Income inequality and America needs a mustache

[Northwestie]

Others will complain later that they couldn't afford college and therefore were doomed to a life of poverty.  Even if we assume that college was beyond their financial abilities, these are the same kids who don't even consider taking Electrical Trades, Auto Shop, Cosmetology or the other classes that could send them out of high school ready for an entry-level job in trades. 

Yes, recognizing one's opportunities is important.

I'm all in on self-motivation and creating your future.  But there are limits.   When I lived in D.C. in a gritty neighborhood I saw some amazingly poor parenting by folks caught up by drugs, alcohol, and lack of education.  For these poor kids they were dragging around it would be nothing less than a miracle if they were able to find their way of this hell hole without any family support or role models. 

Then flash over to someone like George Bush - who by all accounts was dumb as a stump and sniffed up his nose any white substance he could find.  Somehow he gets into good schools and though family connections makes a living and becomes president.  The typical example of someone who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

One of the astoundingly depressing facts about America is that much of your life trajectory depends on the zip code of where you were born.

[josstache]

Someone touched on this already, but the issue with executive pay is that there are no reliable metrics for CEO performance.  Studies seem to indicate that CEOs are largely receive "pay for luck" as Marianne Bertrand puts it.

The job of the CEO is to maximize shareholder value for some time frame (short/medium/long) acceptable to the shareholders.  Generally, the CEO's performance is thus evaluated by share price, except, as has been made abundantly clear in recent decades, share price is subject to wild fluctuations driven by overall market conditions.  Moreover, the CEO doesn't have significant control over most of industry-specific or even company-specific factors that affect share price. 

Let's assume a relatively bad CEO will have a quarter of the "skill" of an excellent CEO, and that CEO skill accounts for 20% of share price performance.  All other things being equal, the bad CEO will have 85% of the share price increase of an excellent CEO in good years.  If a good year is more like a spectacular year, people will write books about the revolutionary management techniques of the bad CEO, and he'll be lavished with a massive raise.

Baseball players had long been evaluated in extremely unsophisticated ways, with outsize pay packages going to mediocre or even poor players. Financial writer Michael Lewis saw the connection to the business world and wrote book about the transition towards more reliable methods in baseball, led by Billy Beane of the Oakland A's. In his book, he laments that the business world is still essentially where baseball was in the 70s.

[EnjoyIt]

Our best leaders certainly deserve high pay but every once and a while we need to take a hard look at the numbers and decide as a country if we aren't overvaluing certain kinds of work to the determent of our larger population.

You are definitely correct that the income of some people such as CEOs, movie stars, sports stars are extremely high in comparison to most of Americans but it is not the job of society to say what the pay should be.

For CEOs it should be the board of directors
For movie stars it should be the production company that hires them. Same for sports stars.

As a society the only thing we can do is not purchase the products of the companies with outlandish CEO pay, or get a share and go to stock holder meetings and voice our opinion.  We can stop watching sports games and stop seeing movies.

We have absolutely no right to dictate what a company wants to pay its employees no matter how outlandish it may seem.

[nobodyspecial]

If the government promises to create 100 jobs, it's costing the private sector 110 jobs for example.

That's only true if they are doing the same job.
I suspect that closing 100 university computer science depts wouldn't necessarily lead to a massive growth in private sector software development jobs

[libertarian4321]

...aside from the few idiots who pour hot coffee upon themselves and make an issue of it, few people are rewarded for stupidity.

I would highly recommend you watch the documentary "Hot Coffee".

I'll bet you went into the movie thinking the Liebeck "Hot Coffee" result showed a clear cut case of our lawsuit culture out of control.

If you watched "Hot Coffee" blindly, without critical thought, as most people do, you probably came away from it thinking "boy, those trial lawyers really saved the day, Thank God they are there for us!

Would it surprise you to learn that "Hot Coffee" was a movie written, produced, and directed by an AMBULANCE CHASER (er, "trial lawyer).  A woman who stands to make big money by convincing people that the "hot coffee" award was not the outrage that all reasonable, impartial people know it to be, but rather "fair and deserved."  The woman who wrote and directed the movies has, since 1983, has been an active member (and past President) of the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (“TLPJ“)-  a group designed to defend tort lawyers.

Essentially, "Hot Coffee" was a self serving justification of outrageous jury awards written, directed, and produced by a person who has made her career getting rich from outrageous lawsuits.

You are about as likely to get a "fair and impartial" view of the Liebeck trial from "Hot Coffee" as you are to get a fair and impartial stance on civil rights from DAVID DUKE.

It ain't going to happen.

And now you know the rest of the story.

You're welcome.

[Apex]

I really don't understand people who complain that they can't afford to support their family on minimum wage so minimum wage should be higher.  They should think about whether or not they can afford to support a family before they think about having a kid.  So let's say they do accidentally have a kid while making $8 an hour at McDonald's.  If they work hard enough and prove they are a hard worker, they have absolutely no reason that they can't move up and get a job making $10-12 per hour within a years time.  From there, they move up to a higher paying position or move to a different company and within a few years they will be making $15 an hour or more.

I've seen a lot of these people work and their work ethic is horrible.  If they call out sick every day or go into work not giving it much effort, then what reason would anyone else have to hire them?  Until they grow up and actually give it effort they are going to continue working the minimum wage job.

I dropped out of High School in 11th grade so I know first hand I had many opportunities to move up or around to different jobs over the last 12 years.  My reason for dropping out was very dumb looking back on it, and I wish I had the opportunity to go through it all again, but I've gotten by just fine without even going and getting a GED.  My reason for dropping out was I was constantly picked on or made fun of through all of High School and none of the teachers or anyone in the school ever seemed to give a crap at all.  To this day it's really made me self conscious about myself and has really shaped me into who I am. I would not go in and had many, many sick days during high school and eventually just stopped going all together.  Fortunately, once I got into the work industry I noticed a much better tone with most people.

Anyways, I never seemed to be held back by having no diploma.  I would hold myself back as I prefer a lower stress job versus earning more money in a higher paying position.  I now own a business as a sole proprietor.  So going through what I have, I have no sympathy for the people making minimum wage who are "stuck" and can't support their family.  I only have sympathy for the child, because it will almost certainly effect the course of their life.

