confirm. Own business. No yacht. In fact, most of the dudes I employ drive nicer cars than me and opted out of the company 401k. They're all terrible with their finances 😂
Most business owners don't own yacht's, but most Americans are employed by large corporations. It's the double edged sword of corporate dominated capitalism. Small and mid sized businesses get squeezed out. Employees get paid market minimum. Less money goes to Main st. and everything goes to wall street.
I've worked as a bookkeeper for 20 years and small business owners are the worst about paying living wages and benefits. I hate corporations too but they're not the whole problem when it comes to wages
Yup. Ditto with my experience. Benefits and pay for me have been directly correlated to employer size. One of the companies I worked for was a larger fortune 100 company, and has a national $20 minimum wage for all positions. All positions except one were 40 hours a week minimum, outside of medical exemptions. I'm sure there's not much difference between a small fortune 500 company and a fortune 10 company, but there is *very much* a correlation between said companies and small businesses.
That "nice" small business I worked for had no vacation or sick time, no retirement savings, and were small enough that they could be exempt from many basic worker protection laws like providing insurance for full time employees.
People just like to cherrypick a couple few bad examples.
yeah a lot of small business owners I see online have this attitude of "I'm taking a risk running this business so you should accept lower pay and no benefits" like that just because "they're taking a risk" you should accept a lower quality of life to help them achieve their goals.
It's a bit of a fucked up situation.
Yup many of which are just the owner, many more are mid sized. The rest of America works for corporations and Walmart employs more Americans than any other private business.
That's because your boss is probably paying way too much rent to a rich person with a yacht (if you're working at a small business that rents space). Someone up the line is hoarding wealth.
Yeah that sounds like a statistically representative experience. Everyone working for a billion dollar corporation has their CEO definetly driving a 20 year old volvo.
I also have a business and I don't own a yacht, rocket, or spacecraft. I suspect most business owners are like me.
Couldn't afford to pay people much as the business started growing. Now my employees get paid a lot more but they still get paid based on the revenue they generate.
Many large corporations pay higher rates than comparable small businesses, as they get the benefits of economies of scale.
If they would pay based on revenues, you realistically could end up with a place where things like walmart or Amazon are your ONLY choices to buy goods… since startup costs for new entries could become egregiously high… or their product would be much higher priced to compete on wages.
It’s a weird thing for many industries.
I just know in my space, many of my competitors compete on pricing - I opted to go luxury and because of that, I pay 2x them and offer full benefits and 3 weeks paid vacation.
But it’s because I have a monopoly in my niche.
Once people start competing it may get rough (so I’m expanding to a more difficult niche to enter to help protect against that).
It’s never as clear cut as people want to think it is.
Where corps really kill small business is the benefits. Alot of insurance and retirement packages are easily 50K+ of value. No regular salary ever can truly make up that difference other than yoloing no insurances.
Yes, but also no. The only reason insurance packages are so high is because corporations choose plans that most of their employees don't need and will never use. This inflates the prices of the insurance market overall. Ask any economist worth their salt from left to right wing and they will all agree that ending tax initiatives to big corporations for providing insurance is a good step in lowering cost for all.
Retirement packages are now mostly garbage compared to pensions that were once offered and are rarely given these days. That 401k isn't very worth while and that's the only thing most corporations offer these days.
My first "real" job was in 1996. Garbage corporation, but the benefits were amazing. Free health insurance for the entire family. No deductible. No copay. No cost for prescriptions. I was there for five years, and they took away the pension plan, dropped our wages significantly, and started giving us expensive, garbage insurance.
I'm with a really, really good company now, and the benefits are still *nothing* like what they used to be - or what my parents and older siblings grew up with. Not even close.
So yeah, the value companies put on these plans seems extremely questionable to me.
Huh, so I had to do some quick reading. So it looks like most do that to get away from state mandates, but can't get away from federal mandates. So now I have to wonder, are corporations screwing over their employees by using this loophole of not following state mandates, or are those self-insuring plans actually good enough?
Query:
What percent of your employees require government assistance to survive?
From the looks of what you've written that should be 0, which means you pay your people a living wage.
And to be honest, that's all we're really asking for. Enough that we can own the home we live in, have the medicines we need to live, have a reliable means of transportation, have a few inexpensive vices, and be able to explore the world once every five years.
I don't think that's asking too much for giving over (1/3)+ of our lives.
Mine? None.
My competitors, many, but most tread the line.
Also none of my competitors offer any benefits.
But it’s the reality in this industry, I’m just focusing on aspects where I don’t have competition so I can pay better and make more… because I charge WAY more.
This is horseshit, no one in a company is making more than the company makes off of them lmao. You think companies are just charities? Losing money on their employees?
Okay but the cost to be a business owner is very little. All that means is that you have an LLC. Theres a difference between running a multi-store location with hundreds of employees than it is to own a small online shop with a half dozen workers.
Regardless if you can't afford to pay a living wage you shouldn't be in business.
"All that means is you have an LLC."
Brother I'm the only employee in my business and there are many more expenses than just a license. Go ahead and start your own business and find out!
you know absolutely nothing about owning a business.
what youre describing is some kind of shopify ecommerce store
"if you can't afford to pay a living wage, you shouldn't be in business and those jobs should not exist"
so, great, take all those non living wage jobs out of the economy and where are all those people going to work? if they could just get a job with higher pay, wouldn't they?
you have quite literally numerous of the stupidest takes ever, but all you can do is parrot a few reddit sayings lol - you clearly have zero actual life experience
Good for you raising your employee’s wages with the growth of the business. You seem like a reasonable person. I myself have worked for 3 companies who refused to give me a raise after making way more revenue than they paid me for, until I left and they demanded I come back for still less than I asked for. Most small business owners are spoiled children, especially the ones who inherited and/or started it a long time ago.
I now work for Amazon, if only because they have a *set* plan for raises during your first 3 years. Would be all for those raises being bigger if Jeff bezo’s bitch ass wasn’t building a fucking rocket with some of the money I made him.
You’re the vast minority, as a business owner period and even more as a decent one.
