A True Story

The heated debate in comments to this post reminded me of this:

How rich are you?

(I'm doing quite well myself, thanks. I'm in the Top 6.57 percent worldwide in terms of personal income -- provided I get that next paycheck.)

It also reminded me of a story:

My first job out of college was as an intern with ... let's just call them The Company.

As an intern, I wasn't a part of the complex salary structure of grade levels and pay scales that governed all actual jobs with The Company, from filing clerk to CEO. As a result, I didn't have any particular stake in the massive, yearlong salary restructuring that took place while I was there.

The Company hired the Hay Group to come in and evaluate its various job levels and pay scales, which involved months of interviews and endless discussion of things like "core responsibilities." Finally, the Hay people came up with a grand plan and everybody in The Company gathered in the cafeteria -- the only room large enough to hold us all -- to learn about the details and the transition from how things were to how things would come to be.

This was pre-PowerPoint, but there were lots of transparencies on an overhead projector. The gist of the presentation had to do with "midpoints." At every salary level, it was explained, some workers were earning less than the midpoint salary for that level, while other workers were earning more. This was, it was explained, unfair.

Over the next few years, it was further explained, the salary structure would be made more fair by freezing the salaries of those currently earning more than 100 percent of their grade-level midpoint and giving incremental raises to those earning less than the midpoint.

I've simplified this a great deal. The actual presentation took nearly an hour and made all of this sound much more confusing and complicated than it really was, but this was the basic gist.

Finally, stumbling to a conclusion, the CEO reassured us all that thanks to this transition process and the fine contribution of the fine folks from the Hay Group, The Company would have a fairer, more just salary structure in a few short years. Those currently earning more than their midpoints might not enjoy any raises in the next few years, he suggested, but they were hardly in a position to complain, seeing as they had been ding so much better than everyone else up until now.

Then, suddenly, he was done. "Any questions?" he asked.

Awkward pause. Fear and confusion and much shuffling of feet. Then the intern had a question.

I was a bit nervous, in part because I was only 22 and in part because I had just heard what sounded to me like an elaborate scam and thus the only question I could think of was "Did I just hear correctly, that you're proposing a salary freeze on your secretary so you can give yourself a raise?" and that's not an easy question to ask your boss's boss.

So I was a bit nervous, and thus couldn't muster the courage or the clarity to put the question quite so baldly. Instead, nervously, I chose an unfortunately elaborate analogy.

"You've explained that some people's buckets are overflowing," I said. "While other's buckets are only 80 percent full. But that doesn't tell us anything unless we know how big the various buckets are."

A blank stare from the CEO and an awkward silence, after which I'm afraid I repeated the analogy, only this time with cups instead of buckets. More awkward silence.

I panicked and switched gears, disastrously: "Since the new salary structure will be, you've said, perfectly fair and just, is there any reason not to demonstrate this by disclosing everyone's salary publicly?"

Audible gasps throughout the cafeteria and looks of horror as though I had just farted in church. I'd lost the room. The CEO harrumphed about confidentiality of personnel matters and, there being no further questions, the meeting was adjourned.

Over the following year, working from job postings that advertised both "grade levels" and starting salaries, I was able to graph the rapidly accelerating curve of the various "midpoints" and to confirm that, yes, in fact, this process was the elaborate scam I had feared. Top-level executives had largely been judged to be earning less than their "midpoints," and so received generous raises. Their secretaries and support staff had largely been judged to be earning more than their "midpoints," and so faced salary freezes for several years. All in the name of fairness and justice.

From this experience, I learned several lessons:

1. If you ever encounter a consultant from the Hay Group, keep one hand on your wallet and never turn your back.

2. Americans find any public discussion or comparison of income distasteful and grounds for extreme defensiveness. They might be willing to talk publicly about the intimate details of their sex lives or their gastrointestinal functions, but not about their salary.

3. This reluctance to speak transparently about income does not serve most people well, but serves some people very well indeed.

Comments

[Scott]

Given that more people shop at WalMart than work there, wouldn't you support low wages and low prices on "the greatest good for the greatest number" grounds, or does that only apply when it helps you politically like every other thing liberals believe?

[Merlin Missy]

(Sorry, J.)

Let me ask you something: if I went to one of the 20K people in line who disagree w/ you about working at WalMart and offered him $1/hr to mow my yard, and he's free to say 'no', have I violated his rights because the wage I offered is too low?