[Bucksandreds]

I really don't understand people who complain that they can't afford to support their family on minimum wage so minimum wage should be higher.  They should think about whether or not they can afford to support a family before they think about having a kid.  So let's say they do accidentally have a kid while making $8 an hour at McDonald's.  If they work hard enough and prove they are a hard worker, they have absolutely no reason that they can't move up and get a job making $10-12 per hour within a years time.  From there, they move up to a higher paying position or move to a different company and within a few years they will be making $15 an hour or more.

I've seen a lot of these people work and their work ethic is horrible.  If they call out sick every day or go into work not giving it much effort, then what reason would anyone else have to hire them?  Until they grow up and actually give it effort they are going to continue working the minimum wage job.

I dropped out of High School in 11th grade so I know first hand I had many opportunities to move up or around to different jobs over the last 12 years.  My reason for dropping out was very dumb looking back on it, and I wish I had the opportunity to go through it all again, but I've gotten by just fine without even going and getting a GED.  My reason for dropping out was I was constantly picked on or made fun of through all of High School and none of the teachers or anyone in the school ever seemed to give a crap at all.  To this day it's really made me self conscious about myself and has really shaped me into who I am. I would not go in and had many, many sick days during high school and eventually just stopped going all together.  Fortunately, once I got into the work industry I noticed a much better tone with most people.

Anyways, I never seemed to be held back by having no diploma.  I would hold myself back as I prefer a lower stress job versus earning more money in a higher paying position.  I now own a business as a sole proprietor.  So going through what I have, I have no sympathy for the people making minimum wage who are "stuck" and can't support their family.  I only have sympathy for the child, because it will almost certainly effect the course of their life.

Everything you say is correct. The problem is this. Does it benefit our society to have a country where these kids of these lazy people are growing up undereducated, undernourished, etc and turning out to be exactly like their parents? Would we be better off if we made it financially valuable, even if you're fairly lazy to show up to work, even if you're not motivated, so that you and your children will be healthy? Nothing will change the fact that millions of adults will have little motivation. Our choice is one of three: to continue on the path of intergenerational poverty, to allow these people to starve to death, or to incentivize even the lowest levels of work so as to draw more out of poverty so that the children have a chance to break the cycle. Now is the time for choosing, as the republicans like to say.

[Apex]

I really don't understand people who complain that they can't afford to support their family on minimum wage so minimum wage should be higher.  They should think about whether or not they can afford to support a family before they think about having a kid.  So let's say they do accidentally have a kid while making $8 an hour at McDonald's.  If they work hard enough and prove they are a hard worker, they have absolutely no reason that they can't move up and get a job making $10-12 per hour within a years time.  From there, they move up to a higher paying position or move to a different company and within a few years they will be making $15 an hour or more.

I've seen a lot of these people work and their work ethic is horrible.  If they call out sick every day or go into work not giving it much effort, then what reason would anyone else have to hire them?  Until they grow up and actually give it effort they are going to continue working the minimum wage job.

I dropped out of High School in 11th grade so I know first hand I had many opportunities to move up or around to different jobs over the last 12 years.  My reason for dropping out was very dumb looking back on it, and I wish I had the opportunity to go through it all again, but I've gotten by just fine without even going and getting a GED.  My reason for dropping out was I was constantly picked on or made fun of through all of High School and none of the teachers or anyone in the school ever seemed to give a crap at all.  To this day it's really made me self conscious about myself and has really shaped me into who I am. I would not go in and had many, many sick days during high school and eventually just stopped going all together.  Fortunately, once I got into the work industry I noticed a much better tone with most people.

Anyways, I never seemed to be held back by having no diploma.  I would hold myself back as I prefer a lower stress job versus earning more money in a higher paying position.  I now own a business as a sole proprietor.  So going through what I have, I have no sympathy for the people making minimum wage who are "stuck" and can't support their family.  I only have sympathy for the child, because it will almost certainly effect the course of their life.

Everything you say is correct. The problem is this. Does it benefit our society to have a country where these kids of these lazy people are growing up undereducated, undernourished, etc and turning out to be exactly like their parents? Would we be better off if we made it financially valuable, even if you're fairly lazy to show up to work, even if you're not motivated, so that you and your children will be healthy? Nothing will change the fact that millions of adults will have little motivation. Our choice is one of three: to continue on the path of intergenerational poverty, to allow these people to starve to death, or to incentivize even the lowest levels of work so as to draw more out of poverty so that the children have a chance to break the cycle. Now is the time for choosing, as the republicans like to say.

I definitely see a plus to getting more people out of poverty.  The big problem I see that could happen is the middle class will not see a wage increase, and the cost of living will go up, causing the middle class to be hurt the most.  On the other hand, much of the middle class lives way beyond their needs, spending $50k on a brand new vehicle and then complain they're broke.

[xyzzy]

You are definitely correct that the income of some people such as CEOs, movie stars, sports stars are extremely high in comparison to most of Americans but it is not the job of society to say what the pay should be.

One thing you can do to protest is just not pay outrageous ticket prices for sports events or to go to movies. F'em. Why do you need to support that kind of BS? Save your money and invest it otherwise. If you must, RedBox it.  I've also personally asked the same question, why CEOs but not sports/entertainment figures esp since many, many sports/entertainment figures actually play up their degeneracy for all the suckers in this country. The movies is the best example of this. Now its what, $12.50 per adult, so for family of 2/3 thats 12.50*2+10*3 = appx $45!?! and to boot, many movies just aren't that good. To heck with that. To get back to the CEO thing, well its all just part of the mass programming that goes on in US by the media. You hear it over and over and people just dont think for themselves and ask that question. Not much you can do about it, except what I said before.

[music lover]

CEO's are routinely portrayed as evil, yet millionaire musicians and athletes always seem to get a free pass from those who like to complain about "inequity". Every January 2, you can read a story about how the highest earning CEO's made more money that day than the average worker will all year...as if it really is a fair comparison to compare the very best in one segment to the average.

You never read how Beyoncé earned more on January 2nd than did every musician that backed her up or performed on her recordings. You never hear complaints how the highest paid athletes earn more than the average stadium or arena employee, yet it really is no different.