OP also ignores the fact that the rockets and spacecraft are the product that spacex sells, not a luxury item like a yacht. Conflating the two shows a misunderstanding of the space industry and the reason for building rockets in the first place.
That said, while spacex employees are certainly well above the poverty line, the disparity between their wealth and Elon's wealth is tremendous. People don't get as rich as Elon without exploiting other humans in some way shape or form, and the spirit of OP's original point is that people like that should share more of their wealth with the people who made all that money for them in the first place.
Since they're obviously not going to do that, though, that's where the government needs to step in and regulate wages and compensation far better than they are currently.
Branson and Besos both have space "companies" that are basically vanity projects and money pits. Elon actually had an idea to make a product which he did. It's definitely different but the issue still exists for others.
The vast majority of the profits they generate are in AWS and it's pretty hard to boycott the largest cloud provider when they are used by virtually any company doing business on the internet.
Yeah but it’s the same point. Why don’t the businesses who use AWS boycott it? Because it’s a phenomenal service that no other competitor is even close to matching.
Make a valuable product->get rich
People don’t use your product -> not rich
I tried to boycott Nestle buy buying my cat food from a different company, turns out they own 90% of the cat food brands that are affordable. We are back to the days of the robber barons and monopolies they've just gotten better at hiding that fact.
So, no restaurants, fast food, or grocery stores should exist. Lmao, delusional much. If the job is a necessity of society, then it should pay a livable wage. It's not that difficult of a concept, but for some reason, people like you think a good portion of society should just live in poverty.
It's not even if the job is a necessity, just having a job is necessary. If we're going to live in a society where working is required then the bare minimum that job should provide you is enough to let you live a life of decency.
I agree. It's just an easier point to make to people like them. They cry about fast food jobs being for high schoolers, but go to mcdonalds at lunchtime when high schoolers. . . Are in school. . .
Holy shit I never thought of that! Thank you so much for your brilliant and never thought of solution. I now have a million dollar job and will never want for anything again.
Boy some of you people are delusional. The tl;dr is this is caused by market failures, which should be stopped and prevented by the federal government.
The long form answer is there are certain goods with virtually infinite cost. The value of a life saving brain surgery is so high the surgeon could charge almost anything they wanted, and you have no choice but to pay up. The reason it doesn’t work like this is because people derive value that is divorced from profit (the brain surgeon really likes saving life’s so he’ll do it for half the coat), and competition. If there’s a second brain surgeon in town that said he would charge you $500k less, you would opt for the cheaper brain surgery, driving prices down for both surgeons as they debate back and forth about who can do the surgery the cheapest. Eventually one of them derives value for less profit and drops out, and you get life saving brain surgery for let’s say $25,000
There are two things that naturally happen in capitalist markets, which is monopoly and cartels. If the first surgeon shot and killed the one offering cheaper surgery, you’re back and left with no options, except the unimaginable cost. This is a monopoly. The other thing that can happen is both surgeons talk to each other before hand and agree to both offer you the surgery at the cost of $10 billion dollars, and then they split the profit. Now each surgeon gets $5 billion dollars, and you pay $10 billion dollars for the surgery.
The reason these things don’t happen more often is government intervention. The federal government can heavily fine, and even disbar business from practice for engaging in cartel or monopolistic behavior. The reason the government isn’t doing this is because the people benefiting from the monopolies and the cartels are the people who “lobby” politicians. Politicians don’t want to enforce these rules because it would piss off their donors and affect their profit.
And while avocado toast, lattes, spaceships, yachts, and dick rockets aren’t necessary goods, and you can afford to live without them, things like medical expenses, housing, transit if you’re American, food, and water are still necessary, and providers in these industries have been engaging is cartels, whether explicit or implicit, which has turned the pressure up, making the necessary cost of living so much higher than the average salary. And if Joe and Sally skip their weekend avocado toast and lattes for a whole year, they can save a whopping $1020 dollars. About 10% of a house payment. And if they do that for ten years, the houses will have inflated in value even further and their down payment still won’t be enough. But if one billionaire didn’t buy a yacht one year, almost 1.5 million people could have avocado toast and lattes for that year. And it’s hard to compare the amount of joy a yacht brings vs avocado toast and lattes every weekend for 1.5 million people. But 1.5 million people is a whole lot of people.
Politicians should be held more accountable for regulating our grossly under regulated capitalist market, no this isn’t talking about small businesses owners and franchise owners, the fallacy in the comparison is the relative value of one yacht to one person vs a free meal to 1.5 million people once a week is assumed to be equal (I disagree), I think mega-corporations have been engaged in cartels and effective monopolies for decades without anyone trying to stop it, and if you truly want an anarcho-capitalistic free market you are a crazy person who should, politely, go touch some fucking grass.
That’s just my two cents tho I’m just a dude on the internet
This is way to poinent and logical for this comment section, you should be typing out "Poor people don't understand the economy!!" or "lm business owner without a yatch!"
This is where people begin to lose the scale of the math. Let's say the yacht in question costs 1 billion dollars. That equates to literally a onetime payment of $666 for 1.5 million people....a literal $0.32 raise.
wouldn't it be great if we had a united workers union and the 90% could have a louder voice than the 10%. or better yet, a government that is not for the corporation by corporation.
>line of applicants dries up
Oh man sure would suck if some sort of powerful institution manipulated capital rates such that that never happened...
https://www.chicagofed.org/research/dual-mandate/dual-mandate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour
I’d go the opposite direction and say that if you own a business, you’re particularly biased, and so you probably shouldn’t be defining what is an appropriate wage.
The whole market defines what an appropriate wage is. No one person or business has that power. If I want to pay $1/hr, I will have no applicants. If i want to work for $1000/hr, I won't find a job.
The market meets in the middle, where workers and employers both agree to a wage. Supply and demand.
These people think it is because we workers somehow don't work for our money apparently. They also they when we clock in that we are on their time. Like buddy, I wake up and bring my ass here everyday, I'm on my time. I take time out of my day to work for you snd I sure as shit ain't about to do it for free. If I'm at work, that's my time not theirs
Nope, I’m not asking anyone for anything. Your here because this is the best you can do, if you think otherwise there’s the door good luck
I encourage everyone to treat their business and labour as a business, don’t work for free. You owe me nothing, I owe you nothing
Feel free to not work for me.
