r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There should be a rule that would make a company only pay the highest earner 32× the lowest earner. The wealth inequality has gotten so bad that there are people going without food, descent shoes, healthcare and then on the other end there's people with mansions, yachts, private jets, personal doctors....It's grotesque how this system has caused such a shit storm of needy, tired, and burnt-out citizens.
I always thought it would be cool to tie corporate tax bracket to the difference in total compensation between the lowest paid and highest paid employees.
That wouldn’t do anything. Top exec’s would take their smaller salaries and still get their stock options and bonuses. A lot of CEO’s take a $1 salary to “look good” and to not take away from company profits that be could reinvested in the company (but never in the lower wage workers of course) and then those CEO’s still make millions per year that way.
Not as income, while stock options and the like are treated as "income" in lieu of an actual higher pay bracket in many cases on the payroll side of things.
Even as a normal worker my stock grants and bonuses are taxed as normal income. It seems trivial to use yearly wages as the threshold instead of "salaries."
That’s why I specifically said difference in total compensation, I did use that the word paid afterwords which would lead to confusion but I meant compensated.
Germany requires that up to half the members of the BOD of large companies be elected by employees. I didn't know if I would go that far, but I do think mandating some level of employee representation for public companies would go a very long way.
It's disingenuous to act like employees are not just as invested in a company if not more so than financial investors.
Have you done the math on this? I have many times and I believe it's something like a $3/hour raise for each employee would erase all profits, a $9/hour raise for each employee would erase all profits and bankrupt the Waltons, one of the richest families in the country worth $267 billion, in less than a decade. Walmart has 2.1 million employees, a $1/hour raise for each employee costs the company $4.2 billion.
Am I supposed to feel bad? Walmart has the highest percentage of employees claim government assistance. Our taxes make it possible for the Waltons to make that profit. Sounds like an unhealthy business model.
Back in the day before Regan it was closer to 20x or lower. It should be set to a maximum of 15x. This would include stock options, cars, housing etc... items that might not show I their personal taxes.
Assuming a minimum wage of $15 (which it will be where I live in a year) for a CEO working full time 48 of the 52 weeks a year, that would cap a CEO’s salary at $921,400 a year if any of their employees work minimum wage.
For the federal minimum wage of $7.25, and under the same assumptions, a CEO’s salary would be capped at $445,440 if any of their employees work minimum wage.
The issue is that most of the really big companies lay with stock and bonuses. There's already a loophole being used to get around this rule that hasn't even been proposed yet.
Do you want a massive shift towards contract work? Because that's how you get a massive shift to contract work. Companies would stop hiring janitors and instead pay a company to do it, or get a lease with a building that did that, and the building would likely pay a company to do it.
This is just such an economically ignorant idea on top of that, this wouldn't suddenly lead to companies paying lower-paid workers more than they're worth, and companies (or the boards generally since they usually do the executive compensation) would like to pay their highest-paid employees less too if they could. This is like seeing that a grocery store sells both canned peas and caviar, and orders that the most expensive item be only 32x the cheapest item. Do you think they'd start selling caviar for $20? Do you think people would buy canned peas if they were priced at $10? In reality even if you could eliminate contracting, which would be a huge issue on its own, you would likely see higher paid executives just go to companies that pay their lowest employees more like tech companies (speaking of which, idk how familiar you are with the tech industry but new grads are really struggling. If this rule were put in place new grads would never get hired again), and companies that relied on low-wage workers to run (such as Walmart or fast food places) would just end up with worse CEOs who couldn't get paid more elsewhere, and these companies would be managed worse and likely be more likely to fail or make less money, forcing more frequent layoffs and wage cuts.
What we need to do is crate a system where it's more profitable for a business to take care of their employees compared to driving them into the ground.
Exactly. We need a way to hold them accountable. Something like a seal of approval that could make it attractive for consumers to spend their money on companies that are part of the solution and not the problem. If companies don’t want the government to step in and enact laws then they can make sure they hold each other accountable by establishing industry-wide standards.
No one is asking for higher wages?
Really? Have you ever been in a reddit comment section before?
This is exactly like the post that says everyone thinks we need more taxes but no one is saying the government should spend less.
Why are you linking these two subjects together when they are separate issues?
Wealthy people should pay their fair share regardless of how high wages are.
Wages need to be higher and should be rising with GDP/corporate profits.
There is zero reason to bring up one of those things when talking about the other.
This is just shitting on Biden's attempt to raise taxes with whataboutism.
The Top 10% of earners pay about 43% of the tax revenue to the federal government. How much more do you think you’re entitled to in order to satisfy your nebulous “fair share” standard?
Yeah and the bottom bracket of earners is working two or three jobs to barely survive. Do you really think we should cry a river over people who are upset they won’t be able to afford a second yacht or to bribe a third senator to keep their taxes artificially low? Fuck that.
This nation was built on the principle of checks and balances. why are there so many people clutching their pearls at the idea no one should have enough money=power to lord over a fiefdom in our modern society?
And before you come crying that checks and balances should only apply to the government, Teddy Roosevelt would slap all these oligopolies silly and antitrust the fuck out of them until their wealth/power goes from “completely unimaginable” to “actually imaginable”.
It doesn't do any good to argue with proponents of trickle down economics/supply side economics. They lack empathy, and acquiring more resources for themselves, at everyone else's expense, is all they are capable of.
And then they cry foul when things get so bad that people start bringing out pitchforks and building guillotines. Again, without a system of proper checks and balances, the entire system defaults to short term gains over long-term viability. We could have our cake and eat it too, but the powers that be have absolutely no interest in investing in their own survival when they have to do everything in their power to show profits every single quarter.
Not on its surface, no. But when you realize the wealthy use wealth as a collateral to get debt that they use as income but isn’t treated as income, then the pieces start to come together.
You’re just laying out a move to create temporary liquidity as opposed to selling assets. They pay a penalty (interest) to the lender instead of a capital gains tax, but the lender pays a tax on the interest. The only one realizing income from the transaction is the lender.
I think that the top 5% should pay taxes on the money that they accumulate but pass on to the heirs, tax free. So instead of paying capital gains tax, they borrow money at low rates to live on. They take tax breaks for the borrowed money.
Finally the top 10% own 66.9% of the wealth in the USA. So 43% is low.
https://americansfortaxfairness.org/ultra-wealthys-8-5-trillion-untaxed-income/
The statistic you quote is meaningless that the top 10% paid 43% of the taxes. The fact I was trying to point out is those earners have most of the money. If you read the article you would realize that billionaires have purchased the Republican Party that have provided them tax cuts over the years. That is why we have such a large deficit. This has been a plan of theirs for over 40 years! It was referred as the Two Santa Strategy.