Well, as it's below federally-mandated minimum wage, I'd say it's technically illegal. And thank you for putting the words in my mouth about not wanting them to work at WalMart; my argument is that if they do, they should be paid a reasonable wage based on the local cost of living. You're arguing (as far as I can tell) that this is a bad thing based solely on (again, as far as I can tell) the fact that it was the government's idea, and not WalMart's. I'm used to your Big Bad Government Boogeyman argument, but I'm still waiting for why you think the concept itself in this situation is a bad idea, or if it's yet another case of kneejerk outrage that a government body somewhere did something.

I've been out of work for just over a year now. My now former employer, which is still active and is still one of the largest employers in the Chicago area, was at last report receiving between 80 and 100 resumes for every job posting. Not especially relevant, except as a data point for what kind of turnout another company around here gets when they're hiring.

[Kirala]

It's what Terry Pratchett calls the "Sam Vimes Boots Theory of Economics". Poor person can afford only a $10 pair of boots, rich person buys the good-quality $50 boots. Ten years later, the $10 boots have had to be replaced ten times (costing $100) while the $50 boots are still working. Thus, the wealthy can afford to spend less money.

I think there could be something to that. Although I think Americans have such a disposable culture that our wealthy rarely discover the ten years' worth use in their $50 (oops, forgot a zero or two) boots.

[Seth]

A thought - are those people applying to Walmart because they WANT to work there, or because they HAVE to work there?

One of the classic examples of the former is Costco. They treat their employees well and have a very low turnover rate in return. They can even justify the bean counters (whose opinions seem to carry the most weight, sadly) since the company has to spend relatively little money on training new employees, customers are happy with the knowledgable staff, and there's low employee theft.

Naturally some investors think that's just proof that they could maximize profits by screwing the employees. In their worldview the only thing that matters is the literal bottom line and they're willing to accept higher turnover, theft, etc., as long as there's greater savings in reduced employee wages and benefits.

[Scott]

And thank you for putting the words in my mouth about not wanting them to work at WalMart; my argument is that if they do, they should be paid a reasonable wage based on the local cost of living.

Which means you don't want them to take the jobs as offered - generously 'allowing' them to take your hypothetical jobs at hypothetical different wages means nothing.

but I'm still waiting for why you think the concept itself in this situation is a bad idea, or if it's yet another case of kneejerk outrage that a government body somewhere did something.

What you don't get is that it isn't up to other people to prove to your personal satisfaction that they should be allowed, by you, to offer any specific wage. The burden of proof is not on someone who wants to deny you the power you feel God has granted you by virtue of your belief in your own moral wonderfulness.

A thought - are those people applying to Walmart because they WANT to work there, or because they HAVE to work there?

Did WalMart reinstitute slavery when we weren't looking? No? That's right, forcing people to go w/o those jobs at the wages being currently offered isn't force, but offering those wages is 'forcing' people to work for them. Nothing any liberal does is ever 'force' (because it's the elected govt and thus voluntary action by 'us'), but offers people are free to turn down are force. Why? Because that's what you need for your arguments.

Will you listen to George McGovern?

The end of 'more'
A Democratic stalwart warns that labor's old strategy can't win against a new competitive reality.
By George S. McGovern, GEORGE S. MCGOVERN, a former U.S. senator from South Dakota, was the Democratic nominee for president in 1972.

...it can be galling to hear companies argue that they have to cut wages and benefits for hourly workers — even as they reward top executives with millions of dollars in stock options. The chief executive of Wal-Mart earns $27 million a year, while the company's average worker takes home only about $10 an hour. But let's assume that the chief executive got 27 cents instead of $27 million, and that Wal-Mart distributed the savings to its hourly workers. They would each receive a bonus of less than $20. It's not executive pay that has created this new world.

I understand the attraction of asking business — the perceived "deep pockets" — to shoulder more of the responsibility for social welfare. But there are plenty of businesses that don't have deep pockets. And many large corporations operate with razor-thin profit margins as competitors, both foreign and domestic, strive to attract consumers by offering lower prices.

The current frenzy over Wal-Mart is instructive. Its size is unprecedented. Yet for all its billions in profit, it still amounts to less than four cents on the dollar. Raise the cost of employing people, and the company will eliminate jobs. Its business model only works on low prices, which require low labor costs. Whether that is fair or not is a debate for another time. It is instructive, however, that consumers continue to enjoy these low prices and that thousands of applicants continue to apply for those jobs....