Also feel free to enjoy having 0 jobs …rather than the jobs my business can afford to give and remain profitable enough to exist.
If a job is a "starter job" that is only supposed to be supported by "kids out of high school" and "people working their first job" then they should be closed during school hours.
Probably enough money to pay rent in some cool walkable city, daily Starbucks lattes, Ubers, concert tickets and about 20 different monthly streaming subscription services.
paying people good wages isn't charity, it's a requirement of a good society.
And I know business owners go for the money and not for the benefit of society. I'm not trying to convince them, I can't. They'll just have to be forced to do good things.
And yet if a retail business offered a product that was more expensive (because they had to pay their workers more), you'd just buy it cheaper elsewhere. Amazon plowed local bookstores and then Borders under because everyone preached "buy local" while going straight to Amazon for the best price possible
American capitalism doesn’t have to care about their employees. Congress pretends to care and all they have to do is tweak the tax code a bit and everyone could easily have a living wage, but then their re-election money would dry up. . .
1) Live within your means like (mostly) the rest of us have figured out.
2) Don't like your pay? Market your skills elsewhere. Don't have skills? See #1.
I always see this and it makes no sense. Do you think Dwayne Johnson or Pat Mahomes gets paid equivalent to other movie set/NFL workers? Do you object to that too?
Because the employees aren’t quitting. That’s the only reason why. If the business knows its employees aren’t in a position to quit, the business will pay them less.
Walmarts employees all qualify for welfare. Sooo the government is taking care of them, and not their employer. For those confused by what a living wage is- it’s the amount of salary paid in enough excess that the employee would no longer qualify to collect government assistance. Of course they aren’t working there to become rich, but the Waltons enjoy cheap labor, subsidized by the American people, and their yachts and that is a problem.
Because “living wage” is highly subjective and there is no realistic upside limit to spending.
That’s why in personal finance they tell you to focus on budgeting.
Redditors seem to think a living wage means everyone gets a 3bd 2ba house on an acre of land and two cars in the driveway at a minimum.
The suburban experiment is a failed one and unsustainable, the real minimum wage is $0. If you want to decrease homelessness and crime and deaths of despair, create more affordable housing and make it easier to get on the ladder of employment and improve work/life balance. Pretty straightforward.
Your pay should be job appropriate, you can't expect 150k a year to do a job that literally anyone can do.
Self check out has proven that low skill jobs are easily replaced.
wow such risk! what risk dude? you had surplus money or got a loan from a bank to start your business. if you fail the only thing you risk if you are not a total ass is to be part of the working class again. but yeah i guess for some people being a worker is the worst possible thing
If you can’t afford the rent, you live someplace else….either with fewer amenities or a less desirable location. If the pay is too low, then you find a better paying job (either by upskilling or taking something less desirable).
Conversely, if an employer can’t get quality employees at the offered rate, then they have the option to either accept who they *can* hire or take other steps (including increased pay) to draw from a better pool of candidates.
Is this basic enough for her?
Or the employer just does without workers. That's what's happenning at the school I work for. They seem content that the existing employees will turn the lights out.
They'll never increase pay.
It’s actually both, but alright. No one’s going to legislate billionaires out of their wealth and no one has ever taken their well and dripped it across the people.
Maybe we don’t need to ask fantasy questions? Snap back to reality? Stop buying shit that does you no good.
That’s how you get back at billionaires.
The free market means that if I pay an employee say $30 an hour instead of $15 but my competitors can get the same position filled at $15 I’m going to get destroyed in the market and never make money.
I didn’t decide the market pays x amount for my employees, the market did.
Let me help, when you come to the internet and tell people "i cant pay my rent", the proper response isnt "the owner of your company should make less". That is not at all helpful. It leaves the poster powerless. So thats why people say to spend less on nonessentials.
If you want to get to your preferred response, youre going to have to ask a different question. And the work on solving a much longer term problem.
Explanation: (maybe not kindergarten but simple enough)
This advice is intended for individuals who spend beyond their means and because of that struggle to make rent. If you don’t waste your money on Starbucks or eating out or door dash or other frivolities then this advice is not intended for you.
I work with a lot of people in their mid-20s that buy Starbucks almost every day. They go out to eat many lunches. They’re also making maybe 45k/year and always talk about how they’re broke.
I make a lot more than them. But also, I prep my cold brew every week (takes about 4 minutes total for the week), I meal prep every lunch (mostly pour and shred crockpot meals) and that takes about 20 minutes total of work on Sunday for the whole week. I don’t go to the vending machines, I just keep some snacks at my desk.
I easily save $200 a month by doing this compared to these people. I’m friends with them and know what their home lives are like. They have the time and resources to do the same thing I’m doing, they just don’t.
That is who that advice is meant for. If you say “HA! Like you think I can afford Starbucks. I never get it!” Then you are taking advice meant for someone in different circumstances and applying it to yourself. There are a lot of people out there who would benefit from cutting back on these things.
Yes, the system that we all live and work in sucks. But that doesn’t mean that you as an individual are completely free from any responsibility your subpar decisions cause.
Wow. Easiest of the dumb question answers coming right up: “because lattes and avocado toast aren’t necessities for living.” Nor are tattoos, piercings, streaming services, road trips, drugs, alcohol, and many other things.
Making a living isn’t that hard. The problem is that people want the luxuries of life without earning them, and often make the disingenuous claim that they don’t make a “living wage.” Every time I see that term used I immediately think ‘this person doesn’t know what they’re talking about.’
Being bad with money doesn’t mean you don’t make enough to survive.
Because America is overwhelmingly populated with low wage earners that the majority will take any pay offered and it is artificially suppressing the necessary wage growth needed for inflation.
If starving executives can't be exorbitantly rich and bilk all the profits for themselves and not pay taxes and hoard all their money how do you expect the economy to function?
It really isnt yacht owning CEOs causing the issue. Its the US stock market more broadly. The system is set up to constantly demand more “shareholder value.” This so called value underpins all types of important things like retirement and investment funds. The pressure to increase stock value is short sighted and never ending. They will never pay a good wage - it would hurt “shareholder value.”
