I'm all for getting rid of government interference like subsidies. I just don't support adding new government interference (e.g. minimum wage) to combat other government interference (e.g. subsidies, federal reserve). Fix the root of the problem, don't create new ones (which is what minimum wage ultimately does).
The fact of the matter is that increased minimum wage increases costs for businesses, big and small. Many of those businesses are working on pretty tight margins as it is. You may want to punish walmart or force them to treat their employees better or whatever, but in the process it will just end up hurting small businesses more. Walmart will find a way to cut other costs (more automation to replace employees, fewer hours, fewer employees, cheaper benefits package, etc.). Smaller businesses often don't have that luxury.
The fact still remains that reducing CEO compensation or shareholder value will not pay for minimum wage increases. If you feel the above example is oversimplified then explain where you think the money to pay for such an increase in minimum wage will come from. Economies of scale is a real thing.
Im not advocating for an increase in minimum wage solution. Simply pointing out that cause & effect in economics is far from an exact science & that there are always many variables impossible to account for. My other point is these mega corporations, including ceos obviously rig the system to reinforce the wealth gap. I think an economy built on many many small businesses will be more efficient & secure than these giant government corporations
Well, i believe that was the whole point of the OP. i.e. that paying for a minimum wage increase is NOT a simple matter of reducing CEO compensation or stock dividends.
At least for now, small businesses are alive and well: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/opadhome/mtdpweb/sbfacts.htm
.gov statistics tend to contradict what the real world looks like to me. The unemployment % is a good example. The link looks like a lot of outdated inaccurate cherry picked stats.
I see no good reason why any ceo needs to make enough money to buy small countries. The wealth disparity in this country is a symptom of sickness & rapidly getting worse. Bernie is a gutless pawn
Wealth disparity is a non-issue in itself. The more important issue is whether or not the middle and lower classes are improving or getting worse.
A CEO doesn't NEED to make enough to buy a small country but if the net effect on everybody else is nil (which would seem to be the case based on basic numbers), then it's irrelevant. If there is a problem with jobs or income with the average person, it has nothing to do with CEO salary. That's kind of the point of the OP and exactly the type of argument the OP is addressing.
As far as the statistics, the basic numbers are pretty clear. For the time being, more people are employed by small businesses than by large corporations (though it's nearly a 50/50 split). It's true that large corporations are always buying up smaller companies and consolidating but it is also true that new small businesses are created every day. If you have some better statistics I would love to see them. I don't consider "How the world looks to you" to be a very reliable source either unless you can back that up with some specifics. I can look around my town at small business vs. large corporations and the 50/50 split looks about right to me.
50/50 split, so 0 gov. Jobs?
If wealth disparity is a non issue why did it accelerate so much in the last 10 years in the us? How do increasingly super rich individuals living amongst an increasingly poor population benefit the overall population? Is an accelerating wealth gap a sign of a healthy ecOnomy & society? How does that work over time? Do the haves at some point decide to help out the little guys?
Bezos has 150 billion, would it make a difference if we added several zeros to that #? Or make the people he shares the city with half as wealthy (what’s 1/2 of a negative)? That’s where the trend has obviously been heading & accelerating with inflation. The fake resources are being hoarded in the hands of the gov supported few & have been for a very long time. The symptoms will get worse before they get better.
50/50 split meaning the number of people employed by large corporations is almost as much as the number employed my smaller businesses. The U.S. Federal government employs approximately 2% of the workforce.
The wealth gap isn't an issue if everybody is getting richer. It doesn't matter that the rich get richer faster. That was my point. The "poor" now are far better off than the "poor" of 100 years ago for example. Wealth disparity itself is a meaningless statistic. Bezos getting richer doesn't matter. If everybody else was getting poorer, it would. However, this isn't a zero-sum game. The pie is always growing. One person getting richer doesn't mean someone else has to be getting poorer.
“The "poor" now are far better off than the "poor" of 100 years ago for example.”
How do you define better off?