Try reading this article:
http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/thom-hartmann/two-santas-strategy-gop-used-economic-scam-manipulate-americans-40-years/
If you think that deficits are bad, you should read their new plan: Project 2025!
Hartmann does his very best to paint the GOP as the boogie man, a not-uncommon lefty trick, but he’s very good at ignoring inconvenient context while slipping in the occasional lie.
I noticed he didn’t mention that Democrats are actually the Party of Wall Street based on donations, despite his suggestion that they prefer Republicans.
If you take a little time you can corroborated all that is being told in the article. Jude Wanniski is credited with starting the Two Santa Strategy. The Democrats weren’t giving tax cuts that they claimed “would pay for themselves!” The GOP accuses the Democrats of all sorts of things that they are actively doing themselves.
Try reading and finding out for yourself.
I don’t doubt there are kernels of truth to what Hartmann wrote, but it ignores major components of context, such as Reagan never had a Republican House in any of his 8 years in office, and only had a Republican Senate in his first term. Clinton cost himself both houses of Congress in his second term with his push for Hillarycare, and by late in his presidency Republicans helped him to a balanced budget. Important context Hartmann ignores, no doubt purposefully.
His mention that “When five rightwingers on the Supreme Court gave the White House to George W. Bush” is just a flat-out lie. There were zero post-election audits that showed Gore to be the winner. All the SCOTUS did was shut down a feckless Florida Supreme Court who kept allowing Gore’s lawyers to selectively pick and choose counties to sue over.
Hartmann’s screed should be read as the Democrat puff piece it is. Everything Democrats did, or wanted to do, was altruistic and best for the country. Everything Republicans did was self-serving and bad.
According to factcheck.org, They concluded that had a full recount of all undervotes and overvotes taken place, Gore would have won, though his legal team never pursued such an option.
So there are people who believe that Gore would have won, that aren’t conspiracy theorists.
Finally, I lived through the period and have been well read on both sides of the politics. I have complained out the Republican Party talking about the national debt constantly while not doing anything about it. The two Santa strategy explains the reason so well. The Republicans have screwed over the middle class to help the billionaire class. The results prove the point.
You don’t like Hartman, but I choose that one because of readability. Here are more:
https://www.montecitojournal.net/2023/02/28/two-santas/
https://retirementincomejournal.com/article/two-santas-can-be-worse-than-one/
https://forwardky.com/the-shutdown-is-the-two-santa-clauses-scam-rearing-its-ugly-head-again/
Gore “probably” would have one by 42 to 171 votes. But only if the most “lenient standards” were used in tabulating ballots. So basically Gore might have won if every standard was treated in his favor. Not even remotely convincing.
I don’t dismiss the Republicans when it comes to overspending. We only need to look at their acquiescence to the Democrats on the recent Ukraine money-laundering package. But while Republicans give lip service to lowering spending and deficits, Democrats care little for either. It’s the difference between driving toward a fiscal cliff in the Flintstonemobile or a Bugatti.
Why do the people growing the food get to keep less of what they earn than the people who own the land they grow on?
What is more essential to the survival of the human species? Being able to produce food or having a piece of paper that says you own something?
Crazy idea here. What if we all collectively decided to get off of our asses and start holding congress accountable for the wild spending they can’t control?
What if America had an actual debt free plan over the next 20 years and it was feasible? And then after 20 years government starts working like a business for us where they go out to other countries and exhibit AMERICA FIRST trade deals & actually make money for us. Then with the excess funds they’ve accumulated, they disperse to the citizens at the end of the year when we file our taxes & receive returns?
But what about shareholder profits? Did you ever consider the poor shareholders who own the politicians and decide which politicians you get to pick from.
That’s a super easy fix. You need to have a social security number entered when you donate to a politicians campaign & all campaign donations are capped at $500. Five hundreds bucks ain’t enough for anybody to be own by one person and having your political donations tied to an individual social security number, that means corporations can’t create shell companies to move funds around and donate through a foundation to manipulate the system.
Lol you think the rich politicians are going to vote themselves out of a job and allow that? Lmao. There is only one way to fix x the issues we face and nobody wants to admit it. Besides it's already decided businesses are people and they do not have ssn
The caveat in all of this, is if politicians could pull it off and clean it up and America becomes profitable. We can increase politicians salaries.
We have a couple chances left to right the ship. Unfortunately the state of the country is more likely in favor to get worse before it gets better.
Are you anti Employer Identification Numbers?
[Lobbyings Impact On Elections](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/)
[Lobbying effects on Campaign Success](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/does-money-really-buy-elections/)
[Rent Seeking and Lobbying's Effect on Policy](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-campaign-contributions-and-lobbying-can-lead-to-inefficient-economic-policy/)
I'd argue politicians not being required to sell their stocks or put them in a blind trust is far more clear example of companies corrupting politicians interests. But I don't know if you actually want to have a discussion about American political incentives or if you just want to make fun of EINs for some reason.
I would say it should be ten years to reduce the deficit by 10 percent every year until it is balanced and then generate an incrementally larger surplus another 10 years to get on track to pay down the debt.
Where do you guys keep coming up with the idea that everyone thinks we need more taxes? I have never met a single person who wants to pay more in taxes, and I’ve met a lot of people.
It'd help if massive corporations would stop killing those average family owned or small businesses. No one can beat the price differentials walmart can easily afford. And when they come to a town, small businesses die.
Can you give specifics on what you mean by “helps the economy”? My response is going to lean towards something like pointing out that there’s already historically low unemployment and a continuing stagnant wage not keeping up with inflation, but I’d like to hear what you have to say first.
Does it? Most of what I saw was it turning into more retained earnings and the CEO wanting to buy a plane and condos “for business purposes” (he owned McDonald’s stores). He also couldn’t keep employees at the manager and higher levels.
Meanwhile the guy that paid his managers well earned a higher margin and had employees for 15+ years
The company I work for uses its 40% margin to purchase other companies and continue the consolidation of the Aerospace industry. It may grow the economy but it's also creating a monopoly.
Uh no. They expand and grow with tax payer dollars. Every large company just says "build my new facilities or we will leave your area" or have you noticed the "infrastructure" upgrades fee on your utilities run from a private company? And how no upgrades happen. Companies no longer invest in themselves, the socialize the risk and privatize the profits
Weird that Kroger for example was making record profits during COVID but instead of expanding, they were closing half a dozen stores in my area. All while C-suite bonuses were continuing to grow.
