Instead of $15 per hour minimum wage... how about this?

[The Tradition]

$15 per hour could threaten many businesses. Especially ones that are already struggling. So, instead of $15 per hour, how about mandatory profit sharing? If the company is doing really well, you could get more than $15. But if the company is struggling, government mandates don't push them over the edge.

Wouldn't this be a better way?

 

[Derekd3408]

No. If you want to make more money go to college and learn a valued skill or be an entrepreneur and start your own business.

 

[The Tradition]

Well, we're always going to need unskilled laborers, and the political winds are pushing for an ever higher minimum wage. At least this plan doesn't push struggling businesses in to bankruptcy.

 

[moral_victory]

No. If you want to make more money go to college and learn a valued skill or be an entrepreneur and start your own business.

If everyone just followed these easy step all we could eradicate poverty!

 

[TexMichFan]

$15 per hour could threaten many businesses. Especially ones that are already struggling. So, instead of $15 per hour, how about mandatory profit sharing? If the company is doing really well, you could get more than $15. But if the company is struggling, government mandates don't push them over the edge.

Wouldn't this be a better way?

In theory you have a nice idea.

To put it into practice would be a tragic failure as businesses had to deal with the government trying to dictate how much profit should be shared. Take a look at how our tax system looks to see how screwed up this could get.

 

[moral_victory]

At least this plan doesn't push struggling businesses in to bankruptcy.

It would certainly make small business or struggling business jobs seem unattractive. Finally a way to make those McDonald's and Wal-Mart jobs seem better than a job with a local business.

 

[naturalmwa]

Yes, this is what the founders wanted. Redistribute ownership of the nation's wealth.

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

 

[Bulldogs1974]

hard to survive day by day if you are waiting for profit sharing once a year.

 

[Derekd3408]

Well, we're always going to need unskilled laborers, and the political winds are pushing for an ever higher minimum wage. At least this plan doesn't push struggling businesses in to bankruptcy.

Well then you would push all the unskilled laborers to successful businesses. Why would Johnny want to work for Bobs Pizza when he could go to Pizza Hut and make more money, especially when Bobs will require more out of the employee. Small businesses can't let employees slack, they need to run very efficient to create a profit. Jobs requiring unskilled labor are just that, jobs. They aren't designed to create a comfortable living. People should use those jobs to enter a career.

 

[TexMichFan]

Yes, this is what the founders wanted. Redistribute ownership of the nation's wealth.

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

It would be very fascinating to see where the founding fathers would be on the issues that face us today. For example, how much of their quotes mean to them what it means to us.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I would advocate a tax penalty for businesses that engage in low pay practices.

 

[TexMichFan]

I would advocate a tax penalty for businesses that engage in low pay practices.

How do you define low pay practices?

Also, would businesses that engage in high pay practices get tax breaks?

 

[DrVenkman]

I would advocate a tax penalty for businesses that engage in low pay practices.

Or you could just look at a great current case study- WalMart.

WMT is being punished in the public markets as they struggle mightily to implement higher wages. So much so that they are overhauling their entire business to compete more effectively in e-commerce. In other words, they will be firing tens of 1000s.

 

[Greenway4Prez]

I admire what Ikea did; hire MIT to come up with a "living wage" based on region, instead of a catch-all wage that buys vastly different things in different areas.

 

[herkyhawk00]

$15 per hour could threaten many businesses. Especially ones that are already struggling. So, instead of $15 per hour, how about mandatory profit sharing? If the company is doing really well, you could get more than $15. But if the company is struggling, government mandates don't push them over the edge.

Wouldn't this be a better way?

How do you justify giving $15 an hour to a cashier ($31,000 a year)? Do I even need to get into more specifics here? Can we use common sense? What does that do to the price of food? How does that impact businesses profit? We have already seen examples of the opposite effect raising the minimum wage has as people make too much money to be on welfare so they cut their own hours or find lower paying jobs.

Why are people frowned upon in this society for making money they have worked hard for? I will tell you this much, everybody has opportunities in this country. You can go into the armed services and make a darned good living. What most people don't get, however, is that low income student can go to job corps and get trained in a trade or job of their choice for FREE. They get FREE room and board, and like the one in Ottumwa, IA that is co-op with Indian Hills, kids can also choose to go their for FREE!

Ya know what, Starbucks has a deal that for anyone who works their 25 hrs or more a week, they will pay for your degree at Arizona State online for FREE. Don't tell me there aren't opportunities. It is laziness!

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

$15 per hour could threaten many businesses. Especially ones that are already struggling. So, instead of $15 per hour, how about mandatory profit sharing? If the company is doing really well, you could get more than $15. But if the company is struggling, government mandates don't push them over the edge.

Wouldn't this be a better way?