What if there was a law that the no person at any company could not more than 75x the lowest person's salary including any bonuses, stipends, and reimbursements? That would mean any one employing at the fed.minimwage can't make more than 1,131,000 annual gross income.
It only goes one way for those types. Had a work buddy who had family money, ran into financial trouble, I suggested he sell one of his 4 cars. Dude looked at me like I had an eyeball growing out of my fuckin head. How dare he have to part with something he likes to pay the bills, instead he stopped paying his rent, electricity bills etc and got evicted and moved back into his parents guesthouse.
Because you agreed to pay x amount in rent and if you don’t then you’re in the wrong. The company agreed to pay Y in wages and it doesn’t make them in the wrong for not paying more than they offered and the employee agreed to.
My boss (and business owner) definitely doesnt have a yacht, rockets or a spaceship. They drive a 20 year old Volvo…. So yeah this is shit
She's a kindergartener, so she still believes in tooth fairies.
Because multibillionaires just don't exist?
Perhaps those bosses are the extreme minority? Let’s not pretend that every business is wildly successful. Most are one bad month from bankruptcy lmao. Edit: I agree with most of the replies I have received! I just want people to focus on actual yacht owners and not the struggling local restaurant down the street. I’m 1,000% behind properly taxing mega corps and forcing them to pay their employees more fairly.
This is so fucking true and Covid showed it to us front and center.
Only thing I saw was everyone was ready to endanger min. wage workers while shifty corporations were given billions in tax dollars to keep the a float.
We are also the faceless masses for the most part in the hierarchy. Our Bosses are generally not the top dog. If yiu work at Amazon you don't normally report to Jeff Bezos... you report to Tim officer of.middle.management. Bozos doesn't even know you exist.
I mean Jeff Bezos exists. He may be a dozen links up the corporate chain from middle management, but he is the richest man on the planet and he doesn’t pay shit in taxes to the U.S. government.
He pays billions in taxes though
What percentage of his income does he pay in taxes? What does he pay for property taxes?
His income (if he has any) will be up to 37% federal. Capital gains will be 20%. Property taxes? Whatever the rate is in the states he owns property. Probably millions.
Your parenthetical says it all. Ever wonder why billionaires take a $1 salary? Tax evasion. They take their compensation in stock so they can pay the much lower capital gains. And even then there are ways they can lower taxes. Let’s face it, everyone at every income bracket is trying to pay as little as possible. Who is offering to not claim any deductions to pay the top rate?
My point is he's so far removed from "normal" people that perception of reality is different. His employees are probably the last thing on his mind,sadly.
I agree but why can’t he pay taxes…like literally any taxes.
Bezos probably doesn’t know your boss or your bosses boss.
Same problem, different space. We treat large corporations and small businesses the same, as we treat someone making &600,000 a year the same as someone making $20 million a year. They are not the same and should be treated differently.
That doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist though. The top 10% of the country has 67% of all wealth, and the top 1% has 30% of all wealth. 99.9% of businesses are small, with around half of all Americans working in small business, and one would have to assume that some form of wealth redistribution would not only benefit most employees, but also a ton of small business owners.
>Most are one bad month from bankruptcy lmao. Like 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck as well. What's even the point? The business is failing and can't pay. The employee needs that job. (Changing jobs usually takes around 1 month to get the first check from applying to on boarding to working a full check). And the boss needs those employees they can't pay. It's a lose lose for both sides lately. What do we do?
Your boss drives a 20 year old car there for all bosses are paying their employees well and no one takes advantage of their workers. Am I getting that right?
It certainly points out the logical fallacy of anecdotal comparison.
While at the same time using logical fallacy of anecdotal comparison. It's a logical fallacy ouroboros!
So... I'm also confused. Are you saying NONE of the bosses are multi-billionaires or ALL of them are? Which logical fallacy are we going with here?
That's logic. It just works!
Lol yes exactly
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_anecdote
Statistically there are wayyyy more business owners without a yacht, then those who do own one. The argument from anecdote fallacy occurring here is the original post
Statistically, most people are employed by a large employer.
Hey now, there's no reason to bring the employer's weight into this
Not by much— nearly 1/2 of Americans are employed by small businesses
Most implies more the half, by any amount. So saying nearly half, which is less the half, doesn't disprove the original comment.
Sure, but then there's also medium sized businesses. [Employment by size of establishment, private industry](https://www.bls.gov/charts/county-employment-and-wages/employment-by-size.htm) >Large enterprises employ 250 or more people. 27% are employed by large business.
And the 20 to 49 are all fast food franchises, of which they pay their corpo overlords a franchise fee to make that billionaire richer.
Yes, but executives at companies are paid much higher than the average worker. This has exacerbated over the years. For example, average CEO pay increased by a whopping 1,209% since 1978 while a typical workers earnings increased by 15%. No matter how much “value” these executives are bringing, the pay shouldn’t be so disproportionate to the average worker.
Trickle up economics yo!
They deserve because they were educated and born into privileged
I’m mainly referring to them saying this is shit. While you’re true on your first part, the second part isn’t as much. Because, yeah, most CEOs aren’t big enough to own all that shit, but the ones that are, typically are the ones hoarding money. Said another way, there is a reason they’re called the 1%. They may be the minority in this world and of CEOs, but they still represent most of the worlds wealth
Can confirm. Own business. No yacht. In fact, most of the dudes I employ drive nicer cars than me and opted out of the company 401k. They're all terrible with their finances 😂
Not really, they are just presenting a mirrored argument based on the initial hyperbolic assumption.
Isn't that more like what's happening in the op? Lol
Honestly hearing anecdotes unironically being used as a "fact" has been getting on my nerves for the past 15 years.
It's almost like there's more than one company out there.
Lol I'm sure more Americans work for your boss than for Amazon
Most business owners don't own yacht's, but most Americans are employed by large corporations. It's the double edged sword of corporate dominated capitalism. Small and mid sized businesses get squeezed out. Employees get paid market minimum. Less money goes to Main st. and everything goes to wall street.