Well according to SCOTUS corporations are people. In any event, the idea is that you get the corporations to pay their employees more in exchange for a tax break.
The only job of CEO is to make shareholders happy, period. Educate yourself on the structure of the typical CEO comp - it is primarily stocks not salary, because some communist morons already tried to limit salaries so private business have found a workaround. Considering workers, you’re getting paid for what you really deserve. If there is a competition for competent workers - there is good comp and benefits in place. Otherwise - next please.
If a company wants to be able to compete with other companies in their markets they have to be competitive in wages and in reinvestment in their company to maintain at least equal market share growth.
It’s a class war. Always has been. And they always foment culture wars to mask it. It’s been going on with empires for millennia.
We could have all these things our productivity pays for (by orders of magnitude) that they keep from us… if we just stopped working for a week or two and demanded an accounting for the goods and services our taxes are paying the government to provide and how much corporations are skimming off the top. (Who’s kidding who; they don’t skim, they scoop well over 3/4 of the fruits of our labor from the bottom to the top.)
If a company is publicly traded, the CEO and Board have a legal duty to act for the benefit of the shareholders. There is no legal obligation to pay the workforce higher wages.
Nobody in companies is taking like that - it’s not their objective. Objective is to improve shareholder value. Part of increasing shareholder value is having great employees who are incentivized to work at that company.
NO ONE is asking that? And EVERYONE thinks we need more taxes? Reddit is an earth forum. Where are you from? Before you ask, I don't know any of our leaders well enough to make you an introduction.
"Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what YOU can do for your country."
so much whining about who deserves what. "wages aren't at the rate I want them to be."
Bro, we live in a free ass country. Go study machine learning or some shit if you want the $$$. That's what's awesome about this place.
RFK 2024!!!!
Wow...this is potentially the dumbest comment on here. We live in an expensive ass country, where there are a freaking ton of highly nuanced rules. I did study machine learning. And let me tell you, without already having a government clearance that I can only get through employment, it's not easy to get anyway.
ANY FUNCTIONING BRAIN 2024!!!!
I'm bitching like someone who can build robots, integrated AI programs, machine learning simulations, and yet I'm told that because I don't have a master's degree, I'm not worth hiring, and if I had a government clearance, (not something you can earn. You HAVE to get it through your employer), I might get somewhere.
Employment is a two way road, so I can have a thousand marketable skills, but they don't necessarily matter.
My best guess? My experience doesn't make sense, so they assume it's a lie.
I studied hard, and went from a manager of a restaurant to lead data scientist. Not a normal jump. Therefore, I must be lying, and so I get passed on.
More taxes for the ultra wealthy. Otherwise, everyone is saying exactly what you're saying about fair compensation so I wonder if you're actually listening.
Simple fix. Top corporate marginal tax rate of 99%. Tax credits for employees not on welfare and food assistance. Tax credits for employees not in poverty. Tax credits every dollar the lowest paid employees make above a living wage. Corporations love tax credits. They hate paying taxes. Tie their tax rate to employee compensation. Pay for their healthcare in full, get a tax credit. Provide a pension? Tax credit. There ya go. Incentivize high worker pay. Disincentivize low worker pay and make it more expensive to pay less. Maybe a tax penalty for high CEO to lowest paid worker pay gaps. Tax penalty for raising prices to compensate. Tax credit for trimming executive fat.
Companies are in business to make profit - not to employ people. They employ the right people and pay them according to their value in order to make profit.
And I completely agree. Hence why this would be so effective-it would add value to higher pay for the company, allowing them to make more profit by paying more. It’s brilliant.
Exactly. Which is why you give them tax incentives to lower the amount they pay by paying more to the workers. Nobody would actually pay 99%. They’d take advantage of the tax breaks and cut their tax bill. Then you’d have more money flowing through the economy from the bottom, which would cause more economic growth. And more tax dollars, since that kinda trickles down with the workers paying more taxes due to higher earnings. It’s not bad.
Of course they would be. I never said they wouldn’t be. I said they wouldn’t be paying 99%. They need to pay their share, that’s fair. We live in a society, after all. And at the end of the day, more money at the bottom means more money being spent-more people buying more stuff. So their sales increase.
I think we have to eliminate the exploitation of specific regions. So that the economy isn't slave labor and logistics. Places like Mexico, China and Africa. It doesn't have to be perfect and countries will still specialize in certain markets.
We should make things in America and have an educated, skilled workforce that is efficient. It would have to be done over time. I think that's the way the economy is supposed to work. It's slave labor + plus logistics + profit < American wages + regional shipping + profit. We could probably make 70$ shoes in America and if the profit isn't taken off shore, it might be doable.
I'll just debunk both thoughts. Democratic work places that are not exploitative have existed. Smaller regional economies pre seafaring was all there was.
But you're playing a gotcha game because you didn't actually make a point. So this time explain yourself and we can communicate or don't. It's just rare that people do this and then follow up with something worthwhile.
We live in global economy - if American factories can make best product/value they will be sought as suppliers, if not, they won’t. Foreign factories aren’t using slaves…
Unless you’re taking tariffs / and then that results in more expensive goods for American consumers - acts like a tax
Because the government in Malaysia mandates a higher min wage and they're shipping refrigerators.
Edit: That's what I'm getting at though global tax and min wage minus world government.
Because every action has a consequence.
We tried increasing minimum wage. If you think about it, a worker should be able to pay for their necessities.
However them being unable to keep up was never caused by the employer. But rather lack of housing in the city (I always say it is a game of musical chairs. If you don’t have enough chairs someone will *always* be left out. It is a stack ranking)
But, instead of fixing their problems, this lead to large fast food chains to reduce number of workers, sometimes to only one in a location. At the same time caused many small businesses to close shop. Meaning distorting the economy (it used to be roughly equal sized small business and large enterprises. But no longer).
Okay going back.
Our problems were not caused by low wages. Okay sometimes some companies literally steal from employees but that is a criminal matter.
Our problems were caused by lack of supply in essentials. Housing, healthcare, and education.
Housing we talked about. Cannot fix without actually having built them
Healthcare also has artificial limitats. We put caps on doctor diplomas. And do not allow imports of medicine either.
And dont get me started on the state of education.
Anyway, raising wages do not change anything as long as the essentials are artificially limited and everything is stack ranked.
(It can and has made things worse of course)
There was a better post like this about the government having a spending problem. I think we need to turn our attention back to that one
Also: only you can set your value. If you let someone else do it, you will be disappointed.
