http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/04/it-s-the-wages-stupid.htmlPresident Obama gave a big, progressive, somewhat impassioned speech about inequality, wages, and the economy on Wednesday.
Welcomed by the left, and sure to be jeered or ignored by the right, it was full of plenty of old-time Democratic economic gospel and present-day center-left thought leadership. But it was a little bit light on the main factor that can combat the scourge of low wages and rising inequality: an appeal to the conscience and self-interest of businesses.
There was nothing new, or even objectionable, in the speech, which took a circuitous historical route to its subject. The U.S. has typically accepted greater inequality because we had a great deal of social and economic mobility. But the data behind that has clearly broken down, he argued. And that’s bad for America for a host of reasons. Countries with greater income inequality tend to have more frequent recession. Income inequality is bad for social cohesion, “not just because we tend to trust our institutions less but studies show we actually tend to trust each other less when there’s greater inequality.” And it’s bad for democracy.
The solution he offered is basically what has been the Democratic growth agenda for the last two decades. (It’s all there in Gene Sperling’s 2006 book, The Pro-Growth Progressive) That agenda includes “simplifying our corporate tax code,” more trade, smarter regulation, better skills and education, universal pre-school, more support for unions, bolstering retirement security, aid to urban areas and the unemployed, inter alia.
All those efforts are great, and many of them are likely to bear fruit in the long-term. But to a degree, Obama—and other people who focus on Washington—are missing the forest for the thicket of policies. The real problem is that companies in the U.S. do not pay enough, and that they have conditioned themselves (and their investors, and board, and employees, and politicians) not to raise wages even as their profits and cash holdings rise to record levels. Consider that corporate profits have soared from $1.2 trillion in 2009 to about $2 trillion this year, and that between the end of 2006 and mid-2013, corporate America’s cash holdings rose from $850 billion to $1.48 trillion. And yet the response to this remarkable turnaround has been effectively to reduce wages. Median household income in 2012 was below where it was in 1999, and has risen in only five of the last 12 years (PDF).
This is not a problem that can be corroded by a higher minimum wage, or stronger unions, or universal pre-K. Rather, it would require a wholesale change of heart among America’s business class. They’d have to start taking pride in offering higher wages each year—rather than, say, offering higher dividends or stock buybacks each year. They’ve have to make it part of their strategic mission to aspire to pay above the median, and thus help drag wages up.
In his speech, Obama cited the “extraordinary companies in America that provide decent wages, salaries and benefits, and training for their workers, and deliver a great product to consumers.” He name-checked software company SAS and outdoor retailer REI. There are some companies, he noted, that realize that “paying a decent wage actually helps their bottom line, reduces turnover. It means workers have more money to spend, to save, maybe eventually start a business of their own.”
That’s true. And companies like SAS, REI, and Costco should be applauded. Unfortunately, many of America’s largest employers—including Walmart and McDonald’s—have made paying the lowest possible wages a bedrock component of their business model. To be sure, that business model—just like the American economic model—is starting to creak under the weight of its own contradictions. (Walmart always wonders why its customers, who occupy the lower ends of the income ladder, never seem to have enough money to spend at Walmart stores.) And yet the executives fail to see the connection between the low wages they pay and the low consuming power of their customers.
This pernicious groupthink—that wages for workers and managers should be held to the lowest possible level, that the C-suite is the only place in which annual raises are an entitlement—is a far greater obstacle to economic equality than the Republican House of Representatives. And I’m not sure what President Obama can do or say to reach them. CEOs, after all, are not his natural constituency.
But CEOs do tend to listen to one another. So perhaps he could put together a group of highly successful business owners, managers, and executives who grasp the connection between good wages and prosperity, and then send them to bear witness and evangelize at Davos, the Business Roundtable, and Augusta National. Costco founder Jim Sinegal, who spoke at the Democratic convention last year, would be a natural leader of Centimillionaires for Higher Wages.
It's The Wages, Stupid
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
- Status
No, he isn't. The main thing is that investors and the high hierarchy in several big firms hate Obama's agenda. Remember that 39% of whites including students, post 1986 born noobs and low qualified personnel in firms voted exacted like the minorities and praised Obama beak and claws. I can understand the ceo of firms saying no to Obama, they don't want to give employees a higher salary that will be later used to pay Obamacare. Check who work in Mc Donalds or Walmart, low qualified staff. People who have a good wage, generally don't work in such lousy places.
ApolloBalboa
Was King of the Board for a Day
Can you make any statement regarding Obama without showing complete and utter ignorance?
What is this "post 1986 born noobs" statement? You mean people born without knowingly experiencing the gloriousness of Reagan? Give me a break.
When was the last time you were in a McDonald's or Walmart? I've give you the benefit of the doubt regarding the former, but the latter has no stores in France or most of Europe, aside from the U.K. You have no right nor ability to comment on who you'll see working in those stores here, because you have no firsthand experience, and reading an article online doesn't count or prove your point. I've seen former classmates with jobs at Walmart, classmates I know finished college with degrees but find themselves unable to use them in this economy. Is it their fault for getting a degree in translations and interpreting but many places (including government agencies, which could use them*) aren't hiring? Maybe in some way it is, but I don't consider them low qualified or unqualified for having to work a minimum-wage job like the two mentioned; they're just trying to do the best they can, the same as most people here.