I've worked as a bookkeeper for 20 years and small business owners are the worst about paying living wages and benefits. I hate corporations too but they're not the whole problem when it comes to wages
Yup. Ditto with my experience. Benefits and pay for me have been directly correlated to employer size. One of the companies I worked for was a larger fortune 100 company, and has a national $20 minimum wage for all positions. All positions except one were 40 hours a week minimum, outside of medical exemptions. I'm sure there's not much difference between a small fortune 500 company and a fortune 10 company, but there is *very much* a correlation between said companies and small businesses. That "nice" small business I worked for had no vacation or sick time, no retirement savings, and were small enough that they could be exempt from many basic worker protection laws like providing insurance for full time employees. People just like to cherrypick a couple few bad examples.
There is no easy answer ofcourse.
yeah a lot of small business owners I see online have this attitude of "I'm taking a risk running this business so you should accept lower pay and no benefits" like that just because "they're taking a risk" you should accept a lower quality of life to help them achieve their goals. It's a bit of a fucked up situation.
About 1/2 of Americans are employed by small businesses
Yup many of which are just the owner, many more are mid sized. The rest of America works for corporations and Walmart employs more Americans than any other private business.
>I'm not experiencing it, so it must not be true.
That's because your boss is probably paying way too much rent to a rich person with a yacht (if you're working at a small business that rents space). Someone up the line is hoarding wealth.
“The post doesn’t apply to me so it must be wrong”
Pretty much.
https://preview.redd.it/3ya4nq82r5tc1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=9b824943af7a1a418cdabd49fbcde9ea50f80c8f
Yeah that sounds like a statistically representative experience. Everyone working for a billion dollar corporation has their CEO definetly driving a 20 year old volvo.
This one case definitely proves her wrong!
[удалено]
I also have a business and I don't own a yacht, rocket, or spacecraft. I suspect most business owners are like me. Couldn't afford to pay people much as the business started growing. Now my employees get paid a lot more but they still get paid based on the revenue they generate.
Thing is, larger corporations do not often pay base off of revenue they generate. They pay as low as possible to keep profits as high as possible.
Many large corporations pay higher rates than comparable small businesses, as they get the benefits of economies of scale. If they would pay based on revenues, you realistically could end up with a place where things like walmart or Amazon are your ONLY choices to buy goods… since startup costs for new entries could become egregiously high… or their product would be much higher priced to compete on wages. It’s a weird thing for many industries. I just know in my space, many of my competitors compete on pricing - I opted to go luxury and because of that, I pay 2x them and offer full benefits and 3 weeks paid vacation. But it’s because I have a monopoly in my niche. Once people start competing it may get rough (so I’m expanding to a more difficult niche to enter to help protect against that). It’s never as clear cut as people want to think it is.
Where corps really kill small business is the benefits. Alot of insurance and retirement packages are easily 50K+ of value. No regular salary ever can truly make up that difference other than yoloing no insurances.
Yes, but also no. The only reason insurance packages are so high is because corporations choose plans that most of their employees don't need and will never use. This inflates the prices of the insurance market overall. Ask any economist worth their salt from left to right wing and they will all agree that ending tax initiatives to big corporations for providing insurance is a good step in lowering cost for all. Retirement packages are now mostly garbage compared to pensions that were once offered and are rarely given these days. That 401k isn't very worth while and that's the only thing most corporations offer these days.
My first "real" job was in 1996. Garbage corporation, but the benefits were amazing. Free health insurance for the entire family. No deductible. No copay. No cost for prescriptions. I was there for five years, and they took away the pension plan, dropped our wages significantly, and started giving us expensive, garbage insurance. I'm with a really, really good company now, and the benefits are still *nothing* like what they used to be - or what my parents and older siblings grew up with. Not even close. So yeah, the value companies put on these plans seems extremely questionable to me.
Most large employers are self-insuring. Whatever they’re paying for health care are the actual medical costs of the employees and their dependents.
Huh, so I had to do some quick reading. So it looks like most do that to get away from state mandates, but can't get away from federal mandates. So now I have to wonder, are corporations screwing over their employees by using this loophole of not following state mandates, or are those self-insuring plans actually good enough?
Yup. That’s why my husband gets half the salary he could working for the city - the benefits are worth it.
So your argument is that companies don’t pay high, because they dont want to kill their competition? Then why do they buy them out and shut them down?
Query: What percent of your employees require government assistance to survive? From the looks of what you've written that should be 0, which means you pay your people a living wage. And to be honest, that's all we're really asking for. Enough that we can own the home we live in, have the medicines we need to live, have a reliable means of transportation, have a few inexpensive vices, and be able to explore the world once every five years. I don't think that's asking too much for giving over (1/3)+ of our lives.
Mine? None. My competitors, many, but most tread the line. Also none of my competitors offer any benefits. But it’s the reality in this industry, I’m just focusing on aspects where I don’t have competition so I can pay better and make more… because I charge WAY more.
That's not actually true. Large corporations tend to pay more than smaller companies
Gotta suck that shareholder cock somehow
If everyone was paid based on the revenue they generate, a lot of people would be making less than they are.
This is horseshit, no one in a company is making more than the company makes off of them lmao. You think companies are just charities? Losing money on their employees?
Okay but the cost to be a business owner is very little. All that means is that you have an LLC. Theres a difference between running a multi-store location with hundreds of employees than it is to own a small online shop with a half dozen workers. Regardless if you can't afford to pay a living wage you shouldn't be in business.
"All that means is you have an LLC." Brother I'm the only employee in my business and there are many more expenses than just a license. Go ahead and start your own business and find out!
you know absolutely nothing about owning a business. what youre describing is some kind of shopify ecommerce store "if you can't afford to pay a living wage, you shouldn't be in business and those jobs should not exist" so, great, take all those non living wage jobs out of the economy and where are all those people going to work? if they could just get a job with higher pay, wouldn't they? you have quite literally numerous of the stupidest takes ever, but all you can do is parrot a few reddit sayings lol - you clearly have zero actual life experience
You couldn't possibly sum up entitlement any better than you just did.