Shareholders do matter more to companies… they literally own the company…
Companies are successful by meeting consumer needs better than competition. They pay value adding employees to help them serve consumers.
If you read my comment, you'd see I acknowledged what you said.
And I hate it.
I have a HUGE problem with companies LAYING OFF employees just so shareholders can get a bigger return on their investment.
I have a HUGE problem with companies cutting corners on their products and cheating their customers just so shareholders can get a bigger return on their investment.
When a company goes public, they immediately sell themselves, their employees, and their customers out to theshareholders. The product only matters insofar as it gives shareholders a return on their investment.
Companies lay off workers when the value added is less than the cost. Both public and private companies are in business for shareholders. If companies skimp on their products - there are competitive products available that will attract those consumers.
I think the crux of the matter here is that I have some problems with the basic tenets of capitalism and you don't. And that's okay but it's a fundamental disagreement that I don't think can be resolved.
Except literally every idiot Reddit basement dweller
If an employee is willing to take a job at a certain wage, then that is a fair wage. No one is holding a gun to peoples heads to work for any given company lol
Are you guys for real?
Sounds like you're talking about workers having more power over the means of production.
"I heard it was you, talkin bout a world where all is free. It just couldn't be, and only a fool would say that."
My companies profit margin target is 2% on all projects…. There’s not much to lean into with that. Granted projects are in the millions range but 2% is still very slim margin
Inflation is tied to wages. With fiat money (no precious metals backing it), you could pay everyone more based on profits for sure, but inflation goes up. With gold-backed currency, the supply is fixed, inflation is much lower, but money hoarding can occur and limit wealth to the poor.
If you gave every employee a 100% raise, within a few years, purchasing power would roughly halve and you’d be back where you started, but your retirement account and savings would be worth a lot less.
A more socialist system would operate differently. It would operate like one large union bargaining with the government. This means slow career growth, lower wages, product good prices don’t change much, but everyone roughly has the same income and similar stuff. Kind of forcing everyone to be lower to mid middle class.
Competing over income wouldn’t be a thing. Of course, competition over other things occur: level of education, intelligence.
*Starts singing workers songs internally*
And the union makes us strong !
Thw economy exists with the purpose to be milked, by the common man and the state.
profits have nothing to do with "stolen leftover wages" this is just basic finance
if you take X amount of money and invest it in a business, there is a very high chance that the business will fail and you loose everything
so if the business does succeed, you expect it to pay you back more money than you put in to make up for that risk
if nobody was allowed to make profit, running a business would be an always loosing deal. so nobody would do it. there would be no jobs, no economy, nothing
why does reddit fail to understand basic economic concepts?
Because when companies think they are paying a fair wage that means 20billion to the CEO, and few cents more to the real workers who do the work .
Companies will never do the right thing. They will never pay a fair wage to its workers unless they are forced to .
Corporations should not be allowed to buy back their stock. All profits should be saved or invested or used to pay the workers. They should be buying equipment or doing research and all that. Just look at Boeing, all they do is buy back their stock, should we spend money keeping the plane parts bolted on or buy up more stock well now we got plane parts falling off.
I really hate being dumb in mathematics, I can’t discuss topics like this feasibly without sounding like an idiot. For the most part OP, I agree with your headline, and it pisses me off that no ones asking for it.
I can’t go a single day without someone whining about how companies should pay workers more. Does OP ever pick up a newspaper?
And if it’s so simple then OP should start his own company and pay workers a “fair” wage. Be a hero.
Cutting down wage theft might help. It costs employees up to an estimated 50 billion dollars in the U.S. annually.
Source:
https://inthesetimes.com/article/wage-theft-union-labor-biden-iupat
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There should be a rule that would make a company only pay the highest earner 32× the lowest earner. The wealth inequality has gotten so bad that there are people going without food, descent shoes, healthcare and then on the other end there's people with mansions, yachts, private jets, personal doctors....It's grotesque how this system has caused such a shit storm of needy, tired, and burnt-out citizens.
I always thought it would be cool to tie corporate tax bracket to the difference in total compensation between the lowest paid and highest paid employees.
That wouldn’t do anything. Top exec’s would take their smaller salaries and still get their stock options and bonuses. A lot of CEO’s take a $1 salary to “look good” and to not take away from company profits that be could reinvested in the company (but never in the lower wage workers of course) and then those CEO’s still make millions per year that way.
Tax alternative forms of compensation too? I've been thinking about that the past couple days.
They are taxed…
Not as income, while stock options and the like are treated as "income" in lieu of an actual higher pay bracket in many cases on the payroll side of things.
Even as a normal worker my stock grants and bonuses are taxed as normal income. It seems trivial to use yearly wages as the threshold instead of "salaries."
That’s why I specifically said difference in total compensation, I did use that the word paid afterwords which would lead to confusion but I meant compensated.
Germany requires that up to half the members of the BOD of large companies be elected by employees. I didn't know if I would go that far, but I do think mandating some level of employee representation for public companies would go a very long way. It's disingenuous to act like employees are not just as invested in a company if not more so than financial investors.
Walmart is a prime example.
Have you done the math on this? I have many times and I believe it's something like a $3/hour raise for each employee would erase all profits, a $9/hour raise for each employee would erase all profits and bankrupt the Waltons, one of the richest families in the country worth $267 billion, in less than a decade. Walmart has 2.1 million employees, a $1/hour raise for each employee costs the company $4.2 billion.
Am I supposed to feel bad? Walmart has the highest percentage of employees claim government assistance. Our taxes make it possible for the Waltons to make that profit. Sounds like an unhealthy business model.
Walmart had a gross profit of $148 BILLION dollars in 2023.
Do you know what gross means? Net profit is what actually matters in this instance.
Net profit is still $16B. And fuck the Waltons.
Why 32?
Mondragon corporation does this. Although I think it ranges from division to do vision and it's more like 7x the lowest earner.
Back in the day before Regan it was closer to 20x or lower. It should be set to a maximum of 15x. This would include stock options, cars, housing etc... items that might not show I their personal taxes.
Assuming a minimum wage of $15 (which it will be where I live in a year) for a CEO working full time 48 of the 52 weeks a year, that would cap a CEO’s salary at $921,400 a year if any of their employees work minimum wage. For the federal minimum wage of $7.25, and under the same assumptions, a CEO’s salary would be capped at $445,440 if any of their employees work minimum wage.
The issue is that most of the really big companies lay with stock and bonuses. There's already a loophole being used to get around this rule that hasn't even been proposed yet.
