Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Republican Candidate: "I Do Not Support A Livable Wage" (VIDEO)" video.

Stephen Cody, let me ask you? Do you run you car of money? Do you eat money? Do you heat your home with money? Does money teach a college class? No. You run you car on gas (most likely). You eat food, heat your own with electricity or gas, and a professor teaches a college class. People do not value money, they value goods and services. If you increase the velocity of money but do not increase the production of goods and services then you do no grow an economy. What grows the economy is production. That is why the min. wage has never done anything positive for the economy.
2
Tiny Hands Donald, you actually shot yourself in the foot. Productivity has been rising because of technology, not because people are working harder. You have to realize a few things. 1. Those that invested and work with that technology has seen an increase in their wages, it is called Skilled Biased Technological Change 2. You point at the 70s. What happened around that time? The increase in the payroll tax. That meant that if businesses paid a higher wage they will pay a higher tax. Instead they paid with benefits such as healthcare insurance. Also you had the creation of other federal programs such as the EPA, OSHA, DOE, etc. The federal government also grew during that time. 3. Increase productivity means goods and services are better and cheaper. Look at cars, computers, cell phones, etc. They are all better and cheaper. How much did a CD player cost in the 1980s? Now you can store thousands of songs on an iPod that is much cheaper then a CD player. Your smart phone has more computing power then what put a man on the moon. A brick cell phone cost $4000 in the 1980s if you include inflation. Your smart phone is much cheaper then that and also includes a computer, walkman, pocket calculator and other technology from the 1980s. 4. Just because overall productivity has increased doesn't mean that the lowest skilled workers have become more productive. NFL players are faster and stronger but we still have people in the US who are very slow.
2
"Productivity is always rising, while wages have stayed stagnant." The economy is much more complicated then that.
2
NickTheGreatAndPowerful, two things. 1. How is what I said stupid? You just saying it is is not an argument. 2. Every president has said, that can be considered to many, asinine things. I can point out several things that Obama said that was stupid.
2
TheUltimateBeing01, what grows the economy is production, not spending. There is always demand for better goods and services. People want better lives. People want better things. That is why companies continue to produce better cars, better phones, different flavors of food and so on. Mars just released a new type of M&M. Why? Because it is new and something better for some. People like better things. In the end, though, you can't consume what you don't produce. More money in the system does not make people and machines work faster. This is not to be rude but you really need to study more economics.
2
TheUtuber999, cars today are cheaper not only in sticker price but mainly in quality. Cars today get better gas mileage, have more amenities, are safer, and last longer. "Runaway exec pay needs to be reversed, meaning workers get a higher percentage of profits... the way it used to be." Executive pay is not that high. For example, if you were to take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread their salaries to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart those workers will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. A lot of profits of these big companies go to shareholders who want to see a return in their investment. Without shareholders those businesses will be much smaller. Now while that does have some advantage, it can also lead to higher prices and less jobs. I am not saying things are all a great, but you have to be careful in what you think is bad and when put in a different, and most likely proper perspective it really isn't a problem.
2
" people need more money. Higher pay, better economy." Ok, so do you support a $100/hr min. wage?
1
"But yes, inflation matching is the bare minimum sane plan." How? Does that mean everything in the market inflates? That is basically what you are saying. You are saying that everything inflates which isn't true.
1
NickTheGreatAndPowerful, you have to justify your position. Until you do I can't take you seriously.
1
TheUltimateBeing01, you can't consume what you don't produce, period. If we had a warehouse full of cars then the price of cars will drop, or those cars are not worth anything as a better car is in the market and is affordable. People and machines can only produce so much. Increasing the velocity of money is not going to increase the rate people and machines produce things. Let us use the min. wage for a simple example. If a company has 10 employees that all produce $8/hr that company pays $7/hr, then that company is earning $10/hr from each worker. Now if you increase the min. wage to $10/hr does not mean those workers will all of a sudden produce at $10/hr. They might if you change some things such as 1. raise prices 2. cut hours and be open only during peak hours 3. take a short loss by investing in technology to replace the workers But none of that helps the employees where only the last one may help the consumer.