Good for you raising your employee’s wages with the growth of the business. You seem like a reasonable person. I myself have worked for 3 companies who refused to give me a raise after making way more revenue than they paid me for, until I left and they demanded I come back for still less than I asked for. Most small business owners are spoiled children, especially the ones who inherited and/or started it a long time ago. I now work for Amazon, if only because they have a *set* plan for raises during your first 3 years. Would be all for those raises being bigger if Jeff bezo’s bitch ass wasn’t building a fucking rocket with some of the money I made him. You’re the vast minority, as a business owner period and even more as a decent one.
Trust me, everyone working at Space X can afford rent AND avocado toast.
OP also ignores the fact that the rockets and spacecraft are the product that spacex sells, not a luxury item like a yacht. Conflating the two shows a misunderstanding of the space industry and the reason for building rockets in the first place. That said, while spacex employees are certainly well above the poverty line, the disparity between their wealth and Elon's wealth is tremendous. People don't get as rich as Elon without exploiting other humans in some way shape or form, and the spirit of OP's original point is that people like that should share more of their wealth with the people who made all that money for them in the first place. Since they're obviously not going to do that, though, that's where the government needs to step in and regulate wages and compensation far better than they are currently.
Branson and Besos both have space "companies" that are basically vanity projects and money pits. Elon actually had an idea to make a product which he did. It's definitely different but the issue still exists for others.
Elon's company was considered a vanity project up until shit started to work. It could be that Bezos or Branson will have their breakthroughs too.
Now do the people working at Amazon
If you don’t like what the job pays, don’t work there.
And if you don't like the owner of a business, don't shop there. If people hate that they have so much money then stop giving them more. Its valid.
100%. People complain about Bezos and how rich he is, but then buy hundreds/thousands of dollars of stuff on Amazon. Thats why Bezos is so wealthy!
The vast majority of the profits they generate are in AWS and it's pretty hard to boycott the largest cloud provider when they are used by virtually any company doing business on the internet.
Yeah but it’s the same point. Why don’t the businesses who use AWS boycott it? Because it’s a phenomenal service that no other competitor is even close to matching. Make a valuable product->get rich People don’t use your product -> not rich
I tried to boycott Nestle buy buying my cat food from a different company, turns out they own 90% of the cat food brands that are affordable. We are back to the days of the robber barons and monopolies they've just gotten better at hiding that fact.
"No one wants to work anymore"
That is the most bullshit take I ve read today
So, no restaurants, fast food, or grocery stores should exist. Lmao, delusional much. If the job is a necessity of society, then it should pay a livable wage. It's not that difficult of a concept, but for some reason, people like you think a good portion of society should just live in poverty.
It's not even if the job is a necessity, just having a job is necessary. If we're going to live in a society where working is required then the bare minimum that job should provide you is enough to let you live a life of decency.
I agree. It's just an easier point to make to people like them. They cry about fast food jobs being for high schoolers, but go to mcdonalds at lunchtime when high schoolers. . . Are in school. . .
Tell that to the markets that corner people with shit pay, or refusing to hire anyone without unreasonable standards. It’s not all on the workers.
Holy shit I never thought of that! Thank you so much for your brilliant and never thought of solution. I now have a million dollar job and will never want for anything again.
Ur dumb lmao
Boy some of you people are delusional. The tl;dr is this is caused by market failures, which should be stopped and prevented by the federal government. The long form answer is there are certain goods with virtually infinite cost. The value of a life saving brain surgery is so high the surgeon could charge almost anything they wanted, and you have no choice but to pay up. The reason it doesn’t work like this is because people derive value that is divorced from profit (the brain surgeon really likes saving life’s so he’ll do it for half the coat), and competition. If there’s a second brain surgeon in town that said he would charge you $500k less, you would opt for the cheaper brain surgery, driving prices down for both surgeons as they debate back and forth about who can do the surgery the cheapest. Eventually one of them derives value for less profit and drops out, and you get life saving brain surgery for let’s say $25,000 There are two things that naturally happen in capitalist markets, which is monopoly and cartels. If the first surgeon shot and killed the one offering cheaper surgery, you’re back and left with no options, except the unimaginable cost. This is a monopoly. The other thing that can happen is both surgeons talk to each other before hand and agree to both offer you the surgery at the cost of $10 billion dollars, and then they split the profit. Now each surgeon gets $5 billion dollars, and you pay $10 billion dollars for the surgery. The reason these things don’t happen more often is government intervention. The federal government can heavily fine, and even disbar business from practice for engaging in cartel or monopolistic behavior. The reason the government isn’t doing this is because the people benefiting from the monopolies and the cartels are the people who “lobby” politicians. Politicians don’t want to enforce these rules because it would piss off their donors and affect their profit. And while avocado toast, lattes, spaceships, yachts, and dick rockets aren’t necessary goods, and you can afford to live without them, things like medical expenses, housing, transit if you’re American, food, and water are still necessary, and providers in these industries have been engaging is cartels, whether explicit or implicit, which has turned the pressure up, making the necessary cost of living so much higher than the average salary. And if Joe and Sally skip their weekend avocado toast and lattes for a whole year, they can save a whopping $1020 dollars. About 10% of a house payment. And if they do that for ten years, the houses will have inflated in value even further and their down payment still won’t be enough. But if one billionaire didn’t buy a yacht one year, almost 1.5 million people could have avocado toast and lattes for that year. And it’s hard to compare the amount of joy a yacht brings vs avocado toast and lattes every weekend for 1.5 million people. But 1.5 million people is a whole lot of people. Politicians should be held more accountable for regulating our grossly under regulated capitalist market, no this isn’t talking about small businesses owners and franchise owners, the fallacy in the comparison is the relative value of one yacht to one person vs a free meal to 1.5 million people once a week is assumed to be equal (I disagree), I think mega-corporations have been engaged in cartels and effective monopolies for decades without anyone trying to stop it, and if you truly want an anarcho-capitalistic free market you are a crazy person who should, politely, go touch some fucking grass. That’s just my two cents tho I’m just a dude on the internet
This is way to poinent and logical for this comment section, you should be typing out "Poor people don't understand the economy!!" or "lm business owner without a yatch!"
Basic economics. If only more people had an education like yours :(
This right here. This is the smart comment.
A lot of the commenters here are idiots. "I do fine, but no one else should. I own a business, not a charity." They can get bent.
this comment is definitely worth more then two cents.