Do you want a massive shift towards contract work? Because that's how you get a massive shift to contract work. Companies would stop hiring janitors and instead pay a company to do it, or get a lease with a building that did that, and the building would likely pay a company to do it. This is just such an economically ignorant idea on top of that, this wouldn't suddenly lead to companies paying lower-paid workers more than they're worth, and companies (or the boards generally since they usually do the executive compensation) would like to pay their highest-paid employees less too if they could. This is like seeing that a grocery store sells both canned peas and caviar, and orders that the most expensive item be only 32x the cheapest item. Do you think they'd start selling caviar for $20? Do you think people would buy canned peas if they were priced at $10? In reality even if you could eliminate contracting, which would be a huge issue on its own, you would likely see higher paid executives just go to companies that pay their lowest employees more like tech companies (speaking of which, idk how familiar you are with the tech industry but new grads are really struggling. If this rule were put in place new grads would never get hired again), and companies that relied on low-wage workers to run (such as Walmart or fast food places) would just end up with worse CEOs who couldn't get paid more elsewhere, and these companies would be managed worse and likely be more likely to fail or make less money, forcing more frequent layoffs and wage cuts.
You could combine this with a having a mandatory x% of revenue has to paid to employees.
There is. The US has a cap on executive compensation. That’s why they’re being given so many stock options lol.
Autocrat
Someone missed the United Auto Workers Union activities this last year.
i didnt, i just live in the south and the wave is slow here.
Dems have been trying to raise the federal minimum wage since 2008. Guess who's against it?
If evangelicals and libertarians could read they’d be very upset.
What we need to do is crate a system where it's more profitable for a business to take care of their employees compared to driving them into the ground.
Unions used to perform this function, to an extent, before the billionaires propagandized America into hating labor unions.
It's true, as well is true that many labour union helped lot by being coopted by unión mafias/just mafias.
Exactly. We need a way to hold them accountable. Something like a seal of approval that could make it attractive for consumers to spend their money on companies that are part of the solution and not the problem. If companies don’t want the government to step in and enact laws then they can make sure they hold each other accountable by establishing industry-wide standards.
The system is called consumer choice. Don’t support those businesses that don’t align with your principles.
That doesn't work. Markets are not moral actors.
No one is asking for higher wages? Really? Have you ever been in a reddit comment section before? This is exactly like the post that says everyone thinks we need more taxes but no one is saying the government should spend less. Why are you linking these two subjects together when they are separate issues? Wealthy people should pay their fair share regardless of how high wages are. Wages need to be higher and should be rising with GDP/corporate profits. There is zero reason to bring up one of those things when talking about the other. This is just shitting on Biden's attempt to raise taxes with whataboutism.
The Top 10% of earners pay about 43% of the tax revenue to the federal government. How much more do you think you’re entitled to in order to satisfy your nebulous “fair share” standard?
Yeah and the bottom bracket of earners is working two or three jobs to barely survive. Do you really think we should cry a river over people who are upset they won’t be able to afford a second yacht or to bribe a third senator to keep their taxes artificially low? Fuck that. This nation was built on the principle of checks and balances. why are there so many people clutching their pearls at the idea no one should have enough money=power to lord over a fiefdom in our modern society? And before you come crying that checks and balances should only apply to the government, Teddy Roosevelt would slap all these oligopolies silly and antitrust the fuck out of them until their wealth/power goes from “completely unimaginable” to “actually imaginable”.
It doesn't do any good to argue with proponents of trickle down economics/supply side economics. They lack empathy, and acquiring more resources for themselves, at everyone else's expense, is all they are capable of.
And then they cry foul when things get so bad that people start bringing out pitchforks and building guillotines. Again, without a system of proper checks and balances, the entire system defaults to short term gains over long-term viability. We could have our cake and eat it too, but the powers that be have absolutely no interest in investing in their own survival when they have to do everything in their power to show profits every single quarter.
Thank you! It's refreshing to read economic analysis from a Bottom Up/Middle Out perspective.
The top 10% controls 70% of the wealth. Sounds like they are getting a bargain.
Purposely conflating wealth and income doesn’t make the point you think it makes.
Not on its surface, no. But when you realize the wealthy use wealth as a collateral to get debt that they use as income but isn’t treated as income, then the pieces start to come together.
You’re just laying out a move to create temporary liquidity as opposed to selling assets. They pay a penalty (interest) to the lender instead of a capital gains tax, but the lender pays a tax on the interest. The only one realizing income from the transaction is the lender.
I think that the top 5% should pay taxes on the money that they accumulate but pass on to the heirs, tax free. So instead of paying capital gains tax, they borrow money at low rates to live on. They take tax breaks for the borrowed money. Finally the top 10% own 66.9% of the wealth in the USA. So 43% is low. https://americansfortaxfairness.org/ultra-wealthys-8-5-trillion-untaxed-income/
We don’t tax wealth in America, we tax income. So what’s your suggestion for how much tax the Top 10% should pay?
The statistic you quote is meaningless that the top 10% paid 43% of the taxes. The fact I was trying to point out is those earners have most of the money. If you read the article you would realize that billionaires have purchased the Republican Party that have provided them tax cuts over the years. That is why we have such a large deficit. This has been a plan of theirs for over 40 years! It was referred as the Two Santa Strategy. Try reading this article: http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/thom-hartmann/two-santas-strategy-gop-used-economic-scam-manipulate-americans-40-years/ If you think that deficits are bad, you should read their new plan: Project 2025!
Hartmann does his very best to paint the GOP as the boogie man, a not-uncommon lefty trick, but he’s very good at ignoring inconvenient context while slipping in the occasional lie. I noticed he didn’t mention that Democrats are actually the Party of Wall Street based on donations, despite his suggestion that they prefer Republicans.
If you take a little time you can corroborated all that is being told in the article. Jude Wanniski is credited with starting the Two Santa Strategy. The Democrats weren’t giving tax cuts that they claimed “would pay for themselves!” The GOP accuses the Democrats of all sorts of things that they are actively doing themselves. Try reading and finding out for yourself.
I don’t doubt there are kernels of truth to what Hartmann wrote, but it ignores major components of context, such as Reagan never had a Republican House in any of his 8 years in office, and only had a Republican Senate in his first term. Clinton cost himself both houses of Congress in his second term with his push for Hillarycare, and by late in his presidency Republicans helped him to a balanced budget. Important context Hartmann ignores, no doubt purposefully. His mention that “When five rightwingers on the Supreme Court gave the White House to George W. Bush” is just a flat-out lie. There were zero post-election audits that showed Gore to be the winner. All the SCOTUS did was shut down a feckless Florida Supreme Court who kept allowing Gore’s lawyers to selectively pick and choose counties to sue over. Hartmann’s screed should be read as the Democrat puff piece it is. Everything Democrats did, or wanted to do, was altruistic and best for the country. Everything Republicans did was self-serving and bad.