[Isabeau]

Since this entire blog entry has been filed under "class warfare," I don't feel it's at all out of place to point out that the North Side of Chicago has fine public transport and convenient Metra lines, but the South Side—which is where the majority of the black people live—might as well be in another county.

If you live south of 26th and east of Western and can't afford a car, may God help you, because the CTA won't.

[Merlin Missy]

Scott: So, kneejerk. Gotcha. *will stop poking him now*

Isabeau: Your link is to a story where people have access to public transportation. It's about not having close access to decent grocery stores, which is a big problem but not one instantly remedied by throwing Super WalMarts at it.

[Fred]

Scott --

You know when you're there at the bar with a couple of friends and one of your friends buys the first round, and then your other friend buys the next round, and then they look at you, expectantly, but instead of buying the next round you start railing against the coercive nature of their implied social contract and shouting that they're no better than Stalin?

Yeah. That's why nobody buys you drinks.

And also why nobody's buying your argument.

[Duane]

According to the link Fred provided, those folks in Chicago making $9/hour are among the world's top 11% wealthiest people.

The community's effort to get them better pay would have moved them to top 10% worldwide.

[Jesurgislac]

Duane: According to the link Fred provided, those folks in Chicago making $9/hour are among the world's top 11% wealthiest people.

You surely haven't missed the point of Fred's link? Anyone living in a Western country likely does count as one of the world's top 11% wealthiest people.

Walmart in the UK trades as Asda. Asda is doing pretty well in the UK (around 15% market share).

The minimum wage required in the UK for workers aged 18-21 ("developing workers") is more than the starting wage Walmart pays any employee - Walmart's starting wage isn't much more than the minimum amount an employer has to pay a 16-17 year old. The wage the City of Chicago says is fair for the minimum wage an employer has to pay is just about the same as the minimum wage that the UK government sets for workers over 21.

So, the wages Walmart claims it can't afford to pay in the US to Americans, it can afford to pay in the UK to Brits.

[Ray]

And speaking of 16-17 year old workers, I bet you bunch of social fascists would complain if Walmart started offering 10 year olds 5 bucks an hour - which they'd be perfectly free to refuse - to clean out its chimneys. And if Walmart gets into the asbestos cleanup business and is willing to pay a premium rate - say 12 dollars an hour - to its workers (as long as they provide their own equipment, and sign a contract absolving Walmart of responsibility for any illnesses they may or not suffer at some far-off future date), you nay-sayers and envy-mongerers would start mouthing off with your usual liberal platitudes.
Bastards!

[bad Jim]

During the grocery strike in Southern California a few years back, one encountered commenters arguing strenuously that a job at a grocery store ought to be a badly paid entry level job. Why? Because it was that sort of job, after all.

The idea that nearly every job deserves a working wage, with full health care and retirement, was apparently inconceivable to them, and remains so for too many Americans.

[Jen]

Fred, FTW. Best comment to Scott I've seen in some time. *grin*

[Steve]

The minimum wage required in the UK for workers aged 18-21 ("developing workers") is more than the starting wage Walmart pays any employee - Walmart's starting wage isn't much more than the minimum amount an employer has to pay a 16-17 year old.

I wondered myself why we couldn't have a graduated minimum wage, as it seems you are saying the UK does. I can understand paying a lesser amount to a high school student working a side job than an adult. So why not satisfy some retail business by keeping a lower minimum wage for 16 and 17 year olds (to shut up some of those businesses that say they couldn't survive with higher paid labor...like fast food chains), but a living wage for older workers. Is there a flaw in this logic?

[inge]

Is there a flaw in this logic?

Steve, without giving it too much thought I'd guess it might lead to people getting laid off once they turn 18, maybe also a pressure to extend the scale down and get young teenagers to work because they are cheaper.

This assumes a (for practical purposes) infinite supply of workers, and corporations not being driven by any consideration but paying as little as possible.

[Beth]

This assumes a (for practical purposes) infinite supply of workers, and corporations not being driven by any consideration but paying as little as possible.