What is your proposal for the times that the business may NOT be doing well? In your world, is there "reverse profit sharing"? In my experience, people can often identify ways to share in good times...but really struggle to identify ways that the "folks" can share in the bad times in a business cycle.

 

[The Tradition]

What is your proposal for the times that the business may NOT be doing well? In your world, is there "reverse profit sharing"? In my experience, people can often identify ways to share in good times...but really struggle to identify ways that the "folks" can share in the bad times in a business cycle.

Most businesses calculate profit quarterly.

 

[BubsFinn]

A better solution to raising wages would be to stop flooding the market with cheap, unskilled workers. All those jobs that "Americans will not do," Americans would do for a higher wage than an illegal alien. For decades, we've been de-valuing labor in this country. By jacking up the minimum wage, we do not make labor more valuable, only more expensive.

 

[86Hawkeye]

$15 per hour could threaten many businesses. Especially ones that are already struggling. So, instead of $15 per hour, how about mandatory profit sharing? If the company is doing really well, you could get more than $15. But if the company is struggling, government mandates don't push them over the edge.

Wouldn't this be a better way?

No. We already have profit sharing.

It's called a job.

 

[BondHawk]

Yes, this is what the founders wanted. Redistribute ownership of the nation's wealth.

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

There is already widespread ownership of land and businesses under our current economic system. What did the founding fathers say about people who won't get off their ass and work harder at the job they currently have until they can put the pieces in place to get a better one, if they so choose?

 

[naturalmwa]

There is already widespread ownership of land and businesses under our current economic system. What did the founding fathers say about people who won't get off their ass and work harder at the job they currently have until they can put the pieces in place to get a better one, if they so choose?

They said make them owners so they have skin in the game and motivation to work harder.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

How do you define low pay practices?

Also, would businesses that engage in high pay practices get tax breaks?

Ones where a significant number of their workers make under 30k a year.

You could potentially give tax breaks to high paying companies as well.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

How do you justify giving $15 an hour to a cashier ($31,000 a year)? Do I even need to get into more specifics here? Can we use common sense? What does that do to the price of food? How does that impact businesses profit? We have already seen examples of the opposite effect raising the minimum wage has as people make too much money to be on welfare so they cut their own hours or find lower paying jobs.

Why are people frowned upon in this society for making money they have worked hard for? I will tell you this much, everybody has opportunities in this country. You can go into the armed services and make a darned good living. What most people don't get, however, is that low income student can go to job corps and get trained in a trade or job of their choice for FREE. They get FREE room and board, and like the one in Ottumwa, IA that is co-op with Indian Hills, kids can also choose to go their for FREE!

Ya know what, Starbucks has a deal that for anyone who works their 25 hrs or more a week, they will pay for your degree at Arizona State online for FREE. Don't tell me there aren't opportunities. It is laziness!

My brother did Job Corps. . . he was surrounded by criminals (Literally judges sent them there as a part of their punishment.)

He regularly had things stolen and was bullied until he left. It was pretty much the same way with anyone who tried to go there of their own free will. They left.

Job Corps is a good idea but they need to stop sending criminals there so that the people who want to be there can actually learn.

 

[TexMichFan]

Ones where a significant number of their workers make under 30k a year.

You could potentially give tax breaks to high paying companies as well.

So around 75% of the workers?

 

[unIowa]

hard to survive day by day if you are waiting for profit sharing once a year.

And this is the biggest issue with the proposal of the OP. Many Americans are too short sided or too in need to look to the long term and how a proposal like this will help them.

If you are worried about putting food on the table right now you are not all that concerned with how the companies next quarter's P&L is going to look. AND even when people get some profit-sharing kickback many, if not most, are so short-sighted that they will just go out and blow the money on some sort of non-essential (see electronics).

Don't get me wrong, I like profit sharing as a model but it isn't going to ease the ills of income/wealth inequality in the short term.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Most businesses calculate profit quarterly.

Actually, most businesses that I know calculate profit every month...they may report it publicly on a quarterly basis...but that does not address at all what I was getting at.

My point is that if people think that sharing profits is a solution, or part of a solution, to income inequality, etc, are they willing for that to go both ways? Assuming the business is not profitable over a period of time, would people support the staff having money deducted from their compensation?

The world is full of ideas that are half baked and not well thought out...I think this is one of them.

 

[BondHawk]

They said make them owners so they have skin in the game and motivation to work harder.

They said to give the lazy an ownership stake? I'm pretty sure that is not what they had in mind.

Working hard eventually makes you an owner, in some capacity. Whether that be owning property or owning the ability to make choices about where your life is taking you. In no place on Earth has "giving" prior to "working hard" ever promoted long-term prosperity for the masses.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

So around 75% of the workers?