If you go five comments up from yours, you see this complaint:

I wish I was smart enough to figure out a way to lower the absurd incomes for CEOs, actors, sports figures, etc.  I think that has to be one thing everyone can agree on.  I just don't see how a AAA ball player is worth $12000 a year but a major league player is worth $12 million.  Is anything worth $12 million a year?  I realize we could get into profits that the great players bring, but just comparison to an average salary and those numbers start looking pretty damn ridiculous. 

If an actor is paid $10m for a movie and the movie is sold to a theater for $10,000 the theater has to charge $20 for a ticket.  Can't it be as simple as paying the actor $1m, charging the theater $5000 and lowering the ticket price to $10?  Then the average family can almost afford to go watch a movie.

Ya know? 

I guess reading the thread would have given you what you were looking for.

I saw that comment, but it doesn't change the fact that CEO's are routinely portrayed as the bad guy the majority of the time while celebrities and athletes often get a free pass. One or two comments on MMM doesn't change that.

[EnjoyIt]

Everything you say is correct. The problem is this. Does it benefit our society to have a country where these kids of these lazy people are growing up undereducated, undernourished, etc and turning out to be exactly like their parents? Would we be better off if we made it financially valuable, even if you're fairly lazy to show up to work, even if you're not motivated, so that you and your children will be healthy? Nothing will change the fact that millions of adults will have little motivation. Our choice is one of three: to continue on the path of intergenerational poverty, to allow these people to starve to death, or to incentivize even the lowest levels of work so as to draw more out of poverty so that the children have a chance to break the cycle. Now is the time for choosing, as the republicans like to say.

The question again is how?  If you ended up paying a parent for example an extra $5K a year where do you think that money will go?  Based on my small experience, I think that money will not go towards empowering that child to succeed in life.  it will get used up bright shiny things like the newest phone, TV, or car.  At worst it will be smoked, snorted or drank.  Either way, the money will be squandered. If the parents have no interest in motivating their children, no amount of money thrown at the parents will fix the problem.

I do fully agree that our teachers need to have smaller class sizes so that they can put more effort and energy into each child.

I really don't think the answer is throwing more money at the problem.  This is much more deeply rooted requiring educating a generation of individuals.  And yes, I definitely agree that a substantial increase in lower income salaries will also increase the costs of goods and services.  This will put a squeeze on the poor and the middle class the most.

[Bucksandreds]

Everything you say is correct. The problem is this. Does it benefit our society to have a country where these kids of these lazy people are growing up undereducated, undernourished, etc and turning out to be exactly like their parents? Would we be better off if we made it financially valuable, even if you're fairly lazy to show up to work, even if you're not motivated, so that you and your children will be healthy? Nothing will change the fact that millions of adults will have little motivation. Our choice is one of three: to continue on the path of intergenerational poverty, to allow these people to starve to death, or to incentivize even the lowest levels of work so as to draw more out of poverty so that the children have a chance to break the cycle. Now is the time for choosing, as the republicans like to say.

The question again is how?  If you ended up paying a parent for example an extra $5K a year where do you think that money will go?  Based on my small experience, I think that money will not go towards empowering that child to succeed in life.  it will get used up bright shiny things like the newest phone, TV, or car.  At worst it will be smoked, snorted or drank.  Either way, the money will be squandered. If the parents have no interest in motivating their children, no amount of money thrown at the parents will fix the problem.

I do fully agree that our teachers need to have smaller class sizes so that they can put more effort and energy into each child.

I really don't think the answer is throwing more money at the problem.  This is much more deeply rooted requiring educating a generation of individuals.  And yes, I definitely agree that a substantial increase in lower income salaries will also increase the costs of goods and services.  This will put a squeeze on the poor and the middle class the most.

Making minimum wage a living wage would really not raise spending power for the poor much thus having little inflationary effect.  Right now the difference is made up for in SNAP, WIC, housing subsidies, etc. IMHO, a living minimum wage ends corporate welfare for companies paying below a living wage and encourages work because working any job would get you out of reliance on assistance causing the person to feel empowered. Right now I could work for $7.25 per hour and end the month pretty much exactly as I would if I just took advantage of the system and did nothing.

[ender]

Studies have shown that its not a matter of in-equal opportunities, but of knowing how to use those opportunities.

To some extent, yes.  I taught a good lesson in my classroom today.  Some of the students put their minds to it and learned.  Others ignored me, will ignore me tomorrow, and will eventually fail the tests.  Later those students will complain that they can't get a job, can't get ahead, can't catch a break -- and a good portion of that "failure to thrive" will be based upon the fact that ignored their opportunities in school. 

Others will complain later that they couldn't afford college and therefore were doomed to a life of poverty.  Even if we assume that college was beyond their financial abilities, these are the same kids who don't even consider taking Electrical Trades, Auto Shop, Cosmetology or the other classes that could send them out of high school ready for an entry-level job in trades. 

Yes, recognizing one's opportunities is important.

Of course, it could be that those that learned your material were those whose parents were stable. And not alcoholics. Or who weren't in jail. Or doing drugs. Or not beating/abusing their children. Or  they were not worried about whether they would have any food after school.

Most kids do not actively consider all the benefits, risks, and drawbacks associated with opportunities such as school and make an informed decision about whether to take advantage of them or screw around.

Instead, most of them are a product of circumstances. Sure, there will be kids who rise -- or sink -- above/below their circumstances. But I suspect there is a strong correlation between your students who care/learn and them having intact and stable families and likewise a correlation for those who are failing with poor family situations (or poverty).

[redcedar]

Income envy is a strong strong force. It can distract for some. It can consume others.

Sadly, it seems to rarely motivate.

[EnjoyIt]

Making minimum wage a living wage would really not raise spending power for the poor much thus having little inflationary effect.  Right now the difference is made up for in SNAP, WIC, housing subsidies, etc. IMHO, a living minimum wage ends corporate welfare for companies paying below a living wage and encourages work because working any job would get you out of reliance on assistance causing the person to feel empowered. Right now I could work for $7.25 per hour and end the month pretty much exactly as I would if I just took advantage of the system and did nothing.

This is something I find very interesting.  A family that makes wages that are in the poverty level will get government subsidies that come from taxes.  Therefor we are already paying for the higher wage in other ways.  In turn we are subsidizing the corporations to be able to pay lower wages.