*(And before you say that it's Obama's fault that they can't get hired, remember that there are currently two parties in government mucking things up, not just the liberals as you seem inclined to believe)
Little Red Wagon Repairman
MFOMBSoPGA
As a big fan of the fast food I usually get waited on by friendly Hispanics. They give me good service and seem to like the job better than Whites or Blacks would. I admire and respect people who are willing to work. The wages that they agree to work for make my food a good value which keeps me returning again and again. Just finished a freshly-made delicious steak & egg burrito from Jack In The Box that cost me $3.69. How much would that burrito cost if the employees made $15 per hour and would I ever be willing to buy it at that price? No business = No jobs = No restaurant
1) You have voted for that :douchebag: especially knowing that he didn't achieve nothing special during his first term and you are gonna lecture me about ignorance? Make sure that you are not so naive and not so brainwashed when it comes about voting.
2) To be honest with you, it is very rare (at least for me and several people I know) to encounter people who are born after 1986 and who have a brain and who know to use it efficiently, a lot of the people born after 1986 are naive, lazy, inefficient, unwilling to work and politically they are leftists.
3) The last time I went to a mac donald was 9 months ago. Walmart is more or less like Carrefour, I have seen who works at Carrefour and it is not highest diplomed people who work there. A College degree is not a Bachelor Degree nor a MBA and this is what makes the difference between someone with a higher diploma and someone with an average diploma. It is difficult to say that is their fault but before getting a diploma in something you must always look at the labor market and the main leading activities sectors, perhaps were they not enough far sighted to see that the sectors that recruit are IT services, healthcare, finance, banking, sales and after sales services, luxury goods, real estate, high tech and military related industries and of course anything related to the judicial field. It would be the same than having a bachelor degree in arts and design which is useless in today's context. Also the government has financial cut downs which may explain why they weren't hired.
Its the economics stupid. Do you guys think this stuff falls from the sky? Here we go again with the "food strike". Are they still pushing for $14.00 an hour at these places? Good luck finding those jobs there if that were ever imposed.
ApolloBalboa
Was King of the Board for a Day
1. As I've told you before, I didn't vote in this last election, but it's nice to know that you've actually read what I've said. Had I voted, I still would've chosen him, because Mittens (as Rey C. puts it) is not qualified to run a country. If a presidential candidate can't give anything more than generalities by saying "It's all part of my five point plan" but can't expound on what said plan is, that doesn't inspire faith in me for that candidate. If Obama was as deliberately vague as Romney, you'd have had a field day saying "He can't even tell you stupid brainwashed minions what he wants to do", so why do you excuse it for others? Oh right, because Obama's a liberal. Try and remain impartial, why don't you?
2. Really? It's rare for me to encounter many people born before me who have a brain and know how to use it efficiently; most adults I know bemoan the state of both America's and the world's economy, government, and many other things, but somehow can't acknowledge that they had a hand in shaping it, whether it was in voting, not voting, purchasing, saving, etc. Also, many of them seem to look down on people younger than them as foolish, unacknowledged, and uncultured, but get all butthurt when called out on it or when someone younger than them manages to prove their foolishness. You and assari don't paint a good picture with how you're willing to dismiss anyone who happens to be younger than you, but feel free to keep up that image of stubbornness and ageism, it's working wonders for the two of you.
3. Not everyone has aptitude towards those sectors that recruit, and not everyone has the ability to either go to school to learn those skills or train on their own to develop the ability. One person I know has a degree in Political Science and works making sandwiches at a grocery store; another has a Master's in Translations and Languages (and is fluent in 4, semi-fluent in 2 more) and manages the bakery department at the same store. Neither is able to get a job utilizing their respective skills, though I'd be the first one to admit that the Political Science major is superfluous. My friend with the Master's literally can't get anything else, though she's qualified to do a lot of things. I wouldn't claim her predicament's a lack of foresight, rather a result of an inefficient country and government.
Can I ask one thing? What about Obama's resume' made him qualified to run a a country in 2008 and Romney was not? As for his 5 point plan, he had it on his website and the plan was not something that you could give a good presentation of in a 1 hour or 90 minute debate when there is a 2 minute time limit to respond.
Right now, Obama can't even run a website. Much less a country.
So ending the Iraq War, killing bin Laden, introducing the ACA, and pulling the country out of a tail spin that was heading toward a depression is nothing special? I would have assumed that, like it or not, you would have at least suggested that introducing the ACA was "something special"... if it's just more run o' the mill humdrum legislation I'd figure you and those of your ilk would spend less time lamenting it.
Whether or not you like what he's done, you really can't deny that he's done quite a lot. And of course, the fact that you'd even try completely undermines a great deal of what you've posted over the last five years.