I would count a significant number as being more then 10% of their workers earning less then 30k.

The tax penalty can be stair stepped so that a company that pays 15% of it's workers less then 30k isn't punished as heavily as one who pays 90% of it's workers less then 30k.

The tax penalty should be heavy enough to inspire profitable companies to give their workers a pay raise and get said workers well paid enough to not require as much or any government assistance.

 

[The Tradition]

Actually, most businesses that I know calculate profit every month...they may report it publicly on a quarterly basis...but that does not address at all what I was getting at.

My point is that if people think that sharing profits is a solution, or part of a solution, to income inequality, etc, are they willing for that to go both ways? Assuming the business is not profitable over a period of time, would people support the staff having money deducted from their compensation?

The world is full of ideas that are half baked and not well thought out...I think this is one of them.

No, they're making a base wage of $7.25 (the current federal minimum) with the chance to make a lot more if the company does well. Like was mentioned by others, it's an incentive to work hard and make your employer a success.

 

[TexMichFan]

I would count a significant number as being more then 10% of their workers earning less then 30k.

The tax penalty can be stair stepped so that a company that pays 15% of it's workers less then 30k isn't punished as heavily as one who pays 90% of it's workers less then 30k.

The tax penalty should be heavy enough to inspire profitable companies to give their workers a pay raise and get said workers well paid enough to not require as much or any government assistance.

 

[cigaretteman]

And this is the biggest issue with the proposal of the OP. Many Americans are too short sided or too in need to look to the long term and how a proposal like this will help them.

If you are worried about putting food on the table right now you are not all that concerned with how the companies next quarter's P&L is going to look. AND even when people get some profit-sharing kickback many, if not most, are so short-sighted that they will just go out and blow the money on some sort of non-essential (see electronics).

Don't get me wrong, I like profit sharing as a model but it isn't going to ease the ills of income/wealth inequality in the short term.

I agree with this, but do I spy a WOB in our second sentence?

 

[naturalmwa]

They said to give the lazy an ownership stake? I'm pretty sure that is not what they had in mind.

Working hard eventually makes you an owner, in some capacity. Whether that be owning property or owning the ability to make choices about where your life is taking you. In no place on Earth has "giving" prior to "working hard" ever promoted long-term prosperity for the masses.

Implicit in any employee ownership plan is that you show up to work. Its really quite perfect. you should look for reasons to be for it, not toss out strawmen about why its bad to own the company you work for.

 

[unIowa]

I agree with this, but do I spy a WOB in our second sentence?

Crap...sided.

 

[whatsup13579er]

I always thought a good way to do it is to tax companies based on what the highest paid employees make versus what the lowest paid employees make. So if your CEO is making 200x more than their lower paid workers, they would be taxed at a much higher rate than a CEO 10x more than their lower paid workers. This would help small businesses and would encourage large companies to 'spread the wealth'.

 

[Run&Blade]

Profit isn't so cut and dry. Accountants love to manipulate that figure.

 

[BondHawk]

I always thought a good way to do it is to tax companies based on what the highest paid employees make versus what the lowest paid employees make. So if your CEO is making 200x more than their lower paid workers, they would be taxed at a much higher rate than a CEO 10x more than their lower paid workers. This would help small businesses and would encourage large companies to 'spread the wealth'.

What if that CEO is providing 20,000,000x the value of the lowest paid worker?

 

[BondHawk]

Implicit in any employee ownership plan is that you show up to work. Its really quite perfect. you should look for reasons to be for it, not toss out strawmen about why its bad to own the company you work for.

I don't think "showing up" should be the standard we set for deserving anything in our society. Millions of lazy people "show up" for work every day. Then they go home and b!tch about their lot in life instead of doing something constructive to improve it.

In life, with some exceptions, you generally get about what you deserve. Good or bad.

 

[naturalmwa]

What if that CEO is providing 20,000,000x the value of the lowest paid worker?

Cool, then they can afford a tax bill 20,000,000x the other guy.

 

[BondHawk]

Cool, then they can afford a tax bill 20,000,000x the other guy.

Maybe. But there is no economic reason why it makes sense for them to pay it to subsidize someone else being lazy all of their life.

 

[naturalmwa]

I don't think "showing up" should be the standard we set for deserving anything in our society. Millions of lazy people "show up" for work every day. Then they go home and b!tch about their lot in life instead of doing something constructive to improve it.

In life, with some exceptions, you generally get about what you deserve. Good or bad.

That's the whole point of this plan. To encourage more than showing up. Research ESOP's. They improve most everything. Productivity, job satisfaction, innovation, returns, efficiency, turnover. You are pointing your pitchfork in the wrong direction.
https://www.nceo.org/articles/stock-options-improve-corporate-performance