Something that I see all the time that drives me crazy is people who get such subsidies still have an iPhone, Motorola blue tooth headphones and a nice car.  Something is wrong with this picture.  By the definition of poverty these people should not be able to afford such luxuries.  Who is paying for them?

[Northwestie]

Good points.   Walmart is famous for paying bottom-of-the-barrel wages and then providing their employees information on how to apply for food stamps. 

Regarding purchase of phones or whatever - some costs of commodities have come down substantially over the years - TVs, computers, air conditioners, --so some criticism of poor folks having these items needs to take into the relative cost calculation.

On the other hand - other items, such as housing and education, have disproportionally increased and are now a barrier to lower income folks.

[Bucksandreds]

Making minimum wage a living wage would really not raise spending power for the poor much thus having little inflationary effect.  Right now the difference is made up for in SNAP, WIC, housing subsidies, etc. IMHO, a living minimum wage ends corporate welfare for companies paying below a living wage and encourages work because working any job would get you out of reliance on assistance causing the person to feel empowered. Right now I could work for $7.25 per hour and end the month pretty much exactly as I would if I just took advantage of the system and did nothing.

This is something I find very interesting.  A family that makes wages that are in the poverty level will get government subsidies that come from taxes.  Therefor we are already paying for the higher wage in other ways.  In turn we are subsidizing the corporations to be able to pay lower wages.

Something that I see all the time that drives me crazy is people who get such subsidies still have an iPhone, Motorola blue tooth headphones and a nice car.  Something is wrong with this picture.  By the definition of poverty these people should not be able to afford such luxuries.  Who is paying for them?

Guaranteed basic income fixes your concern. Everyone gets $X no matter what and nothing else. Then taxes go up slightly to pay for it but if you aren't filthy rich, everyone comes out ahead.

[EnjoyIt]

I honestly do not believe that paying the same wage for every lower end employee is the answer.

For example should someone who works in Mcdonalds make as much an an EMT?  Shouldn't the EMT now make more? Wouldn't the EMT want more money also? Where does it end?

Also if we increase wages it would be very naive for us to think that prices of goods and services would stay the same. The higher cost of goods and services affects the poor and middle class much more than the rich.

[Bucksandreds]

I honestly do not believe that paying the same wage for every lower end employee is the answer.

For example should someone who works in Mcdonalds make as much an an EMT?  Shouldn't the EMT now make more? Wouldn't the EMT want more money also? Where does it end?

Also if we increase wages it would be very naive for us to think that prices of goods and services would stay the same. The higher cost of goods and services affects the poor and middle class much more than the rich.

So what's your answer? Stay the course with inter generational poverty?

[Bertram]

Guaranteed basic income fixes your concern. Everyone gets $X no matter what and nothing else. Then taxes go up slightly to pay for it but if you aren't filthy rich, everyone comes out ahead.

I have never sen actual numbers for this. It's like with the flat tax craziness, or the idea that your income tax return should be so simple that it fits on a beer coaster. Everyone was for it, because everybody was convinced that he was paying more than his fair share, and that he would come out ahead. It looks like it's hitting the same shortcuts in the brain that convinces people to play the lottery.

When you do the actual calculations and people are confronted with the actual numbers the reactions are entirely different.

If you are modeling a system where very few people carry a lot of the cost for the majority of people, this can never work on a national level, it would need to be on a globally coordinated level. And that simple fact right there makes it very unlikely we're going to see something like that happen in our lifetime.

[EnjoyIt]

I honestly do not believe that paying the same wage for every lower end employee is the answer.

For example should someone who works in Mcdonalds make as much an an EMT?  Shouldn't the EMT now make more? Wouldn't the EMT want more money also? Where does it end?

Also if we increase wages it would be very naive for us to think that prices of goods and services would stay the same. The higher cost of goods and services affects the poor and middle class much more than the rich.

So what's your answer? Stay the course with inter generational poverty?

Just because there is a problem doesn't mean that throwing money at it will fix it. Giving an extra couple of thousand a year does not change the lack of understanding. This requires a generation of education before anything could possibly change.

We need to alter the mindframe of the parents so that the kids have a better opportunity for success. We also need to alter our mindframe from mindless consumption.

[thd7t]

I honestly do not believe that paying the same wage for every lower end employee is the answer.

For example should someone who works in Mcdonalds make as much an an EMT?  Shouldn't the EMT now make more? Wouldn't the EMT want more money also? Where does it end?

Also if we increase wages it would be very naive for us to think that prices of goods and services would stay the same. The higher cost of goods and services affects the poor and middle class much more than the rich.

So what's your answer? Stay the course with inter generational poverty?

Just because there is a problem doesn't mean that throwing money at it will fix it. Giving an extra couple of thousand a year does not change the lack of understanding. This requires a generation of education before anything could possibly change.

We need to alter the mindframe of the parents so that the kids have a better opportunity for success. We also need to alter our mindframe from mindless consumption.

Which taxes do you support to pay for this education?  I think that your proposal of a socialist solution might be on to something!

[Bucksandreds]

I honestly do not believe that paying the same wage for every lower end employee is the answer.

For example should someone who works in Mcdonalds make as much an an EMT?  Shouldn't the EMT now make more? Wouldn't the EMT want more money also? Where does it end?

Also if we increase wages it would be very naive for us to think that prices of goods and services would stay the same. The higher cost of goods and services affects the poor and middle class much more than the rich.

So what's your answer? Stay the course with inter generational poverty?

Just because there is a problem doesn't mean that throwing money at it will fix it. Giving an extra couple of thousand a year does not change the lack of understanding. This requires a generation of education before anything could possibly change.

We need to alter the mindframe of the parents so that the kids have a better opportunity for success. We also need to alter our mindframe from mindless consumption.

Which taxes do you support to pay for this education?  I think that your proposal of a socialist solution might be on to something!

Yeah, it's funny when conservatives nay say anything that involves social spending or higher costs of business, they never have any real idea how to fix the problem. I guess that's what being conservative really is. Conserving the status quo. 

[mm1970]

We need to alter the mindframe of the parents so that the kids have a better opportunity for success. We also need to alter our mindframe from mindless consumption.