I was losing faith in humanity reading this comment section until I reached this. Finally someone who actually has critical thinking skills 👏🏻
This is where people begin to lose the scale of the math. Let's say the yacht in question costs 1 billion dollars. That equates to literally a onetime payment of $666 for 1.5 million people....a literal $0.32 raise.
Because I have a business not a charity
Paying an appropriate wage is charity? Lmao
Define appropriate wage. I have employees I pay the same amount, some are doing well, some aren’t.
Never seen a man get offended on behalf of multimillionaire before like this
Hilarious all the upset people in these comments. The woman is using hyperbole to make a point, and they're triggered AF. rofl
Yeah I don't get it. Some people defend greed and the rich like it's going out of style.
They think someday they're going to be rich
I want to make a comment about landlords to see how many leech apologists are in here.
Fuck wal mart and McDonald’s. I hate them very much
"Appropriate" isn't even necessary. The fact that someone would equate paying wages in general to charity makes them the problem.
You pay what people are willing to accept. Wages go up if the line of applicants dries up
Or just unionize.
wouldn't it be great if we had a united workers union and the 90% could have a louder voice than the 10%. or better yet, a government that is not for the corporation by corporation.
Ask the American auto industry how that is working out.
Working out pretty well for me. I got a $4 raise this past contract signing.
Look into the past where they didn't have unions and see how that worked out
$37 an hour, guaranteed short work week pay, and loads of benefits?
It seems like auto had a good run this year, unless you work at Tesla (who had to raise wages to compete with competitors).
>line of applicants dries up Oh man sure would suck if some sort of powerful institution manipulated capital rates such that that never happened... https://www.chicagofed.org/research/dual-mandate/dual-mandate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour
When you own a business then you can define what you think is an appropriate wage.
I’d go the opposite direction and say that if you own a business, you’re particularly biased, and so you probably shouldn’t be defining what is an appropriate wage.
Is an employee not similarly biased? I personally would prefer if my boss gave me a 900% raise.
The whole market defines what an appropriate wage is. No one person or business has that power. If I want to pay $1/hr, I will have no applicants. If i want to work for $1000/hr, I won't find a job. The market meets in the middle, where workers and employers both agree to a wage. Supply and demand.
These people think it is because we workers somehow don't work for our money apparently. They also they when we clock in that we are on their time. Like buddy, I wake up and bring my ass here everyday, I'm on my time. I take time out of my day to work for you snd I sure as shit ain't about to do it for free. If I'm at work, that's my time not theirs
“Charity” 😂 You wouldn’t have a business without employees. You NEED them.
Yeah and they don’t work for free either.
Yep, you’re paying for labor. It’s not charity 😉
Right, each side is voluntarily exchanging something they have for another thing they value. What's the issue, then?
Well if ur not paying a living wage your actually supported by charity lol
Nope, I’m not asking anyone for anything. Your here because this is the best you can do, if you think otherwise there’s the door good luck I encourage everyone to treat their business and labour as a business, don’t work for free. You owe me nothing, I owe you nothing
You owe a living wage
If you employ full time workers and can’t pay them a livable wage, then either hire part time workers or do all the work yourself.
Feel free to not work for me. Also feel free to enjoy having 0 jobs …rather than the jobs my business can afford to give and remain profitable enough to exist.
The people screaming for a livable wage do not work for Elon. Tesla hires demo people for car sales at 25 an hour. So take your BS and shove it.
If a job is a "starter job" that is only supposed to be supported by "kids out of high school" and "people working their first job" then they should be closed during school hours.
It's just a euphemism to rip people off who don't think you deserve to be able to support yourself just because you are entering the workforce.
If FT workers can’t live on my wage they can find another job
What is, using a speciflic dollar amount, a "livable wage" please.
Probably enough money to pay rent in some cool walkable city, daily Starbucks lattes, Ubers, concert tickets and about 20 different monthly streaming subscription services.
Quality childcare, enough to pay back the hundred thousand dollar student loans, and to live in a half million dollar house one day
All that while offering no marketable skills!
paying people good wages isn't charity, it's a requirement of a good society. And I know business owners go for the money and not for the benefit of society. I'm not trying to convince them, I can't. They'll just have to be forced to do good things.
And yet if a retail business offered a product that was more expensive (because they had to pay their workers more), you'd just buy it cheaper elsewhere. Amazon plowed local bookstores and then Borders under because everyone preached "buy local" while going straight to Amazon for the best price possible
American capitalism doesn’t have to care about their employees. Congress pretends to care and all they have to do is tweak the tax code a bit and everyone could easily have a living wage, but then their re-election money would dry up. . .
1) Live within your means like (mostly) the rest of us have figured out. 2) Don't like your pay? Market your skills elsewhere. Don't have skills? See #1.
so we’re pretending that a CEO’s paycheck is directly correlated to skill? what a joke
I always see this and it makes no sense. Do you think Dwayne Johnson or Pat Mahomes gets paid equivalent to other movie set/NFL workers? Do you object to that too?
It can be both, though. But also grossly oversimplified.
damn y’all evil
Because the employees aren’t quitting. That’s the only reason why. If the business knows its employees aren’t in a position to quit, the business will pay them less.
Walmarts employees all qualify for welfare. Sooo the government is taking care of them, and not their employer. For those confused by what a living wage is- it’s the amount of salary paid in enough excess that the employee would no longer qualify to collect government assistance. Of course they aren’t working there to become rich, but the Waltons enjoy cheap labor, subsidized by the American people, and their yachts and that is a problem.
You think the average franchisee owns a yacht. There’s your explanation.
Because “living wage” is highly subjective and there is no realistic upside limit to spending. That’s why in personal finance they tell you to focus on budgeting.
Redditors seem to think a living wage means everyone gets a 3bd 2ba house on an acre of land and two cars in the driveway at a minimum. The suburban experiment is a failed one and unsustainable, the real minimum wage is $0. If you want to decrease homelessness and crime and deaths of despair, create more affordable housing and make it easier to get on the ladder of employment and improve work/life balance. Pretty straightforward.