The plan to pull the country out of a tailspin was not Obama's plan. It was implemented before Bush left office. And John McCain would have made the same decisions that Obama or any other president would have made to remedy the financial crisis.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
We need starter jobs. Unless you want to move up in the company, McDonalds is not a career.
No, Obama likes class warfare.
Obama is unamerican, he wants to make America a communist country.
He wants to keep his wealth and spread other's wealth around.
No, Obama likes class warfare.
Obama is unamerican, he wants to make America a communist country.
He wants to keep his wealth and spread other's wealth around.
So then your saying that the economic recovery went as expected and would have gone similarly under the GOP? I think a lot of Republicans would argue that considering it's been a major complain from the Republican hierarchy, and Romney more or less ran on how "anemic" the recovery was. I also think a lot of Republicans like to argue that things like TARP were evil socialism (though Romney was, in fact, pro-TARP).
Oh, and while the recovery plan WAS put into work before Bush left office, Obama was actually involved. You may recall he suspended his campaign in order to make that happen. McCain did too (eventually). Was it his and his alone? No, but then nothing ever is. Doesn't change the fact that we all like to play it that way with politics. Every president gets credit for the team efforts and stuff put into play before them. Obama was involved in the planning, and the recovery happened under him, so it's his recovery. Hell, the GOP itself was trying to sell it as such while people weren't as happy with it and they were labeling it anemic. So even according the Grand Old Party it's Obama's recovery... :dunno:
I am addressing what I have put in bold first. Go back and check your facts. McCain suspended his campaign but Obama did not. In fact, the Obama campaign made a point of it by saying that he did not have to suspend his campaign and that he could multi-task.
And the fixes for the economic crisis were put in place before Obama took office. And if the GOP had been making economic policy coupled with the TARP plan, we would almost certainly be enjoying better GDP numbers than under Obama which are abysmal. Possibly the worst of any president during my lifetime. I am not going to argue woulda coulda shoulda, just making the point that Obama didn't rescue this economy and it is his to own now.
Huh, you're right there. Sorry, my bad.
I recalled they both looked bad there, mixed up for what exactly. Obama for suggesting the debates should continue, and McCain for suspending his campaign and offering nothing at the meeting. That was ultimately what bit McCain in the ass, being too eager and not providing. I'd actually remembered it being the opposite.
You just did actually.
The financial crisis, crippling wars, and onerous tax cuts were put in place before Obama took office too... interesting that he gets credit for the fallout from all of the bad that was put into place before him, but none of the good. And hey, he was actually involved with the good...
Yep. Spot on.
I DID NOT! Now it's an argument
No, I am not blaming him for the financial crisis. That was on Bush's watch and he gets the blame.
I give him full credit for killing a whole bunch of bad guys. But, this economy is now the Obama economy and he has done very little to make it better. My point is that we avoided collapse not with Obama policy, but with policy that happened before him. We were out of danger of economic collapse 2 months before he took office.
And you mark my words, the market at 16,000 is way overdue for a correction. Not that presidents have much to do with it anyway. Dem or Repub.
And of course the point is also that the questionable state of the economy is also a result of the policy put into place before him, of the wars, of the tax cuts, of obstructionism and the effect that has had on things like the country's credit rating and the economic perceptions of investors. The GOP has had a hand in making things precisely the way they are.
And this ultimately very true (as I've already suggested). A lot of it is even beyond the scope of politics. Regardless of blame, everyone still plays the blame game...
Yes the GOP had a hand in it. Why is this an argument? But Dems did also and they Dems took control of congress in 2006.
My argument is that Obama has done very little to improve the economy and he did even less to avoid financial collapse.
Let's say that in September of 2016 we find ourselves in the same mess as we did in 2008. Will it be Obama's fault? He has only stopped one war. Afghanistan rages on.
My argument is that Obama has done very little to improve the economy and he did even less to avoid financial collapse.
Let's say that in September of 2016 we find ourselves in the same mess as we did in 2008. Will it be Obama's fault? He has only stopped one war. Afghanistan rages on.
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
The irony you don't see about this is that you're an epic moron, so-much so that that most people born after 1986 are probably smarter than you. I'll even include the upper-levels of schoolchildren in that reckoning. Communist schoolchildren, even. From China. In fact, certainly from China.
I know I should keep a more civil tone, but you're just so persistently dumb. And I can't put you on ignore.
Before I take issue with this, let me just state for the record I don't support Obama nor did I vote for him the last time around. However, the whole schtick about experience for President leads me to this simple question: how often are career politicians good for the country anyway?
And you who the fuck are you? Some fucking liberal scum cretin who lives in Germany, who thinks he is more clever than other persons and who gets on his high horse when someone dares to criticize the youth and/or Obama. Before calling me a moron, make sure that you are not a blind fucking silly twit doubled with an unability to think by your own clown. When I will find some post 1986 born person who has the same professional and life experience than I have and the same level diplomas than I got, I will let you know. Your endless and stupid rants as well as useless bs have proven me who you are, seriously shut up.
- Status
Similar threads