This is interesting because  was having a convo with a friend who is a teacher (jr high) about entitled kids.  And poverty (we see a lot of it at our school).  And, from her perspective, many of the elementary kids in our school are spoiled, entitled brats.  She said, and I'm paraphrasing "it's not the parents, they are both working 2 jobs just to get by, it's the kids who are lazy, spoiled, and entitled".  So I asked when that happened?

It was an honest question, and she didn't know the answer. But I can tell you that the Kinder and 1st graders aren't like that, but I certainly see it in 4th.

[Jack]

You are definitely correct that the income of some people such as CEOs, movie stars, sports stars are extremely high in comparison to most of Americans but it is not the job of society to say what the pay should be.

For CEOs it should be the board of directors
For movie stars it should be the production company that hires them. Same for sports stars.

As a society the only thing we can do is not purchase the products of the companies with outlandish CEO pay, or get a share and go to stock holder meetings and voice our opinion.  We can stop watching sports games and stop seeing movies.

The board of directors is made of other CEOs, who have a vested interest in increasing each others' pay. The members of said board are not chosen by "shareholders" as they should be, but rather by the managers of the largest mutual funds (who are functionally equivalent to CEOs themselves, at least in the sense that they're members of the same good ol' boy's club). Because of this, CEO pay spirals higher and higher despite the fact that the actual people who ultimately own the shares would rail against it if they realized what was happening.

In other words, as a society we certainly can recognize that the system is broken and, at the very least, institute financial reforms that would do things like require shareholder voting to "pass through" to the individual holders of mutual fund shares.

[EnjoyIt]

I honestly do not believe that paying the same wage for every lower end employee is the answer.

For example should someone who works in Mcdonalds make as much an an EMT?  Shouldn't the EMT now make more? Wouldn't the EMT want more money also? Where does it end?

Also if we increase wages it would be very naive for us to think that prices of goods and services would stay the same. The higher cost of goods and services affects the poor and middle class much more than the rich.

So what's your answer? Stay the course with inter generational poverty?

Just because there is a problem doesn't mean that throwing money at it will fix it. Giving an extra couple of thousand a year does not change the lack of understanding. This requires a generation of education before anything could possibly change.

We need to alter the mindframe of the parents so that the kids have a better opportunity for success. We also need to alter our mindframe from mindless consumption.

Which taxes do you support to pay for this education?  I think that your proposal of a socialist solution might be on to something!

Simple:

1) cut the department of education. All money should go to the state to be distributed. That already saves on waste.
2) have entitlements on a graded system instead of an all or nothing. Money saved can be used towards education
3) legalize all drugs and tax them. Money used for education.
4) free all non violent drug offenders from prison. Money used for education.

That should be more than enough money to begin he education process.

Okay, I offer solutions.  Do any of you have a better plan?

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

I really don't understand people who complain that they can't afford to support their family on minimum wage so minimum wage should be higher.  They should think about whether or not they can afford to support a family before they think about having a kid.  So let's say they do accidentally have a kid while making $8 an hour at McDonald's.  If they work hard enough and prove they are a hard worker, they have absolutely no reason that they can't move up and get a job making $10-12 per hour within a years time.  From there, they move up to a higher paying position or move to a different company and within a few years they will be making $15 an hour or more.

I've seen a lot of these people work and their work ethic is horrible.  If they call out sick every day or go into work not giving it much effort, then what reason would anyone else have to hire them?  Until they grow up and actually give it effort they are going to continue working the minimum wage job.

I dropped out of High School in 11th grade so I know first hand I had many opportunities to move up or around to different jobs over the last 12 years.  My reason for dropping out was very dumb looking back on it, and I wish I had the opportunity to go through it all again, but I've gotten by just fine without even going and getting a GED.  My reason for dropping out was I was constantly picked on or made fun of through all of High School and none of the teachers or anyone in the school ever seemed to give a crap at all.  To this day it's really made me self conscious about myself and has really shaped me into who I am. I would not go in and had many, many sick days during high school and eventually just stopped going all together.  Fortunately, once I got into the work industry I noticed a much better tone with most people.

Anyways, I never seemed to be held back by having no diploma.  I would hold myself back as I prefer a lower stress job versus earning more money in a higher paying position.  I now own a business as a sole proprietor.  So going through what I have, I have no sympathy for the people making minimum wage who are "stuck" and can't support their family.  I only have sympathy for the child, because it will almost certainly effect the course of their life.

Everything you say is correct. The problem is this. Does it benefit our society to have a country where these kids of these lazy people are growing up undereducated, undernourished, etc and turning out to be exactly like their parents? Would we be better off if we made it financially valuable, even if you're fairly lazy to show up to work, even if you're not motivated, so that you and your children will be healthy? Nothing will change the fact that millions of adults will have little motivation. Our choice is one of three: to continue on the path of intergenerational poverty, to allow these people to starve to death, or to incentivize even the lowest levels of work so as to draw more out of poverty so that the children have a chance to break the cycle. Now is the time for choosing, as the republicans like to say.

What if there is another way that no one is talking about?

What if we start paying people to NOT have children?  Right now our system is designed to encourage people to have kids:  we give tax exemptions for each child someone has, we have social programs that give out resources to mothers who cannot support their families on their own.  But the problem with this is we no longer need a large population of uneducated laborers in this country. 

What if we design our system to encourage people to skip having children, especially at early ages?  What if we got rid of the tax exemptions for each kid, and instead gave women between 18-30 (or pick an age range) a tax credit of $XXXX each year that they go without having a kid.  And once they have a child, they are no longer eligible for that credit.  This would nudge the young and the poor to not have children or at least delay the process until they are better able to afford them.  Also, it would do a lot to make up for income discrepancies between men and women by giving women some extra money via these credits.  Have the govt also start paying for all costs associated with adoption / abortion and start cutting back on programs that just give out money.

It is far easier to address poverty by reducing the number of kids born into it than it is to try and lift children out of it ,especially if those kids are being raised by people with zero life skills in the first place.

Whatever we are doing now is not working.  Why not try out some completely different ideas?

[Bucksandreds]

We need to alter the mindframe of the parents so that the kids have a better opportunity for success. We also need to alter our mindframe from mindless consumption.