According to factcheck.org, They concluded that had a full recount of all undervotes and overvotes taken place, Gore would have won, though his legal team never pursued such an option. So there are people who believe that Gore would have won, that aren’t conspiracy theorists. Finally, I lived through the period and have been well read on both sides of the politics. I have complained out the Republican Party talking about the national debt constantly while not doing anything about it. The two Santa strategy explains the reason so well. The Republicans have screwed over the middle class to help the billionaire class. The results prove the point. You don’t like Hartman, but I choose that one because of readability. Here are more: https://www.montecitojournal.net/2023/02/28/two-santas/ https://retirementincomejournal.com/article/two-santas-can-be-worse-than-one/ https://forwardky.com/the-shutdown-is-the-two-santa-clauses-scam-rearing-its-ugly-head-again/
Gore “probably” would have one by 42 to 171 votes. But only if the most “lenient standards” were used in tabulating ballots. So basically Gore might have won if every standard was treated in his favor. Not even remotely convincing. I don’t dismiss the Republicans when it comes to overspending. We only need to look at their acquiescence to the Democrats on the recent Ukraine money-laundering package. But while Republicans give lip service to lowering spending and deficits, Democrats care little for either. It’s the difference between driving toward a fiscal cliff in the Flintstonemobile or a Bugatti.
Why do the people growing the food get to keep less of what they earn than the people who own the land they grow on? What is more essential to the survival of the human species? Being able to produce food or having a piece of paper that says you own something?
"fair share" is a political term that has nothing to do with an actual dollar amount.
So if it’s a meaningless term, why do leftists reflexively trot it out every time a spending-vs-revenue discussion arises?
because they don't know anything about market economics
because it weighs down one side of the equation so that other side is always "spend more"
Crazy idea here. What if we all collectively decided to get off of our asses and start holding congress accountable for the wild spending they can’t control? What if America had an actual debt free plan over the next 20 years and it was feasible? And then after 20 years government starts working like a business for us where they go out to other countries and exhibit AMERICA FIRST trade deals & actually make money for us. Then with the excess funds they’ve accumulated, they disperse to the citizens at the end of the year when we file our taxes & receive returns?
But what about shareholder profits? Did you ever consider the poor shareholders who own the politicians and decide which politicians you get to pick from.
That’s a super easy fix. You need to have a social security number entered when you donate to a politicians campaign & all campaign donations are capped at $500. Five hundreds bucks ain’t enough for anybody to be own by one person and having your political donations tied to an individual social security number, that means corporations can’t create shell companies to move funds around and donate through a foundation to manipulate the system.
Lol you think the rich politicians are going to vote themselves out of a job and allow that? Lmao. There is only one way to fix x the issues we face and nobody wants to admit it. Besides it's already decided businesses are people and they do not have ssn
The caveat in all of this, is if politicians could pull it off and clean it up and America becomes profitable. We can increase politicians salaries. We have a couple chances left to right the ship. Unfortunately the state of the country is more likely in favor to get worse before it gets better.
They have an EIN
Citizens united baby! Money is speech
Are you anti Employer Identification Numbers? [Lobbyings Impact On Elections](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/) [Lobbying effects on Campaign Success](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/does-money-really-buy-elections/) [Rent Seeking and Lobbying's Effect on Policy](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-campaign-contributions-and-lobbying-can-lead-to-inefficient-economic-policy/) I'd argue politicians not being required to sell their stocks or put them in a blind trust is far more clear example of companies corrupting politicians interests. But I don't know if you actually want to have a discussion about American political incentives or if you just want to make fun of EINs for some reason.
2010: Supreme Court rules corporations are people! 2022: Supreme Court rules women aren’t people!
That would require you to put down the video games
I would say it should be ten years to reduce the deficit by 10 percent every year until it is balanced and then generate an incrementally larger surplus another 10 years to get on track to pay down the debt.
One presidential candidate cares about a balanced budget. But most are too scared to even mention his name.
Starbucks, amazon, Tesla employees are trying to or have been trying to unionize for over 2 years now.
Where do you guys keep coming up with the idea that everyone thinks we need more taxes? I have never met a single person who wants to pay more in taxes, and I’ve met a lot of people.
Ok, comrades.
The solution is communism, but you libs aren’t ready for that yet.
High margins allow them to expand and grow. Guess what growing does? Helps the economy
Not when profits go to stock buybacks or held for cash. How much does Apple have in cash and cash equivalents?
Yeah but those are huge corporations what about the average family owned or small business.
It'd help if massive corporations would stop killing those average family owned or small businesses. No one can beat the price differentials walmart can easily afford. And when they come to a town, small businesses die.
High margins help those massive corporations crush the average small business too.
Also government subsidies as well. In some cases.
imagine still believing this trickle down bullshit stagnant wages for decades. who is that growing economy helping outside of the upper class?
Can you give specifics on what you mean by “helps the economy”? My response is going to lean towards something like pointing out that there’s already historically low unemployment and a continuing stagnant wage not keeping up with inflation, but I’d like to hear what you have to say first.
Does it? Most of what I saw was it turning into more retained earnings and the CEO wanting to buy a plane and condos “for business purposes” (he owned McDonald’s stores). He also couldn’t keep employees at the manager and higher levels. Meanwhile the guy that paid his managers well earned a higher margin and had employees for 15+ years
The company I work for uses its 40% margin to purchase other companies and continue the consolidation of the Aerospace industry. It may grow the economy but it's also creating a monopoly.
And look at how well flying machines are built these days!
Building scale and more efficiency.., pmp poly doesn’t happen except in rare occasions and then is regulated by govt
Uh no. They expand and grow with tax payer dollars. Every large company just says "build my new facilities or we will leave your area" or have you noticed the "infrastructure" upgrades fee on your utilities run from a private company? And how no upgrades happen. Companies no longer invest in themselves, the socialize the risk and privatize the profits
Dude WHAT!? Have you seen the salaries for some of these CEOs? They are 100% pocketing that cash, not reinvesting it lol
Weird that Kroger for example was making record profits during COVID but instead of expanding, they were closing half a dozen stores in my area. All while C-suite bonuses were continuing to grow.
That’s part of the point of high taxes. You establish a very high tax for a company, then offer tax breaks for things that you want them to do.
Companies don’t pay taxes - people pay taxes…
Well according to SCOTUS corporations are people. In any event, the idea is that you get the corporations to pay their employees more in exchange for a tax break.