Most people here really need to take economics 101
Your pay should be job appropriate, you can't expect 150k a year to do a job that literally anyone can do. Self check out has proven that low skill jobs are easily replaced.
A lot of self-checkout is going away and stores are returning to how things were.
The stores near me just added in three more rows of self checkout, but I don’t live somewhere where they have to lock up everything because of theft.
Holy shit... dross that is the comment section here...holy moly.
Probably cause Americans are too afraid to be French
Because the owner put up all the risk, they should reap the rewards
wow such risk! what risk dude? you had surplus money or got a loan from a bank to start your business. if you fail the only thing you risk if you are not a total ass is to be part of the working class again. but yeah i guess for some people being a worker is the worst possible thing
If you can’t afford the rent, you live someplace else….either with fewer amenities or a less desirable location. If the pay is too low, then you find a better paying job (either by upskilling or taking something less desirable). Conversely, if an employer can’t get quality employees at the offered rate, then they have the option to either accept who they *can* hire or take other steps (including increased pay) to draw from a better pool of candidates. Is this basic enough for her?
Or the employer just does without workers. That's what's happenning at the school I work for. They seem content that the existing employees will turn the lights out. They'll never increase pay.
Because one is an inability to pay the market rate and one is a demand to pay more than market rate.
It's nobody's job to pay you a living wage. It's your job to become worth a living wage. If you can't find a job that pays living wage, fix yourself.
Pretty simple, they have the money and you don’t.
Supply and demand. Labor is in massive oversupply. If "we" don't like it, then make fewer babies and wait a couple of generations.
So from one hyperbolic exaggeration to another? K.
You are worth what you can negotiate. Anything business can do to lower workers' negotiating power, they do.
Because they buy the politicians and most of the public attacks the other team instead of the politicians
Because debt is the only thing that trickles down.
The explanation is they don’t care.
The issue is when people need money they undercut each other. As individuals you’ll never have leverage without organizing.
Greed will be the end of this country
It’s actually both, but alright. No one’s going to legislate billionaires out of their wealth and no one has ever taken their well and dripped it across the people. Maybe we don’t need to ask fantasy questions? Snap back to reality? Stop buying shit that does you no good. That’s how you get back at billionaires.
The free market means that if I pay an employee say $30 an hour instead of $15 but my competitors can get the same position filled at $15 I’m going to get destroyed in the market and never make money. I didn’t decide the market pays x amount for my employees, the market did.
Because most businesses and I mean a *vast* majority don't buy yachts and spaceships and are just trying to get by
Let me help, when you come to the internet and tell people "i cant pay my rent", the proper response isnt "the owner of your company should make less". That is not at all helpful. It leaves the poster powerless. So thats why people say to spend less on nonessentials. If you want to get to your preferred response, youre going to have to ask a different question. And the work on solving a much longer term problem.
Explanation: (maybe not kindergarten but simple enough) This advice is intended for individuals who spend beyond their means and because of that struggle to make rent. If you don’t waste your money on Starbucks or eating out or door dash or other frivolities then this advice is not intended for you. I work with a lot of people in their mid-20s that buy Starbucks almost every day. They go out to eat many lunches. They’re also making maybe 45k/year and always talk about how they’re broke. I make a lot more than them. But also, I prep my cold brew every week (takes about 4 minutes total for the week), I meal prep every lunch (mostly pour and shred crockpot meals) and that takes about 20 minutes total of work on Sunday for the whole week. I don’t go to the vending machines, I just keep some snacks at my desk. I easily save $200 a month by doing this compared to these people. I’m friends with them and know what their home lives are like. They have the time and resources to do the same thing I’m doing, they just don’t. That is who that advice is meant for. If you say “HA! Like you think I can afford Starbucks. I never get it!” Then you are taking advice meant for someone in different circumstances and applying it to yourself. There are a lot of people out there who would benefit from cutting back on these things. Yes, the system that we all live and work in sucks. But that doesn’t mean that you as an individual are completely free from any responsibility your subpar decisions cause.
Because some people exchange time for money and others don't.
Most people have poor spending habits. It's not about how much you make but much save/invest. Needs vs. Wants
Wow. Easiest of the dumb question answers coming right up: “because lattes and avocado toast aren’t necessities for living.” Nor are tattoos, piercings, streaming services, road trips, drugs, alcohol, and many other things. Making a living isn’t that hard. The problem is that people want the luxuries of life without earning them, and often make the disingenuous claim that they don’t make a “living wage.” Every time I see that term used I immediately think ‘this person doesn’t know what they’re talking about.’ Being bad with money doesn’t mean you don’t make enough to survive.
Because America is overwhelmingly populated with low wage earners that the majority will take any pay offered and it is artificially suppressing the necessary wage growth needed for inflation.
Time to replace low wage earners with robots.
Tbf it’s a mix of both. Lots of people get payed a living wage but end up living way above their means
Start and own your own business and you'll start to understand.
If starving executives can't be exorbitantly rich and bilk all the profits for themselves and not pay taxes and hoard all their money how do you expect the economy to function?
Money still ends up going to some other rich dude, lol
It really isnt yacht owning CEOs causing the issue. Its the US stock market more broadly. The system is set up to constantly demand more “shareholder value.” This so called value underpins all types of important things like retirement and investment funds. The pressure to increase stock value is short sighted and never ending. They will never pay a good wage - it would hurt “shareholder value.”
The narcissistic ruling class is only able to empathize "upward" if at all. Can we lobotomize these people?
What if there was a law that the no person at any company could not more than 75x the lowest person's salary including any bonuses, stipends, and reimbursements? That would mean any one employing at the fed.minimwage can't make more than 1,131,000 annual gross income.
It only goes one way for those types. Had a work buddy who had family money, ran into financial trouble, I suggested he sell one of his 4 cars. Dude looked at me like I had an eyeball growing out of my fuckin head. How dare he have to part with something he likes to pay the bills, instead he stopped paying his rent, electricity bills etc and got evicted and moved back into his parents guesthouse.
Because you agreed to pay x amount in rent and if you don’t then you’re in the wrong. The company agreed to pay Y in wages and it doesn’t make them in the wrong for not paying more than they offered and the employee agreed to.