This is interesting because  was having a convo with a friend who is a teacher (jr high) about entitled kids.  And poverty (we see a lot of it at our school).  And, from her perspective, many of the elementary kids in our school are spoiled, entitled brats.  She said, and I'm paraphrasing "it's not the parents, they are both working 2 jobs just to get by, it's the kids who are lazy, spoiled, and entitled".  So I asked when that happened?

It was an honest question, and she didn't know the answer. But I can tell you that the Kinder and 1st graders aren't like that, but I certainly see it in 4th.

Could part of it be less parental involvement because they're so busy working just to make ends meet?  Parents do much less raising of their own kids these days because both parents need to work full time.

[Bucksandreds]

I really don't understand people who complain that they can't afford to support their family on minimum wage so minimum wage should be higher.  They should think about whether or not they can afford to support a family before they think about having a kid.  So let's say they do accidentally have a kid while making $8 an hour at McDonald's.  If they work hard enough and prove they are a hard worker, they have absolutely no reason that they can't move up and get a job making $10-12 per hour within a years time.  From there, they move up to a higher paying position or move to a different company and within a few years they will be making $15 an hour or more.

I've seen a lot of these people work and their work ethic is horrible.  If they call out sick every day or go into work not giving it much effort, then what reason would anyone else have to hire them?  Until they grow up and actually give it effort they are going to continue working the minimum wage job.

I dropped out of High School in 11th grade so I know first hand I had many opportunities to move up or around to different jobs over the last 12 years.  My reason for dropping out was very dumb looking back on it, and I wish I had the opportunity to go through it all again, but I've gotten by just fine without even going and getting a GED.  My reason for dropping out was I was constantly picked on or made fun of through all of High School and none of the teachers or anyone in the school ever seemed to give a crap at all.  To this day it's really made me self conscious about myself and has really shaped me into who I am. I would not go in and had many, many sick days during high school and eventually just stopped going all together.  Fortunately, once I got into the work industry I noticed a much better tone with most people.

Anyways, I never seemed to be held back by having no diploma.  I would hold myself back as I prefer a lower stress job versus earning more money in a higher paying position.  I now own a business as a sole proprietor.  So going through what I have, I have no sympathy for the people making minimum wage who are "stuck" and can't support their family.  I only have sympathy for the child, because it will almost certainly effect the course of their life.

Everything you say is correct. The problem is this. Does it benefit our society to have a country where these kids of these lazy people are growing up undereducated, undernourished, etc and turning out to be exactly like their parents? Would we be better off if we made it financially valuable, even if you're fairly lazy to show up to work, even if you're not motivated, so that you and your children will be healthy? Nothing will change the fact that millions of adults will have little motivation. Our choice is one of three: to continue on the path of intergenerational poverty, to allow these people to starve to death, or to incentivize even the lowest levels of work so as to draw more out of poverty so that the children have a chance to break the cycle. Now is the time for choosing, as the republicans like to say.

What if there is another way that no one is talking about?

What if we start paying people to NOT have children?  Right now our system is designed to encourage people to have kids:  we give tax exemptions for each child someone has, we have social programs that give out resources to mothers who cannot support their families on their own.  But the problem with this is we no longer need a large population of uneducated laborers in this country. 

What if we design our system to encourage people to skip having children, especially at early ages?  What if we got rid of the tax exemptions for each kid, and instead gave women between 18-30 (or pick an age range) a tax credit of $XXXX each year that they go without having a kid.  And once they have a child, they are no longer eligible for that credit.  This would nudge the young and the poor to not have children or at least delay the process until they are better able to afford them.  Also, it would do a lot to make up for income discrepancies between men and women by giving women some extra money via these credits.  Have the govt also start paying for all costs associated with adoption / abortion and start cutting back on programs that just give out money.

It is far easier to address poverty by reducing the number of kids born into it than it is to try and lift children out of it ,especially if those kids are being raised by people with zero life skills in the first place.

Whatever we are doing now is not working.  Why not try out some completely different ideas?

How would social security and Medicare be funded in 30 years when there are 50 million less working aged adults because of this?  Whatever you pay for you get much more of. I think we should be paying for work so we get more of it and less system moochers. You think we should be paying for no children so we would get population decline.

[Bucksandreds]

I honestly do not believe that paying the same wage for every lower end employee is the answer.

For example should someone who works in Mcdonalds make as much an an EMT?  Shouldn't the EMT now make more? Wouldn't the EMT want more money also? Where does it end?

Also if we increase wages it would be very naive for us to think that prices of goods and services would stay the same. The higher cost of goods and services affects the poor and middle class much more than the rich.

So what's your answer? Stay the course with inter generational poverty?

Just because there is a problem doesn't mean that throwing money at it will fix it. Giving an extra couple of thousand a year does not change the lack of understanding. This requires a generation of education before anything could possibly change.

We need to alter the mindframe of the parents so that the kids have a better opportunity for success. We also need to alter our mindframe from mindless consumption.

Which taxes do you support to pay for this education?  I think that your proposal of a socialist solution might be on to something!

Simple:

1) cut the department of education. All money should go to the state to be distributed. That already saves on waste.
2) have entitlements on a graded system instead of an all or nothing. Money saved can be used towards education
3) legalize all drugs and tax them. Money used for education.
4) free all non violent drug offenders from prison. Money used for education.

That should be more than enough money to begin he education process.

Okay, I offer solutions.  Do any of you have a better plan?

A more graded system of entitlements is a genuinely good step. Not sure that your other ideas are well thought. Something like 60% of dept of education budget is for Pell Grants to make college more affordable for those who it's already very expensive for. Most of the rest goes straight to primary and secondary education.  Education lacks funding because the states have spent decades lowering income tax rates by pulling money out of education. Federal funding, has kept our education system from collapsing. The real problem with education funding has been the rich wanting lower state income tax rates.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf

As for the drug part, a gradual (over decades) shift to legalization of all drug use is wise. Lots of unintended consequences to complete and overnight legalization of all drug consumption, sale, transportation and production. Marijuana for those 21 and up may be a way to raise sales tax revenue.

[Marus]

There is absolutely no reason why any single person in the US can't achieve greatness if they are willing to work hard for it.

I agree with most of your post and certainly agree that people who work hard, achieve high levels of education, have special talents, and/or take risks in their career deserve to be compensated more highly; however, everyone can't achieve greatness.  Certainly plenty of people don't try, but plenty of others simply don't have the capacity.  In plain English, some people are just stupid (remember, 50% of the population is below average); and aside from the few idiots who pour hot coffee upon themselves and make an issue of it, few people are rewarded for stupidity.