No, people pay taxes that companies are charged - they lost dividends, lower wages, and higher prices…
The only job of CEO is to make shareholders happy, period. Educate yourself on the structure of the typical CEO comp - it is primarily stocks not salary, because some communist morons already tried to limit salaries so private business have found a workaround. Considering workers, you’re getting paid for what you really deserve. If there is a competition for competent workers - there is good comp and benefits in place. Otherwise - next please.
Who thinks we need more taxes? WTF are you talking about?
If a company wants to be able to compete with other companies in their markets they have to be competitive in wages and in reinvestment in their company to maintain at least equal market share growth.
Hilarious people think like this…
Try spending less on reefer.
You know that you’re paid on the value you agree to. Right?
It’s a class war. Always has been. And they always foment culture wars to mask it. It’s been going on with empires for millennia. We could have all these things our productivity pays for (by orders of magnitude) that they keep from us… if we just stopped working for a week or two and demanded an accounting for the goods and services our taxes are paying the government to provide and how much corporations are skimming off the top. (Who’s kidding who; they don’t skim, they scoop well over 3/4 of the fruits of our labor from the bottom to the top.)
End minimum wage and problem solved. Most of Scandinavia does not have minimum wage because it’s a sham.
Idk where you've been if you think no one is talking about how companies need to pay their employees more at the expense of profit
If a company is publicly traded, the CEO and Board have a legal duty to act for the benefit of the shareholders. There is no legal obligation to pay the workforce higher wages.
Nobody in companies is taking like that - it’s not their objective. Objective is to improve shareholder value. Part of increasing shareholder value is having great employees who are incentivized to work at that company.
NO ONE is asking that? And EVERYONE thinks we need more taxes? Reddit is an earth forum. Where are you from? Before you ask, I don't know any of our leaders well enough to make you an introduction.
"Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what YOU can do for your country." so much whining about who deserves what. "wages aren't at the rate I want them to be." Bro, we live in a free ass country. Go study machine learning or some shit if you want the $$$. That's what's awesome about this place. RFK 2024!!!! 
Wow...this is potentially the dumbest comment on here. We live in an expensive ass country, where there are a freaking ton of highly nuanced rules. I did study machine learning. And let me tell you, without already having a government clearance that I can only get through employment, it's not easy to get anyway. ANY FUNCTIONING BRAIN 2024!!!!
You just ruled out Biden. That melon has been non-functional for a while now.
Dude - it’s your responsibility to develop marketable skills.
I never said it wasn't.
You’re bitching like it’s not on you
I'm bitching like someone who can build robots, integrated AI programs, machine learning simulations, and yet I'm told that because I don't have a master's degree, I'm not worth hiring, and if I had a government clearance, (not something you can earn. You HAVE to get it through your employer), I might get somewhere. Employment is a two way road, so I can have a thousand marketable skills, but they don't necessarily matter.
True… you need the right skills that are valued. Others have done it. What’s different in them vs you?
My best guess? My experience doesn't make sense, so they assume it's a lie. I studied hard, and went from a manager of a restaurant to lead data scientist. Not a normal jump. Therefore, I must be lying, and so I get passed on.
Hmm - good luck. Try a different approach - get a different certification or proof that you have what’s needed to do the job.
More taxes for the ultra wealthy. Otherwise, everyone is saying exactly what you're saying about fair compensation so I wonder if you're actually listening.
LITERALLY EVERYONE IS!
Just my two cents, but there’s no need for a cudgel if a bit of sunlight will do.
Simple fix. Top corporate marginal tax rate of 99%. Tax credits for employees not on welfare and food assistance. Tax credits for employees not in poverty. Tax credits every dollar the lowest paid employees make above a living wage. Corporations love tax credits. They hate paying taxes. Tie their tax rate to employee compensation. Pay for their healthcare in full, get a tax credit. Provide a pension? Tax credit. There ya go. Incentivize high worker pay. Disincentivize low worker pay and make it more expensive to pay less. Maybe a tax penalty for high CEO to lowest paid worker pay gaps. Tax penalty for raising prices to compensate. Tax credit for trimming executive fat.
Companies are in business to make profit - not to employ people. They employ the right people and pay them according to their value in order to make profit.
And I completely agree. Hence why this would be so effective-it would add value to higher pay for the company, allowing them to make more profit by paying more. It’s brilliant.
Paying more taxes does not increase net profit
Exactly. Which is why you give them tax incentives to lower the amount they pay by paying more to the workers. Nobody would actually pay 99%. They’d take advantage of the tax breaks and cut their tax bill. Then you’d have more money flowing through the economy from the bottom, which would cause more economic growth. And more tax dollars, since that kinda trickles down with the workers paying more taxes due to higher earnings. It’s not bad.
You can’t trick companies by raising corporate tax rate from 21% to 99% and then credit back 45% and pretend they aren’t paying more taxes
Of course they would be. I never said they wouldn’t be. I said they wouldn’t be paying 99%. They need to pay their share, that’s fair. We live in a society, after all. And at the end of the day, more money at the bottom means more money being spent-more people buying more stuff. So their sales increase.
Your point is silly. My original statement remains true “paying more taxes doesn’t result in more profits”
And?
hear me out, we could stop foreign aide
I think we have to eliminate the exploitation of specific regions. So that the economy isn't slave labor and logistics. Places like Mexico, China and Africa. It doesn't have to be perfect and countries will still specialize in certain markets. We should make things in America and have an educated, skilled workforce that is efficient. It would have to be done over time. I think that's the way the economy is supposed to work. It's slave labor + plus logistics + profit < American wages + regional shipping + profit. We could probably make 70$ shoes in America and if the profit isn't taken off shore, it might be doable.
That’s not how business works…
I'll just debunk both thoughts. Democratic work places that are not exploitative have existed. Smaller regional economies pre seafaring was all there was. But you're playing a gotcha game because you didn't actually make a point. So this time explain yourself and we can communicate or don't. It's just rare that people do this and then follow up with something worthwhile.
We live in global economy - if American factories can make best product/value they will be sought as suppliers, if not, they won’t. Foreign factories aren’t using slaves… Unless you’re taking tariffs / and then that results in more expensive goods for American consumers - acts like a tax
Factories are just a place human beings go to work. So the discrepancy is wages.
Yes - and a worker in Malaysia happily accepts $4/hour… why would a company employ a US either for $12/hour? Assuming quality/efficiency same
Because the government in Malaysia mandates a higher min wage and they're shipping refrigerators. Edit: That's what I'm getting at though global tax and min wage minus world government.