In other words, a weak job market and -- for low-skilled and unskilled jobs at least -- a boss with an eye for the bottom line. I don't think there's any doubt that it would happen; the only question is whether the effect would be harmful enough to outweigh the benefits of the plan, and that would probably depend a lot on how much of a gap there was between minimum wages.

[cjmr]

I have to assume that Ray is being ironic, since it's illegal for WalMart to hire 10 year olds at all in the US. (Okay, I suppose there are exceptions under the hideously complex child model/actor labor laws that allow children to work as models/actors. But models/actors don't clean out chimneys.)

[cjmr's husband]

"I'm not a chimney sweep, but I play one on TV."

[B-W]

The "Global Rich List" is interesting, but since it utterly fails to account for the cost of living in various areas, I can't derive much value out of learning that I'm in the "top 8%" of the world. If I lived in (for example) Kentucky instead of Southern CA, the money I make would go much farther. Let alone if I lived in one of the parts of the world where the poorest of the poor lived....

[Jesurgislac]

Steve: So why not satisfy some retail business by keeping a lower minimum wage for 16 and 17 year olds (to shut up some of those businesses that say they couldn't survive with higher paid labor...like fast food chains), but a living wage for older workers. Is there a flaw in this logic?

I actually disagree with the graduated minimum wage, because what it amounts to is a rule that you don't need to treat young people decently and that young people won't be working for a living wage. It's legal for a 16-year-old to leave home, and indeed it's legal for a 16-year-old's parents to kick him or her out of the house. But it's also legal to pay 16-17 year olds less money, regardless of what the work they're doing is worth.

If fast-food chains think they can't operate without cheap labor, they should go out of business. But they won't. If all fast-food chains are required to pay the people they hire a living wage, there won't be unfair competition between them.

[bulbul]

Yeah. That's why nobody buys you drinks.
PWN3D!!!!1!!!11!!1!!!!

Man, that was good. Thanks Fred.

[Duane]

The "Global Rich List" is interesting, but since it utterly fails to account for the cost of living in various areas, I can't derive much value out of learning that I'm in the "top 8%" of the world. If I lived in (for example) Kentucky instead of Southern CA, the money I make would go much farther. Let alone if I lived in one of the parts of the world where the poorest of the poor lived....

Exactly. As someone pointed out, it's all relative.

[Michele]

> The "Global Rich List" is interesting, but since it utterly fails to account for the cost of living in various areas, I can't derive much value out of learning that I'm in the "top 8%" of the world. If I lived in (for example) Kentucky instead of Southern CA, the money I make would go much farther. Let alone if I lived in one of the parts of the world where the poorest of the poor lived....

I think part of the point of the site is that if you lived in (for example) Kentucky instead of SoCal, you probably wouldn't be making as much money as you do (even if you have the same job). This goes double or triple, btw, if you lived in one of the parts of the world where the poorest of the poor live....

[bulbul]

If I lived in (for example) Kentucky instead of Southern CA, the money I make would go much farther.
Or you could move to Central/Eastern Europe (whatever it is you call the part of Europe that includes Poland, the former Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Slovenia). My US$ 12k per year (which puts me in the top 12.8%) really isn't that much viewed from a US perspective, but it's about twice the average annual income and the rent on my one-bedroom apartment is $250.
All of that providing my clients will honor my bills (I'm self-employed). And it ain't looking all to well...

[Duane]

And it ain't looking all to well...

If you want to come try the American Dream (read: myth), my guest house is empty right now. And I could use some help around the estate. (sand-blasting the third story gargoyles / resurfacing the helipad / etc.)

[sammy baby]

Oh man, this brings back some memories.

I worked for the PA State System of Higher Ed for many years. My university hired a consultancy for a very similar purpose, and I'm 99% sure that it was the Hay Group that got the nod. The end result was that they scrapped the old rules for management compensation and replaced it with a very complicated system which could be boiled down as, "The closer to the President you are, the more money you make."

(I say "management," but this is a state university we're talking about. "Management" was anyone who wasn't unionized, which was how a 25 year old, bottom of the totem pole kind of guy like me was considered management.)

I don't recall the "midpoint" issue in my case, but it seems even more ridiculous - "we're gonna give half the employees raises! We're just not telling you which half."

[Ray]

My US$ 12k per year (which puts me in the top 12.8%) really isn't that much viewed from a US perspective, but it's about twice the average annual income and the rent on my one-bedroom apartment is $250.