I think it's a good thing that most people are content with being part of a community and impacting the world in a small way.  Do we really need 6 billion wannabe Alexander the Great's running around?

[Marus]

My theory on this is we could get a lot of social good out of creating more tax brackets and really squeezing the rich.  The reason for this is I think CEOs and their ilk have plenty of money to pay for their wildest dreams and at this point more money only really helps them to the extent that it makes them feel like they're getting paid more than other CEOs.  So let their paychecks keep going up and let them keep up their dick-measuring competition.  But in return, we've got a lot of social programs to fund and a lot of problems to fix.

[mathlete]

What if there is another way that no one is talking about?

What if we start paying people to NOT have children?  Right now our system is designed to encourage people to have kids:  we give tax exemptions for each child someone has, we have social programs that give out resources to mothers who cannot support their families on their own.  But the problem with this is we no longer need a large population of uneducated laborers in this country. 

What if we design our system to encourage people to skip having children, especially at early ages?  What if we got rid of the tax exemptions for each kid, and instead gave women between 18-30 (or pick an age range) a tax credit of $XXXX each year that they go without having a kid.  And once they have a child, they are no longer eligible for that credit.  This would nudge the young and the poor to not have children or at least delay the process until they are better able to afford them.  Also, it would do a lot to make up for income discrepancies between men and women by giving women some extra money via these credits.  Have the govt also start paying for all costs associated with adoption / abortion and start cutting back on programs that just give out money.

It is far easier to address poverty by reducing the number of kids born into it than it is to try and lift children out of it ,especially if those kids are being raised by people with zero life skills in the first place.

Whatever we are doing now is not working.  Why not try out some completely different ideas?

Would you rather be a single and childless low wage earner working 60 hours a week to scrape by, or a jobless single mother on welfare?

Being on welfare sucks. No one has kids to get on welfare. If they did, it would be a grave miscalculation.

People don't have kids because the government encourages it with benefits, they have kids because sex feels good.

The number of people who can afford to have kids without help is already really low. If you take away CHIP, medicaid, subsidized daycare, public school (more subsidized daycare), dependent care tax credits, etc., even the middle class are going to struggle to have children.

If we're cutting all those benefits, fine. But we have to double wages like, yesterday.

[Marus]

What if there is another way that no one is talking about?

What if we start paying people to NOT have children?  Right now our system is designed to encourage people to have kids:  we give tax exemptions for each child someone has, we have social programs that give out resources to mothers who cannot support their families on their own.  But the problem with this is we no longer need a large population of uneducated laborers in this country. 

What if we design our system to encourage people to skip having children, especially at early ages?  What if we got rid of the tax exemptions for each kid, and instead gave women between 18-30 (or pick an age range) a tax credit of $XXXX each year that they go without having a kid.  And once they have a child, they are no longer eligible for that credit.  This would nudge the young and the poor to not have children or at least delay the process until they are better able to afford them.  Also, it would do a lot to make up for income discrepancies between men and women by giving women some extra money via these credits.  Have the govt also start paying for all costs associated with adoption / abortion and start cutting back on programs that just give out money.

It is far easier to address poverty by reducing the number of kids born into it than it is to try and lift children out of it ,especially if those kids are being raised by people with zero life skills in the first place.

Whatever we are doing now is not working.  Why not try out some completely different ideas?

Would you rather be a single and childless low wage earner working 60 hours a week to scrape by, or a jobless single mother on welfare?

Being on welfare sucks. No one has kids to get on welfare. If they did, it would be a grave miscalculation.

People don't have kids because the government encourages it with benefits, they have kids because sex feels good.

The number of people who can afford to have kids without help is already really low. If you take away CHIP, medicaid, subsidized daycare, public school (more subsidized daycare), dependent care tax credits, etc., even the middle class are going to struggle to have children.

If we're cutting all those benefits, fine. But we have to double wages like, yesterday.

People also have kids because they receive abstinence only sex Ed and don't know how to protect themselves.  Or they live in states where planned parenthood has been defunded and they have little to no access to birth control. 

Point being, if anyone thinks low income folks having too many kids is a huge problem there are actual policies that can be implemented to mitigate it.  Part of it is education, part of it is a more robust social safety net, and part of it is making sure that all women have access to the reproductive help they need.  Maybe shaming poor people for making dumb decisions fits in there somewhere too, but I for one prefer positive reinforcement.

[thd7t]

I honestly do not believe that paying the same wage for every lower end employee is the answer.

For example should someone who works in Mcdonalds make as much an an EMT?  Shouldn't the EMT now make more? Wouldn't the EMT want more money also? Where does it end?

Also if we increase wages it would be very naive for us to think that prices of goods and services would stay the same. The higher cost of goods and services affects the poor and middle class much more than the rich.

So what's your answer? Stay the course with inter generational poverty?

Just because there is a problem doesn't mean that throwing money at it will fix it. Giving an extra couple of thousand a year does not change the lack of understanding. This requires a generation of education before anything could possibly change.

We need to alter the mindframe of the parents so that the kids have a better opportunity for success. We also need to alter our mindframe from mindless consumption.

Which taxes do you support to pay for this education?  I think that your proposal of a socialist solution might be on to something!

Simple:

1) cut the department of education. All money should go to the state to be distributed. That already saves on waste.
2) have entitlements on a graded system instead of an all or nothing. Money saved can be used towards education
3) legalize all drugs and tax them. Money used for education.
4) free all non violent drug offenders from prison. Money used for education.

That should be more than enough money to begin he education process.

Okay, I offer solutions.  Do any of you have a better plan?

I am glad that you offered some serious options.

I'm not sure that all drugs should be legalized, but certainly it should be looked at.  The taxes would have to be directed to education, though.  The fourth option is definitely a strong one, but it creates a temporary, but serious issue with bringing a large group of people back into society with a lot of cost.  It is a serious and reasonable proposal, though.

I would argue that entitlements are already graded, but it is through them being accessed through different portals.  Maybe that could be more efficient, but setting that up isn't without cost.