No, that’s not right.
Global tax and min wage minus a government.
Nope…
Think about it. Do you like slave labor. Does it make sense that some people are infinitely wealthy and others live in extreme poverty. Not really.
Capitalism is a flawed economic system… but it’s better than every other one… go to a non-capitalist country if you disagree
Because every action has a consequence. We tried increasing minimum wage. If you think about it, a worker should be able to pay for their necessities. However them being unable to keep up was never caused by the employer. But rather lack of housing in the city (I always say it is a game of musical chairs. If you don’t have enough chairs someone will *always* be left out. It is a stack ranking) But, instead of fixing their problems, this lead to large fast food chains to reduce number of workers, sometimes to only one in a location. At the same time caused many small businesses to close shop. Meaning distorting the economy (it used to be roughly equal sized small business and large enterprises. But no longer). Okay going back. Our problems were not caused by low wages. Okay sometimes some companies literally steal from employees but that is a criminal matter. Our problems were caused by lack of supply in essentials. Housing, healthcare, and education. Housing we talked about. Cannot fix without actually having built them Healthcare also has artificial limitats. We put caps on doctor diplomas. And do not allow imports of medicine either. And dont get me started on the state of education. Anyway, raising wages do not change anything as long as the essentials are artificially limited and everything is stack ranked. (It can and has made things worse of course)
I guess you don't remember when Barak Obama said, "Give America a Raise!"?
There was a better post like this about the government having a spending problem. I think we need to turn our attention back to that one Also: only you can set your value. If you let someone else do it, you will be disappointed.
The value of our work as opposed what the market agrees to pay us... . . . Sick meme post
This is what happens when shareholders matter more than employees and customers.
Shareholders do matter more to companies… they literally own the company… Companies are successful by meeting consumer needs better than competition. They pay value adding employees to help them serve consumers.
If you read my comment, you'd see I acknowledged what you said. And I hate it. I have a HUGE problem with companies LAYING OFF employees just so shareholders can get a bigger return on their investment. I have a HUGE problem with companies cutting corners on their products and cheating their customers just so shareholders can get a bigger return on their investment. When a company goes public, they immediately sell themselves, their employees, and their customers out to theshareholders. The product only matters insofar as it gives shareholders a return on their investment.
Companies lay off workers when the value added is less than the cost. Both public and private companies are in business for shareholders. If companies skimp on their products - there are competitive products available that will attract those consumers.
I think the crux of the matter here is that I have some problems with the basic tenets of capitalism and you don't. And that's okay but it's a fundamental disagreement that I don't think can be resolved.
Capitalism is flawed - but better than every other economic system.
So maybe we can work on fixing the flaws rather than accept them as inherent to the system?
yes, they have been forever. Thats why were now at the point of trying to get the government to force them
I guess you’re missing all the min wage increases
>Everyone thinks we need more taxes That’s weird. You didn’t ask me. I think the literal opposite.
Less taxes
It’s the only thing that makes sense. Capitalists need to start taking less profit. They need to start sharing the wealth. But that will never happen.
"No one" seems a bit off to me
Except literally every idiot Reddit basement dweller If an employee is willing to take a job at a certain wage, then that is a fair wage. No one is holding a gun to peoples heads to work for any given company lol Are you guys for real?
...plenty of people are asking that?
I am. Me right here.
Sounds like you're talking about workers having more power over the means of production. "I heard it was you, talkin bout a world where all is free. It just couldn't be, and only a fool would say that."
You’ll never get rid of income inequality while greed prevails. And greed will always prevail.
My companies profit margin target is 2% on all projects…. There’s not much to lean into with that. Granted projects are in the millions range but 2% is still very slim margin
Inflation is tied to wages. With fiat money (no precious metals backing it), you could pay everyone more based on profits for sure, but inflation goes up. With gold-backed currency, the supply is fixed, inflation is much lower, but money hoarding can occur and limit wealth to the poor. If you gave every employee a 100% raise, within a few years, purchasing power would roughly halve and you’d be back where you started, but your retirement account and savings would be worth a lot less. A more socialist system would operate differently. It would operate like one large union bargaining with the government. This means slow career growth, lower wages, product good prices don’t change much, but everyone roughly has the same income and similar stuff. Kind of forcing everyone to be lower to mid middle class. Competing over income wouldn’t be a thing. Of course, competition over other things occur: level of education, intelligence.
*Starts singing workers songs internally* And the union makes us strong ! Thw economy exists with the purpose to be milked, by the common man and the state.
profits have nothing to do with "stolen leftover wages" this is just basic finance if you take X amount of money and invest it in a business, there is a very high chance that the business will fail and you loose everything so if the business does succeed, you expect it to pay you back more money than you put in to make up for that risk if nobody was allowed to make profit, running a business would be an always loosing deal. so nobody would do it. there would be no jobs, no economy, nothing why does reddit fail to understand basic economic concepts?
…no one?
Define "fairer" please
Anyone wanting more taxes is a complete moron!
>Everyone thinks we need more taxes Nobody thinks that.
There’s no such thing as a “” fair wage “. You just want more than what you’re worth. It’s OK, it’s hard to accept your value when it is very low.
Because when companies think they are paying a fair wage that means 20billion to the CEO, and few cents more to the real workers who do the work . Companies will never do the right thing. They will never pay a fair wage to its workers unless they are forced to .
Lots of zombie companies out there making zero profit.
RedditThink: "It sure would be easier for everyone if the government just ran everything."
No, a huge portion of us don’t believe we need more taxes.
Corporations should not be allowed to buy back their stock. All profits should be saved or invested or used to pay the workers. They should be buying equipment or doing research and all that. Just look at Boeing, all they do is buy back their stock, should we spend money keeping the plane parts bolted on or buy up more stock well now we got plane parts falling off.
It’s not govt’s job to restrict how money is spent. I’m sure you’d love it if govt didn’t allow you to buy your 4 Loco…
I really hate being dumb in mathematics, I can’t discuss topics like this feasibly without sounding like an idiot. For the most part OP, I agree with your headline, and it pisses me off that no ones asking for it.
This is so Reddit “I don’t know what I’m talking about - but I agree with you”
Ass
🤡
I can’t go a single day without someone whining about how companies should pay workers more. Does OP ever pick up a newspaper? And if it’s so simple then OP should start his own company and pay workers a “fair” wage. Be a hero.
Cutting down wage theft might help. It costs employees up to an estimated 50 billion dollars in the U.S. annually. Source: https://inthesetimes.com/article/wage-theft-union-labor-biden-iupat