The other side of that is that when some Polish people come to Ireland to work, they discover that the couple of months wages that they brought with them to live on only last a couple of weeks here. Which (relating back to Nickle and Dimed in the other thread) is sometimes okay if they have a social network they can rely on when they arrive, but sometimes means they end up homeless.

[bulbul]

The other side of that is that when some Polish people come to Ireland to work, they discover that the couple of months wages that they brought with them to live on only last a couple of weeks here
Yep, I've heard several such stories, some even from people I know.

[Seth]

Related note -- apparently the minimum wage increased passed this weekend includes two, not just one, goat turds.

The first was the Paris Hilton Tax Relief Act. You know the one -- it eliminates estate taxes on estates valued over 2 gazillion dollars. I don't remember the exact number, but I thought it had basically come down to members of only 17 families. Think Paris Hilton and Bill Gates and the family behind Walmart.

Maybe the estate tax should be completely repealed. Let it be openly discussed. But presenting a tax cut for millionaires as on the same ethical plane as helping to lift millions of working poor out of poverty?!

The second goat turd lies in the state and local minimum wage laws. Many cities and states had passed their own minimum wage laws in the face of federal inaction. In fact this helped shame the republicans into finally acting.

The new law (if initial reports are true) still allows states and localities to pass their own laws, but strikes down any laws that put tipped employees closer to parity with their untipped peers. Some states and cities had decided that tips should go to reward good service, not to subsidize the employers so they don't have to pay an honest wage to their employees.

There's fear that this will be used a precedence to strike down all state and local laws in the next go around. As if $8/hour goes as far in NYC or San Francisco as it does in Duluth. (No insult to Duluth intended.)

[pdf23ds]

Merlin Missy,

I think you're misrepresenting Scott, but instead of defending him, I'll just defend my own ideas, which are similar to, and partly inspired by, Scott's.

With Wal-mart coming to town, the choice isn't between requiring it to offer a livable wage and letting it offer a low wage. The choice is between letting it offer a low wage and scaring Wal-mart away. Do you think those workers are better off without Wal-mart than they would be with a low-wage-paying Wal-mart?

It really is a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma, except that instead of having two players, you have thousands (in any given community). The cost of not shopping at Wal-mart, when you're poor, is very substantial, and incurred entirely by yourself. The cost of supporting Wal-mart's business practices by shopping there is extremely small--any given person's contribution to Wal-mart's profitability is infinitismal. So the rational choice is to shop at Wal-mart.

Now, in situations like these, the best thing to do is to organize. Set up an organization that tries to recruite people into a boycott. But the boycott doesn't take effect until a certain number of people (say, 50% of the customers of a particular Wal-mart location) promise to participate in the boycott. That sort of thing could be really effective.

[Seth]

You're right when Walmart is moving into an urban area.

But in rural areas a Walmart opening means that many small local businesses will be closing. It really is an "either-or" since the market isn't large enough for both, and nobody can compete with Walmart's distribution channels and willingness to race to the bottom in quality. The problem is that those new jobs pay less or have fewer benefits.

Wasn't there a study recently that showed how rural poverty increases significantly after a Walmart opens locally? I seem to remember some questions about its methodology, but the mere fact that it's a legitimate question is scary.

[cjmr's husband]

(say, 50% of the customers of a particular Wal-mart location)

Or, get 50% of the elected representatives of the people to pass a law saying that if Wal-mart builds a store, it has to pay a living wage. Where have I heard that idea before?

[pdf23ds]

"Or, get 50% of the elected representatives of the people to pass a law saying that if Wal-mart builds a store, it has to pay a living wage. Where have I heard that idea before?"

Yes, there are many forms of political action.

[pdf23ds]

Once you open your mind to the possibility that the people you want to 'help' have a range of beliefs that aren't all 100% in sync with yours, and legitimate interests that differ from the ones your economic beliefs assign to them, 'Solidarity' turns into nothing more than a pretty way of saying "I know best, peasant, because I have a communications degree from State U and you're just the cattle God put me here to feed and water."

Scott, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you think that it's illegitimate for the government to legislate a minimum wage? Or are you simply objecting to people that think that there's any objective right to a living wage, outside of the actual collective will of the people to require such a wage? In other words, is your objection to the Chicago council's actions that they are out of touch with the will of the people because of their liberal arrogance, or that the government shouldn't have the right to interfere with the individual's right to enter into an employment contract at whatever salary they can negotiate?