1
TheUtuber999, cars are cheaper. And how is exec pay running away?
1
Blair, you are looking at executive pay compared to the individual worker. As I showed you with the Walmart example, if you take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread their salary to the 525,000 lowest paid employees they will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. What will lowering executive pay do?
1
TheUltimateBeing01, even is supposed increased sales those workers are still producing only $7/hr. That's it, period. You will have a shortage of supply leading to an increase in price.
1
"Both. They value both. If people did not value money, why would people use it? " Money is placed in a develop economy to solve two problems 1. The retention of values problem 2. The double incident of wants problem In the end money has no value until it is invested in a way that people perceive to be valuable. People value goods and services. If you artificially increase the velocity of money then prices will go up.
1
"No, not everything in every industry or market will grow with inflation. Different markets react differently to different economic changes. But what Thomas Kilmer was referring to was the overall economy. The real GDP and CPI/PPI indicators changing to reflect overall inflation." If you look at the overall economy you may see inflation. That is debatable. But if you look at individual parts of the economy some things inflate, some deflate, and some remain stagnant. What is the value of the K-mart and Blockbuster employee? $0. But according you to simply because of inflation they should not only be employed but be paid $15/hr.
1
"Executive pay is ridiculous. They make millions. People at the bottom only get a few hundred or thousand a week at these lousy jobs." They are responsible for a lot more then those workers. Without them those on the bottom most likely won't have a job.
1
"Lowering executive pay would free up profits to be redistributed to the workers, Pink." As I said, if you were to take the top 6 executives of Walmart and spread all of their salaries to the 525,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart those employees will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. What will they do with that extra money? Also, is that really a lot? That is less than $11 a month. Really, you are not going to win the numbers game here.
1
"Pink, a shortage of product could be avoided if the company increases productivity. Thus leading to more job creation." Those workers only produce $8/hr and you are paying them $10/hr. You are losing money. If you hire someone new you are still over paying.
1
" Blockbuster is defunct. It is not counted in GDP, Consumer Price Index or Producer Price Index calculations." The value of the Blockbuster employee went down, just like the value for the brick cell phone went down. The price of some goods and services go up, some stay stagnate, some go down.
1
"Very debatable. I'm always hearing about lazy or incompetent CEOs and Directors underperforming but being overpaid." No debatable. If a worker at Walmart does not do their job then a shelf won't get stock at a store. If the CEO does not do their job the entire company goes under and all those people lose their jobs.
1
"You're missing the point. The top people's pay comes directly out of profits. Lowering their pay means more profits for shareholders and employees. So they could make a LOT more than a marginal increase of $147/yr if the top earners' take home pay is cut deep enough." You clearly did not read what I wrote. If you took the entire salaries of those top 6 executives meaning they are earning zero then the 525,000 lowest paid employees will only earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. How will they make more then that? Show me the numbers.
1
"Only if sales don't go up. You're ignoring that possibility altogether." I am not because I am saying prices will go up. Let me give it to you in a another way. Say those 10 workers, who produce on average $7/hr are producing 700 widgets an hour. Now sales go up, but those workers are still only producing 700 widgets an hour. The business has to raise prices. Those workers can only work so fast. This is not to be rude but when your response about the Walmart executive it is clear you are not fit for this debate. Tell me how cutting the entire salaries of the executives would mean that those employees will be earning a lot more then $147/yr. Where are the numbers? The fact is that the money is not there.
1
"And what is your point?" My point is that the value of those workers dropped. But according to you not only should they still be employed but they should be paid $15/hr because you feel everything inflates.
