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

19 answers

It is generally not a good idea for government to dictate economic changes to a free competitive economy. However, it is also not a good idea for CEOs to receive compensation packages which are now about 400 times the compensation the average worker in the same company receives.
The CEOs control their board members and the committees that set the CEOs compensation.
Productivity has increase a lot in the last 10 years but the salaries of the workers has not.
A better way must be found.

2007-06-22 08:42:21 · answer #1 · answered by johnfarber2000 6 · 0 0

Wow. You manage to skate all over the political spectrum without ever landing on anything sensible. 1. Scroungers and slobs? Never been made unemployed, then? Hopefully, it will happen to you soon. As regards making them do menial jobs, won't that just make the people who do the menial jobs unemployed? And since when has been getting thrown onto the scrap heap by an incompetent government a crime fitting for community service? 2. Strangely New Labour, this one. You let yourself slip there. 3. Pretty much what happens anyway, but a little more extreme. Actually this one is a bit Old Labour. 4. Oh dear. This does not work. It produces ignorant morons and, frankly, it is not fair on the ones who aspire to be more than just a cog in an industrial machine. 5. Bullsh*t. If you think that turning a school into a depressing slum will have no effect on the morale of the teaching staff or the respect of the students, you understand nothing about education. 6. Aha. We've moved from Old Labour to the BNP now. This is economic and social suicide. With no trading partners and no influx of new cultures, we'd soon become as enlightened and wealthy as Burma and North Korea (which are countries - look them up). 7. And, of course, it's only a small step from the BNP to the Nazis. 8. And then back to the Daily Mail. This will have no economic benefit on the country. The means testing will cost more than the money saved. It's simple hate-thy-neighbour vindictiveness. 9. Oh, I see now. You're only 14. Get back to school and try and learn something this time.

2016-04-01 08:09:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Are you for real??? Do the math on a 40 hr week. 200$ X 40 = 8000$ a week. If you figure on a 4 week month that is 32,000$ monthly. Do you really in all honesty think that every person in the country needs a minimum wage Gross Pay Yearly of about 384,000$ ?

Instead of having a job paying that kinda money for minimum wage why not just make everything in the world free. Live in a world where there is no such thing as money.

2007-06-22 09:49:23 · answer #3 · answered by newfieswoman 2 · 0 0

No-- what logic would there be to that? Why would a convienience store clerk deserve to make $200 / hour?
$200/hour would easily put one in the top 2% (or there abouts) of wage earners.

The min. wage is tied to the poverty level and what is considered a "living wage". The whole thing is irrelevant anyway-- many states did it on their own based on market conditions.

That said, Min. wage really isn't supposed to be a living wage. Most on min wage are either really young (teens to early 20's) Or elderly (retirement age). Very few people (relatively speaking of course) who earn min. wage are the acutally the main wage earner for the family.

Stay in school!! Get a trade!!!

2007-06-14 12:50:54 · answer #4 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 0 1

give it time. as employers view minimum wage increases as a way to jack up revenue and blame the wage increase, it will eventually get there.
If you haven't noticed, just about everyone over compensates wage increases with boost in prices.
the companies make more money, the government makes more money, and the consumer is left holding a bill that is worth less than it was yesterday.

2007-06-14 13:00:48 · answer #5 · answered by jj 5 · 0 0

We have had steady inflation for ten years and steady stagnation in wages for that same period of time. In other words, profit has been going up but wages have been staying the same. Guess who wins? Oh but you still have to pay inflated prices of course. I mean, just because your paycheck doesn't inflate doesn't mean the price of meat doesn't skyrocket for you. Given the current rate of things, if minimum wage didn't go up, most of the U.S. would probably end up below the poverty line. Sounds like a blast lets do that instead.

2007-06-14 12:55:44 · answer #6 · answered by Memnoch 4 · 2 0

Then prices on goods would go up $200. Would you like to pay $203 for a gallon of gas?

2007-06-22 09:42:37 · answer #7 · answered by steelersfan2010 2 · 0 0

Of course. A very insightful observation.

Minimum Wage laws are supported by the labor unions because it pushes up their ability to negotiate with Company for higher wages for its members it has the MW as a benchmark.

MW is a joke and part of a Liberal government.

2007-06-21 13:25:08 · answer #8 · answered by aviator147 4 · 0 1

As much as I would like my boss to pay me that (I am a teen working in a grocery store), I can't say that is a good idea. It would ruin people's businesses, livelihoods, and the American economy would go all over the place.

2007-06-16 10:17:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No. Too much of anything is a bad thing.

People who put in a hard day's work should recieve a living wage.

You will always need people to take out the trash, clean the dishes, and work the fields. These are tough jobs. They should atleast be making enough to support their family.

2007-06-14 12:52:18 · answer #10 · answered by trovalta_stinks_2 3 · 4 1

fedest.com, questions and answers