If the former, I don't think there's really that huge of a disagreement between you and most other commenters here. If the latter, then the discussion would have to get really technical to continue.

[Beth]

A couple of problems, pdf23ds. First, you left out an important part of the equation: the cost to the government. Government generally ends up subsidizing Walmart's payroll through medicaid and other programs to help the poor. Many local governments also provide generous packages to encourage companies to move into the area (tax breaks, road improvements, etc). When the companies provide decent wages and benefits, its a great investment. With companies like Walmart that don't, it's money down the drain.

The choice is between letting it offer a low wage and scaring Wal-mart away.

There's another alternative, scare Walmart away and offer small business loans to help locals open their own stores. The prices may be a little higher, but more of the money will stay in the community, and that benefits everyone.

[Lila]

sammy baby: your post tangentially brings up an issue I'm surprised nobody else brought up: that public universities are REQUIRED BY LAW to make the salaries they pay a matter of public record. The University of Georgia is my hometown's biggest employer, and I can walk right over to their library and look up the salary of any employee by name. (I have actually done this.)

Oddly, this does not seem to cause any of the calamities that are supposed to occur if people find out what their co-workers are making.

[pdf23ds]

"First, you left out an important part of the equation"

I was describing the viewpoint of the worker. And while the cost to the government does have a long-term effect on individual workers, the effect isn't as whether the jobs even exist.

But, from a long term view, I do agree with you. While Wal-mart may not be in Chicago, the people that would have started working there still presumably want work, and so there's an opening for other business with more worker-friendly practices to set up shop, and if they do (which is not a very small "if",) then the residents will be better off.

Now, there's still a question about the legitimacy of such actions, but I do favor giving governments lots of power to regulate business. It's probably just Scott, here, that would question that.

"There's another alternative, [...] offer small business loans to help locals open their own stores"

Would this apply to urban/suburban Chicago too? I can see where it would apply to medium-sized towns, say 10,000 - 50,000. But then on the very small end, as Seth brought up, you have the 1,000 - 5,000 size towns, and in these cases I'm not sure such investments would be viable. Do you think so?

[pdf23ds]

Regarding salary transparency (link):

In the interest of fairness, Fog Creek's compensation policy is open, public, simple, and accountable. Many companies try to obfuscate the rules they use for determining compensation in hopes that they won't get caught paying some people too much and others too little. Some companies actually consider it a firing offense to reveal your salary!

We feel that in the long run, this can only hurt us through negative morale, high turnover, and destructive office politics. Therefore, the policy in this document is publicly available. People have a right to know what the levels are and what they mean. Everybody has a right to know what their colleagues' levels are.

Similarly, the rules we use to determine salaries based on levels and other factors are simply, easy to understand, and public knowledge.

Yes, that means you can figure out what your coworker is making. So what? People in public service, the army, the police, and unions can all figure out what their coworkers are making. This transparency policy is a good thing that forces Fog Creek management to keep things fair.

[Beth]

Would this apply to urban/suburban Chicago too?

I don't see why not. They've done it in NYC, targeting areas that needed an economic boost, and it seems to have worked out pretty well.

[Scott]

Scott, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you think that it's illegitimate for the government to legislate a minimum wage?

Yes. 'A' paying 'B' $4/hr is no more your business than 'A' and 'B' engaging in anal sex.

Here are some evil people violating 'solidarity' - wanna arrest them?
... More than a dozen church and community leaders ratcheted up the rhetoric Monday over a proposed city wage ordinance for big-box retail stores, saying the measure would hurt economically depressed areas.

The group, made up of leaders from predominantly African-American communities, said the measure would scare big retailers away from the city because it sets a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum.

"Why aren't we doing all we can to attract businesses?" said Dr. Leon Finney of the Metropolitan Apostolic Community Church. "Many of these jobs in retail are starter jobs.... I'm more interested in having a job than a living wage."...

[cjmr's husband]

What if I want to hire someone to a lifelong contract for no pay except room and board? Can I get government assistance if he tries to escape?

[Jesurgislac]

From the link provided: "Amazing the divergence of opinion between the folks who actually want and need these jobs and the people who make a living protesting on their behalf."