I disagree with abolishing the dept. of Education.  I believe that there is valuable work that can be done at the Federal level to try to maintain some standards of aid to school districts at state and local levels.  I think that there would be greater disparity in quality of education if this were more granular.

[EnjoyIt]

What if there is another way that no one is talking about?

What if we start paying people to NOT have children?  Right now our system is designed to encourage people to have kids:  we give tax exemptions for each child someone has, we have social programs that give out resources to mothers who cannot support their families on their own.  But the problem with this is we no longer need a large population of uneducated laborers in this country. 

What if we design our system to encourage people to skip having children, especially at early ages?  What if we got rid of the tax exemptions for each kid, and instead gave women between 18-30 (or pick an age range) a tax credit of $XXXX each year that they go without having a kid.  And once they have a child, they are no longer eligible for that credit.  This would nudge the young and the poor to not have children or at least delay the process until they are better able to afford them.  Also, it would do a lot to make up for income discrepancies between men and women by giving women some extra money via these credits.  Have the govt also start paying for all costs associated with adoption / abortion and start cutting back on programs that just give out money.

It is far easier to address poverty by reducing the number of kids born into it than it is to try and lift children out of it ,especially if those kids are being raised by people with zero life skills in the first place.

Whatever we are doing now is not working.  Why not try out some completely different ideas?

Would you rather be a single and childless low wage earner working 60 hours a week to scrape by, or a jobless single mother on welfare?

Being on welfare sucks. No one has kids to get on welfare. If they did, it would be a grave miscalculation.

People don't have kids because the government encourages it with benefits, they have kids because sex feels good.

The number of people who can afford to have kids without help is already really low. If you take away CHIP, medicaid, subsidized daycare, public school (more subsidized daycare), dependent care tax credits, etc., even the middle class are going to struggle to have children.

If we're cutting all those benefits, fine. But we have to double wages like, yesterday.

I have met and continue to meet people who have kids and live on welfare because it is was they are expected to do. I actually watched a woman with asthma try to convince a working man with asthma to file for disability and not work.

[2lazy2retire]

What about the value they add to our portfolios?
What about the large business loans they make to other corporations that in turn increases profits and increases our stock prices?

The value added by hedge funds or other actively managed funds is pretty nebulous. Warren Buffet himself  bet on this. Google S&P vs Hedge Funds for more.

Companies can issue bonds that are accessible to users of discount brokerage firms. I don't think there is any reason why what has happened to managed equity funds can't happen to managed securities funds.

And then there is the little matter of the damage done in the subprime mortgage crisis. If were arguing that value added is a net positive, that is a pretty big hiccup to overcome.

Do we not need the hedge funds and active managers to keep efficiency in the market?, remember in the US only 30% of the market is in index funds, if it was 100% I doubt share prices would reflect real value.

[2lazy2retire]

I really don't understand people who complain that they can't afford to support their family on minimum wage so minimum wage should be higher.  They should think about whether or not they can afford to support a family before they think about having a kid.  So let's say they do accidentally have a kid while making $8 an hour at McDonald's.  If they work hard enough and prove they are a hard worker, they have absolutely no reason that they can't move up and get a job making $10-12 per hour within a years time.  From there, they move up to a higher paying position or move to a different company and within a few years they will be making $15 an hour or more.

I've seen a lot of these people work and their work ethic is horrible.  If they call out sick every day or go into work not giving it much effort, then what reason would anyone else have to hire them?  Until they grow up and actually give it effort they are going to continue working the minimum wage job.

I dropped out of High School in 11th grade so I know first hand I had many opportunities to move up or around to different jobs over the last 12 years.  My reason for dropping out was very dumb looking back on it, and I wish I had the opportunity to go through it all again, but I've gotten by just fine without even going and getting a GED.  My reason for dropping out was I was constantly picked on or made fun of through all of High School and none of the teachers or anyone in the school ever seemed to give a crap at all.  To this day it's really made me self conscious about myself and has really shaped me into who I am. I would not go in and had many, many sick days during high school and eventually just stopped going all together.  Fortunately, once I got into the work industry I noticed a much better tone with most people.

Anyways, I never seemed to be held back by having no diploma.  I would hold myself back as I prefer a lower stress job versus earning more money in a higher paying position.  I now own a business as a sole proprietor.  So going through what I have, I have no sympathy for the people making minimum wage who are "stuck" and can't support their family.  I only have sympathy for the child, because it will almost certainly effect the course of their life.

Shoulda stayed in high school longer ;) - so while the accidental parent is working harder to get from $8/hr to $15/hr who is looking after junior-

[2Cent]

Studies have shown that its not a matter of in-equal opportunities, but of knowing how to use those opportunities.

To some extent, yes.  I taught a good lesson in my classroom today.  Some of the students put their minds to it and learned.  Others ignored me, will ignore me tomorrow, and will eventually fail the tests.  Later those students will complain that they can't get a job, can't get ahead, can't catch a break -- and a good portion of that "failure to thrive" will be based upon the fact that ignored their opportunities in school. 

Others will complain later that they couldn't afford college and therefore were doomed to a life of poverty.  Even if we assume that college was beyond their financial abilities, these are the same kids who don't even consider taking Electrical Trades, Auto Shop, Cosmetology or the other classes that could send them out of high school ready for an entry-level job in trades. 

Yes, recognizing one's opportunities is important.

Of course, it could be that those that learned your material were those whose parents were stable. And not alcoholics. Or who weren't in jail. Or doing drugs. Or not beating/abusing their children. Or  they were not worried about whether they would have any food after school.

Most kids do not actively consider all the benefits, risks, and drawbacks associated with opportunities such as school and make an informed decision about whether to take advantage of them or screw around.

Instead, most of them are a product of circumstances. Sure, there will be kids who rise -- or sink -- above/below their circumstances. But I suspect there is a strong correlation between your students who care/learn and them having intact and stable families and likewise a correlation for those who are failing with poor family situations (or poverty).

Not just families, but social circles. If you're close to a lot of savvy business men, you have an enormous advantage if you want to do business. They don't teach that kind of thing in schools. If on the other hand your circle consists of slackers or worse, they will only encourage you to become like them and resent you for trying to be better. As a kid you basically have any way to know better. Maybe when you're an adult you might realize a better way. But by that time you are way behind.