1
"Really? I wouldn't be so sure. I mean, we have a president of the entire country who goes on golfing trips every goddamn weekend. He's not running the country at all. Yet, America didn't fall into disarray. " Golf trips are more political then what you think. "Leadership is overrated. " Nope, it is what drives success. "Oftentimes, if you want to be real, leaders are NOT needed" Who is going to manage the crowd? " If the CEO at Wal-Mart falls out dead tomorrow and Wal-Mart couldn't find a replacement in time, employees will STILL clock in for work and do their job!" How? Who will make them work? Walmart employees will just clock in and sit around collecting a paycheck until Walmart runs out of money because no one is producing. Also, those workers will not get paid as no one will sign the checks. Tell me, why will those workers work if they don't get paid? "You think not having a director or ceo is going to stop someone from trying to survive? " No one is there to sign there checks or manage the money. "And all these CEOs do is sit in an office and stare at a document or spread sheet all day." At this point I am done with you. You feel that without a boss people will still work for a company even though no one will sign their checks.
1
"I'm skeptical of your calculations. I don't have Wal-Mart's financial data before me. So I can't say. But considering it's a multibillion dollar corporation, they can pay their workers more. ALOT more." They work on razor thin profit margins. But here https://www.vox.com/2014/8/6/5970815/what-if-walmarts-ceo-took-a-pay-cut-for-his-workers
1
"Pal, I had to explain to you the very function of money." Which you failed miserably at. But at the same time you feel that a company without a manager or boss can have workers work at it and they will still somehow get paid even though no one will sign their checks. "You just tried to argue earlier in this thread that money has no value," In the end it doesn't. Goods and services are what people value. "You are the one who doesn't understand economics." Again, this is coming from a guy who feels that a company doesn't need a boss who signs checks. "Sales go up but worker productivity is at a threshold. What would the company be forced to do? Lay people off? No, so the unemployment argument doesn't hold." A company will lay off people. A company that is 24 hours can instead be open from 6 AM to 10 PM which are peak hours. A franchise with 10 stores can downsize to 8 stores. These things happen as they do not have the money to afford higher wages. Increasing prices will lower demand for that business as well. So they simply can't raise prices. " Hire more workers to meet the demand! " It doesn't work that way as they do not have the money to begin with. Also, demand for them might not necessarily go up. What makes you think that people will spend all of that new income on every company equally? They won't. On top of that, what if unemployment is zero? You can't hire more at that point. "And if sales go up, you ignore the fact that would mean the company is bringing more money" If they are not producing enough they won't be. Also, they are paying a higher wage and also a higher payroll tax which means they are losing money. You are literally saying you pay someone $20 and you make $30 in the end. That does not make sense.
1
"I never said what the minimum wage level should be. Nor did I ever say "everything inflates."" You did say that everything inflates when you said the min. wage should be indexed to inflation. You are saying that even the lowest skilled worker's labor value increases even though in the market some thing inflate, some things deflate, and some things remain stagnate. The min. wage is what it is, the lowest skilled workers who are valued the least. Just like there are certain goods who are valued at a low price and some that are essentially worth $0 as they have deflated in value by so much. The same happens with labor. What makes someone who flips burgers work more today then 20 years ago? Nothing. But what makes college tuition so high? Two things. One, increase demand because of the changing economy and next, the federal loan program. "And the worker's value is not tied to the profit the company earns from them. That's a misunderstanding you have about how to understand the contributions of an employee. It's more to it than that. And honestly, workers produce MULTIPLES more than they are paid. That's how corporations profit. You tell me how can Wal-Mart be a multibillion dollar corporation that pays less than $10 per hour, PART TIME!" You keep picking on Walmart because you are myopic. You are ignoring smaller companies like Hy Vee and Raley's that pay similar wages. Why don't you complain about them? The reason why Walmart is a large as they are is because of shareholders. Their profits increase the value of those shares which is where people invest money and want to see it grow. If Walmart were to cut profits to overpay workers then the shareholders will sell them back causing Walmart to downsize and thus lay off people. You lack understanding of economics and business. But you also feel that a company doesn't need a person to sign checks and the workers will still work there and somehow magically get compensated.
1
TheUltimateBeing01, production drive the economy. If we don't produce consumers will have nothing to buy. A business will invest in what consumers want. But if you don't produce anything then there will be nothing for them to consume. If a business can't afford to keep their business open past 10 PM then you can't buy something from there.