The person quoted, Dr. Leon Finney, is actually not one of the folks who'll be looking for a job at WalMart: he's one of the folks who "make a living protesting on their behalf". That is he's the Chairman/CEO of The Woodlawn Organization, and a Professor of McCormick Theological Seminary. When Dr Finney remarried in June 2002, his wedding was offered as an example of what older professional couples can afford if they feel like it:

Over the years, weddings seem to get more lavish; not just for movie stars, but even for people in our home town. When Leon Finney Jr. and Georgette Greenlee got married last June, the guest list got a little out of control. "It grew and grew and grew," says Georgette Greenlee Finney of Chicago. "At some point it was, 'if you want to come to the wedding, you can come to the wedding!'"

The Finneys are pretty sure the 1500 seat Rockefeller Chapel was filled. They're absolutely certain they had to have two receptions. The Finneys are an example of why modern weddings may cost more. Most couples who marry now are older, with careers and 60% of whom pay for the wedding themselves. In their case, the Finneys can afford it. link

Easy for Dr Finney to say he'd rather have a job than a living wage: it's not as if he and his wife need to work for WalMart for 40 hours a week each and still struggle to pay the bills.

[Jesurgislac]

(The story about the lavish wedding came up when I googled on Dr Finney's name: I assumed it was a coincidence until I read in his bio on this History Makers site that he was married to Georgette Greenlee Finney in June 2002. So this is, in fact, an example of a well-off person telling poor people they should be happy to work hard and still earn not enough to live on...)

[Bugmaster]

Well, I am in the top 1%, but I don't feel like it. I'm still paying off my college debts, plus helping out my parents a bit. I won't be buying a yacht anytime soon (actually, never).

Yes, I realize that the point of the exercise was to show me how wealthy our country is compared to many others in the Third World, but the single-question test borders on propaganda.

[Beth]

'A' paying 'B' $4/hr is no more your business than 'A' and 'B' engaging in anal sex.

What if 'A' is paying 'B' $4/hr to engage in anal sex?

Seriously, I think you're right. The same principle holds true in both cases, the one that says it's no one else's business as long as it's consensual. The means both parties must be able to make a free and uncoerced choice, not just in picking a partner, but in deciding whether they want to engage in that kind of intercourse at all.

[Ray]

So, if you decide to offer people 10 dollars an hour and no medical insurance to clean asbestos, that's nobody's business but your own? (And if they're immigrants who don't know what they're being paid to clean up, or what the risks are - well, that'll teach 'em to speak English, won't it?)

[Harald Korneliussen]

Ouch, Norwegian currency is strong, it seems. I'm in the top 0.99%.

There are three direct ways to influence Wal-mart, or any other entity our society has created to provide profits to shareholders. Don't buy - the goods in this case. Don't sell - your labour. And most importantly, don't own.

There's no point in complaining that they aren't paying fair wages, they can be sued by their stockholders if they don't do everything to maximize profits. It happened to Henry Ford, when he increased wages. We designed corporations that way ourselves, and they are good at what they were designed for.

The fourth way of influencing is indirect, and it's legislation, of course.

[cjmr]

So, if you decide to offer people 10 dollars an hour and no medical insurance to clean asbestos, that's nobody's business but your own? (And if they're immigrants who don't know what they're being paid to clean up, or what the risks are - well, that'll teach 'em to speak English, won't it?)

The sad thing is that this isn't as hypothetical as you might think. It goes on every day in major metropolitan areas--wherever 'day workers' gather. Relatively uneducated young men, many of whom don't speak sufficient English, are hired to spread insecticides and pesticides; to use concrete sealants and construction adhesives with hazardous/toxic/carcinogenic fumes; and to demolish older structures that may contain mercury, lead paint, black mold, or asbestos. Often it's with the bare minimum of instruction as to the hazards--and that given in English. Often no safety equipment is issued.

It's illegal, but no one is trying very hard to stop it. If the employer is caught doing this he faces a slap-on-the-wrist fine, and is back a few weeks later for more employees. The men will always be there, after all, their families have to eat.

[Duane]

What if 'A' is paying 'B' $4/hr to engage in anal sex?

I'd say 'B' was getting screwed..

[pdf23ds]

So Scott, what do you think about Unconditional Basic Income? With that implemented, it would be possible to eliminate minimum wage without worsening poverty. If you object to the redistributive aspects of it, what do you think about this (skip down to the paragraph beginning "Propertarians")?