http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/poverty-with-a-side-order-of-ill-health-–-why-fast-food-workers-are-striking/ar-AAr5xlR?ocid=spartanntp The evil level of inequality that is considered normal makes me ill. There is no justifiable reason for any of this. None of the bs convoluted rationales economists come up with is justifiable. There is no reason for this kind of greed and selfishness that results in hardship and suffering for others. There is something so goddamn ridiculously wrong with economies and I really hope one day in the future, a more advanced society will look back and acknowledge this as heinous, barbaric, cruel, unjustified and unfair because it is. There is no real good reason why EVERYONE shouldn't be paid a good wage to afford the basics of life that provide human dignity. miminum wage should always be on par with that. these excuses that it raises the prices is untrue. you start looking at the other end of the rope of this unfair tug of war and this abject unfairness and greed. EVERY worker should be guaranteed a salary that can provide a decent minimum life which governments should factor in housing market, transportation/auto, food, healthcare and decent disposable income/savings as well as sick/paid leave/vacation. IT SHOULD BE THE RIGHT OF EVERY HUMAN BEING!!!!! this healthy, humane balance can be done but greedy people don't want it to be done! The writing has always been on the wall and it is very clear what the crux of the problem is. It is the obscene inequality between the malignantly greedy and selfish feeding off the malignant suffering of scarcity and desperation of others. It's really a form of insanity and toxicity. This is why you end up with megalomaniacs on the one spectrum and depressed and frustrated citizens on the other spectrum. There is NO justifiable reason for it. It truly is a sickness that can be remedied if people were honest enough to evaluate how to remedy it fairly for all concerned. for example, ceo's don't really need 30 plus or more millions per year etc. A company needs excess capital for protection, expansion and development but not to the extent that it justifies itself. It's bogus. It is just gratuitous greed that has been allowed to be the norm. The imbalance is too severe. The entire world and banking system as well as ethics needs to be radically changed and overhauled. I guarantee if it was switched the other way, and a ceo and it's top dogs had to a take a hit on their salary (which is only a false bruise to the ego) to, say, a third of the norm, they wouldn't be thinking of a strike because that is still a better and comfortable position which affords a lifetime of luxury and security than being the small guy on the totem pole.
I heard a discussion about increasing the minimum wage and one of the participants said that increasing the minimum wage will hurt small business and cause them to go out of business. Another participant said if there business model is based on having employees that are unable to support themselves on the employers wage then there business model is pretty crappy and they should fail.
The OP brought this Einstein article to mind. I read this quite sometime ago, now I will have to read it all again to remember. https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ This is the most quoted part, see link for full article.
Too little and too much inequality of personal wealth and income lowers the standard efficiency of production over time, and lowers the overall growth of GDP. Too much inequality of income and wealth is associated with shorter average adult height - regardless of median income. This is a summary statistic that tracks most of the factors lumped together under the rubric "quality of life". Another reason private capital concentrates unless prevented is that return to capital outpaces return to labor - so accumulations of capital tend to snowball.
From circa 1750 yo circa 1900-1920, the USA (& UK, I think) economy was a good approximation to laissez faire capitalism. Reprints of Sears Roebuck & Montgomery Ward catalogs from circa 1890 to 1910, indicate that the standard of living of typical farmers & factory workers was far better than it was circa 1800. Those companies sold to ordinary folks, while the affluent typically bought from Department stores like Wanamaker or imported luxury goods from Europe. The generation born circa 1970-1990 was the first to be less well off than their parents instead of better off. I suspect government overhead at local, state, & national levels is the cause.
The best we can hope for is equal opportunity. There will never be equal outcomes unless government has complete control of the economy & dictates equal outcomes. Why should the best, the brightest, and/or the most ambitious not have better outcomes than others? The communist motto From each according to his abilities; To each according to his needs. If you do not analyze the above, it seems like a noble concept. Analysis should conclude the following. It is a promise to not pay the best, the brightest, & the most ambitious what they have rightfully earned. It is a promise to reward accomplished whiners more than they have earned and more than they deserve. The result of such a policy can be expected to result in the best & brightest not working up to their potential and likely cause them to seek another country which rewards those who are competent.
Dishonest, right-winger. The op is has nothing to do with not rewarding the best and what is rightfully earned nor is it insinuating in any way that all pay should be equal. another dishonest reply. people who are not paid a living wage is what the issue is. and how dare you equate those who are not paid a fair wage to live decently to accomplished whiners. they have a reason to be complaining. another dishonest reply by moving goalposts. no one said the best and brightest should not be rewarded commensurate with their skill, intelligence and contribution to society. no one is implying that a doctor should be paid the same wage as a grocery clerk, for example. but that minimum wage, for instance, should be equal to afford a living, not barely sustaining it. how you could twist such from the op and it's article of the struggles of those in the service industry, especially, is very asinine, dishonest, and insensitive. in fact, your whole typical right-wing 'dinosaur' rhetoric is blatantly dishonest. it refuses to acknowledge those that are struggling in a society that depends on them but as if they are not important or barely, when in fact, they are the ones who are providing the services which make others lives more comfortable.
The MacDonald's workers are striking for better pay. I hope they get it. As I said in Post 7 Birch: Why rant about MacDonalds when they are paying the legal minimum wage legislated by the British government? Why not complain about the legislated minimum wage? BTW: It is interesting that Britain legislates a different minimum wage for 17 year old Tyrone ($6.41 per hour) & 24 Year old Tom ($10.19/hour). I do not think the USA differentiates based on age, but am not sure. I wonder about the typical wage & cost of living in Britain compared to the USA. Decades ago, two British citizens came to the USA to work at a firm that employed me, intending to save money & return to England. It might not be reasonable to discuss British wages in a USA Forum without considering differences in prices between Britain & the USA.
Birch: Sorry I brought up the communist/socialist slogan. It probably isn't pertinent to this discussion. I mentioned it due to your seeming to be communist/socialist oriented.
A lot of people spend more than $15 for a meal. If you're making $40 and hour, is spending $15 on a Big Mac a "problem"? Shouldn't the people who make the Big Macs be able to afford them? EDIT to fix LaTeX formatting - Kittamaru
It is also a warped propaganda meme: it is commonly presented as an excuse for authoritarian imposition, a recipe for coercive means, and that seems to be your take. As a libertarian criterion for evaluating governance, it does not imply centrally mandated and coerced outcome - by Left or Right. It works instead as a useful and universally acceptable standard against which any particular approach to governance can be measured. Authoritarians of the Left - big government communists especially (not socialists in general) - also put that propaganda twist on it, taking advantage of the obvious desirability of that state of affairs to justify all manner of miserable coercion. But its use by the authoritarian Right to disparage attempts to counteract the malign effects of the levels of inequality generated by poorly governed capitalism is more common these days. Both high and low levels of inequality do general damage to the entire society - including creating economies in which effort and ability are not rewarded, and ordinary needs are not met. The question is one of degree, level, not presence/absence. The best level of inequality is in the middle somewhere, maintained by wise governance. The US level is too high by far - that other societies have been too low is no excuse.
I think most people eating at McDONALDS are probably on the low end of the pay scale, but that is an assumption. I was on the last six bucks in my account today and managed to get two McDoubles and a Coke for 3.50 total. When I want to splurge, I go to Five Guys or Robbins. McDonald's caters to people on a budget.