1
"CEOs don't personally sign check, by the way. Corporations may employee an outside group just for that task! " Yes! The CEO will hire someone to sign those checks. But if you have no CEO then they can't hire someone to sign checks thus workers won't get paid. "And yes, if the CEO of WalMart passed out dead, people would still go to work. Regional managers and vice presidents are still on the payroll to get the work done! " Walmart will have a temporary CEO until a new one is put in place. In the end, though, someone is on top running the show. So tell me, if you don't have a CEO then who hires people to run the Walmarts and signs workers checks? Also, you have seemed to ignored my math dealing with the CEO of Walmart pay. So workers getting an extra $51.20 a year is supposed to drive the economy?
1
TheUltimateBeing01, I am sorry but you did not fair well in this conversation. I can tell by you calling me an "idiot" at the very end. You became frustrated and just called me an "idiot" and ran away. I suggest you learn how to argue better and not just use talking points.
1
Trond, if a business is not producing then you can't buy anything. You have to produce before you buy.
1
TheUltimateBeing01, you can check my math. Take $25.6 million and divide that by 500,000. I pick 500,000 because some of those 1.4 million can be managers, but not all. Well over half of those 1.4 million are the typical walmart associate. But 500,000 proves my point. $25,600,000/500,000=$51.20. If you take the McMillion's salary and spread it across to those 500,000 workers equally they will earn an extra $51.20 a year. That's it. There are 52 weeks in a year and a 40 hour work week you have 40*52=2080. And $51.20/2080=0.03 dollars/hr. I rounded it up. So cutting CEO pay to zero, and spreading it to the 500,000 lowest paid employees of Walmart, and assuming they all work 40 hours a week with no vacation, because Walmart is evil and does that, increases their wage to 3 cents an hour. Wow. I agree now. The min. wage should be doubled I guess. I mean, that extra three cents an hour will lead to a booming economy. Why was I so blind?
1
TheUltimateBeing01, you have to produce before you consume. A business will invest to produce things people want. Why was the car invented? Because a business thought people will want it eventually. Only the very rich could afford it, but it was still created. Same with cell phones, computers, CD players. JP Morgan help fund for Thomas Edison's invention because they knew that he will create things that can eventually be sold to the people. They will be expensive at first but eventually, with increased production, the price will drop. When you produce someone will buy it. The more you produce the more people will buy. But if you have not produced anything then nothing can be consumed. Will raising the min. wage mean that a company is going to invent teleportation?
1
"Most corporations have outside accounting agencies to handle payroll. Or they hire HR staff to do that." I agree. But in the end it is looked over by the CEO, someone on the top. Do you think these things just magically happen? Who sets this all up? Do those accounting agencies just say "gee, I guess we should work for this Walmart company", or does a team hired by the CEO come in and convince them to work for them? Which one is it? Let me ask you, will a football team do well without a head coach? Would a school do well without a principal? Would a state do well without a governor? There is someone on top that oversees the entire thing. Yes, they hire people beneath them to split up the tasks, but it starts with them. Also, you have yet to discuss my math dealing with the CEO of Walmart.
1
TheUltimateBeing01, if the CEO of Walmart were to die today people will still go to work, I agree. Just like if the governor dies, or if the president of my university dies. I will still go to work. But in the end someone will take over there spot.
1
"I can't discuss your math dealing with the CEO." Because you can't do algebra? "There's alot of information you're missing." Such as? "Forget the CEOs pay." You brought it up. " Do you realize that the annual income for WalMart is in the BILLIONS. EVERY YEAR! They definitely have savings to cover a higher wage for their workers. Not to mention to income they still generate year round. " They have to increase the value of the shares to keep their shareholders happy. If not they will sell them back causing Walmart to downsize leading to less jobs. I said this before and I will say it again. Do you know why companies like Hy Vee and Raley's have much smaller but pay similar wages while running essentially the same company? Because they do not have shares. Thus they can't expand. Walmart can because of shareholders.
1