English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

for greedy CEOs.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=7324

2006-06-21 13:01:54 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

13 answers

A good idea. A maximum wage for politicians and sports figures, well below present salaries.

2006-06-21 13:04:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It sounds great to raise the minimum wage so that everyone can make more money. The part that those who support the increase miss is the fact that the cost of goods goes up. Think about it. Let's say a McDonald's worker makes $6 an hour and the hamburger costs $3. If the McDonald's worker's wages are increaded to $8 and hour the cost of the hamburger will rise to $4 or $5. For the worker who has experienced a minimum wage increase this will probably wash out. For the majority of Americans in the middle class their wages won't increase but they will be negatively impacted because the cost of goods will go up.

Also, I don't understand why there is so much focus on such a small group of people. Very, very few workers are actually in the minimum wage bracket and the majority of those are under age 25. If the wages are increased the younger workers are forced out. It's basic economics.

BTW, Michael Moore is not mainstream even for the Democrats. If you want a better, more balanced understanding of the issue I would suggest not reading Michael Moore/

2006-06-21 13:07:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I agree with above posters - Michael Moore is by no means "mainstream" even for liberals...

Another issue raised is that of "sports figures" - one has to remember that only the very best make more than a million dollars a year. Furthermore, the average professional career lasts less than 4 years. Even if they do last longer, most don't make enough to retire, and so many find jobs after the NFL or NBA.

What kind of maximum wage would you set? CEOs, like most management, is salaried and is not paid by the hour (and for good reason - many would be below minimum wage...), so that wouldn't do anything.

Who would be HELPED by setting a maximum wage, anyway?

So quit listening to the fat, rich guy talk about how other guys make too much money. It simply stems from jealousy.

2006-06-21 13:16:19 · answer #3 · answered by eagle5953 3 · 0 0

elevating the minimum salary involves a good number of creating plans. The trickle down effect potential organizations ought to fee more effective for each thing with the intention to save up...etc... the enormous image must be appeared at, no longer in simple terms said. I paintings an hourly salary. Granted that is way above the minimum, i'm no longer wealthy, yet I stay less than my potential. I stay exceedingly properly for what I do. I continuously have money left over on the proper of the month.

2016-11-15 02:17:52 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

The reasons for the minimum wage denial were many -- in a way, it may end up not changing anything, or at worse, it might drive employers from the US.

But I like the maximum wage policy. No more than 250% of the hourly wage of the lowest paid worker in your company if you're the CEO!

2006-06-21 13:22:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I know this kind of stuff is frustrating, but focusing on the mimimum wage is not the answer. And restricting success definately isn't the answer. And, by the way, listening to Michael Moore isn't the answer. Check the facts. He's an extremely wealthy man who lies to accumulate further wealth.

Anyway, the answer is helping people out of minimum wage jobs. Many, many people start with minimum wage jobs, but they progress to something else that pays more. There are many ways to do that. You can't expect to rise out of poverty while being content to flip burgers your whole life. Whatever the details, that's the answer. Not government intervention to artificially set wages.

2006-06-21 13:09:14 · answer #6 · answered by Farly the Seer 5 · 0 0

Democrats depend on organized labor to win elections while republicans are aligned with big business interests that oppose any increase in the federal wages. Really there is a line draw on the dirt one is for the people one is for big companies who run congress which one are you?

2006-06-21 13:14:51 · answer #7 · answered by johnnybgoodpromise 2 · 0 0

Not a bad idea but it's never going to happen because politics is big money and politicans owe the people who donate to their campaigns and the average working guy is just fighting an uphill battle because of that. The politicians are always going to vote where the money is because to be in politics is to always have your hand out.

2006-06-21 13:08:53 · answer #8 · answered by jljdc 4 · 0 0

Yeah, and then we could all start sharing apartments with 2-3 other families. We could put our names on really long waiting lists to buy a new car. We could be filtered into various educational tracks leading into various careers that we could never, ever get out of no matter how much we hated it.

2006-06-21 13:05:36 · answer #9 · answered by cucumberlarry1 6 · 0 0

Ironic isn't? They also just voted to accept another pay raise for themselves.

All they really care about is big business having cheap labor....while the working poor get even poorer.

2006-06-21 13:06:19 · answer #10 · answered by opjames 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers