Forum Post: WHO pays the higher wages?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 26, 2011, 12:11 a.m. EST by insomniart
(22)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I am very new to the site and very new to the movement. I was skeptical at first, but am now extremely interested in learning more. I work as a teacher and make less than 30k a year, so I am definitely NOT in the upper crust. An increase in wages would be great, but how does it exactly work? I have asked friends locally who are involved, but still haven't had an answer that I totally understand. If there is an increase in the minimum wage to the extent of what I am reading on this site, who will pay it? Will businesses have to come up with it or will it be handled through the government? How will it not increase what we pay for necessities?
Thanks :)
When they first brought the minimum wage in at all, businesses protested because of course they didn't want to pay their employees more. They balked at it saying that it would raise the price of everything and then the sky would fall. Well, minimum wage was brought in, in 1938 after a couple previous failed attempts in the early part of the century. It was steadily increased over the next few decades. Decades that saw the economy expand to an unprecedented degree, saw the rise of the affluent middle class in America and a whole host of things not only didn't become so expensive they were out of reach, they became more affordable for everyone. Industry flourished. People had more and more money to buy things, sales blossomed, jobs were being created (good jobs).
Fast forward a bit to the 80s when minimum wages were frozen for over a decade, and have been falling in real dollars ever since. The middle class is disappearing, the economy is shrinking, and inflation is soaring.
We could get into the mechanics and rationalize this or that all day and night, but the results are simpler to understand and carry more relevance.
Again, I find your argument very compelling and would like some sources to back this up. Neocons coming to dinner this holiday season. I'd like to know what facts to give them to back this up. Thanks!!! Merry Christmas!
Here is a link that helps explain why wages are stagnant/falling. Not so much just the minimum wage issue.http://economyincrisis.org/search/node/why%20wages%20are%20falling
It should be common knowledge.
insomniart ...Join or form a union.......
I joined one.. teachers union.. and work as a building representative for the union. :)
insomniart..Then why are you asking seemingly simple questions.
Welcome.. I will share with you some things I have learned.
First.. Be careful what you read here. The place is infested with posts from people who hate this movement and will not be happy until it is dead. (I think they are scared at the thought of any change). At the same time, you will also find many different viewpoints. They are as unique and wonderful as the people who post them.
Second... you have to do your own work. Remember this is a leaderless movement. If you came here looking for answers, you will only find more questions.
Third.. there are local occupy groups throughout the world. From what I understand, things on this forum do not necessarily reflect what happens on the ground.
Thank you for the welcome and for your insight. I was invited to come to a local occupy event by a facebook friend. It's a pretty tiny little group here, and only meets on Mondays. I appreciate the different viewpoints and hope the movement doesn't die because of the more radical views that seem to be making headlines. Change can be scary, but something needs to be done.
That's great. I recently found out about my local occupy group and I am waiting for the next meeting. I have been on this forum for month, researching, learning, reading. I agree something needs to be done.
Corporations should be paying WAY more taxes. There are several companies who supposedly make billions in profits every year and do not pay taxes.
Also the government would have more money for education if it wasn't paying several times more for "defense" than it is for education. When it comes to teachers the government should be paying you more, but it can't because it is too busy rewarding government contractors (haliburton) who have ties to self serving politicians (Dick Cheney) who want to wage war in order to make money for their own companies. Trust me if we had never had this war on "terror" then it would have been easy for you to have higher pay. As for right now, I don't know who pays it.
more to follow.
last time I checked teachers were paid from state and local taxes, so raise state and local taxes ... more money to pay teachers
The kicker is, I already am paying through the nose in property tax. We own a 100+ year old house in need of repairs located in, what most would consider, 'the hood', and our taxes are nearly $3000 a year. We live here because it is all we could afford and buying was less than renting in our area. I'm scared to think of higher property taxes across the board in our school district.
Like I said before, Feds used to pay for all federally mandated school programs, now they pay 24%, your property taxes go to pay for schools right? Yuu can go to your school board and verify the facts.
Now you know why.
Ah, so simple. Why don't you just voluntarily pay some more?
I do, I donate directly to my son's school ... but is those greedy 99% who fight tooth and nail any time we want to increase property taxes, they are a shameful corrupt group and need to get their priorities. I wish I was being sarcastic, but I'm serious 8 years in a row ...
Ah, but that is not a voluntary tax on your part. I too donate funds and service to our school district. I'm saying if you really believe higher taxes are the answer, voluntarily send extra money to your government, be it local, state, or federal. See how much of each of dollars are applied as you want them.
Now, are you attempting to pass a bond for new schools? Don't know where you are located, but here in Texas not one dollar of a bond package can go towards paying teachers. Completely different bucket, still property taxes, but different bucket. Perhaps it is being presented incorrectly.
How can we find solid info on the corporations tax rates?
Heres a good chart http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/us-tax-rates-1916-2010/
And this web site gives some very detailed info http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/business/statutory.cfm
Thanks!
You can't do it ... especially on multinationals. Exxon makes most of its profits outside the US, So lets say they book $40 bil of profit in China after paying their 10% rate. That is on the books so it counts toward earning on WallStreet, so its factored into its ratios that drive the stock. So the VALUE of that $40 bil is transfered to shareholders through the stock valuation. Now if you wanted to bring the actually cash back to the US to invest or pay out as dividends you have to pay 25% (35%-10% trust me Exxon pays that much, read their 10k) in taxes to the US. So that's why corporation keep their money overseas, they lose money bringing it back. If you're the CEO, you be stupid to do that because it will lower the stock price ...
Corporations should invest more in America, heres how we used to do it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/12/1015409/-Taxing-the-rich-promotes-smart-investments,-not-class-warfare
Sigh. More opinions, no facts, no answers, an so typical....
Actually as a percent of Federal revenues the corporate pie share shrunk the most since 1980. In 1980 Corporation paid 16% of Federal revenues, while in 2010 they paid 12.5%.Heres 30 years of data to feast your eyes on.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=203&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=21
Has tax revenue decreased?
I like you ... bullshit doesn't seem to stick to you
Just trying to understand the different points of view on here. Trying to understand if statements are true and fact based or urban legend or maybe just opinion....
you have the ability to suspend judgement ... we are like unicorns trust me.
The answer is very simple, and should only be too obvious. There exists a group of people (known here as the 1%) who have and make more money than most other people (99%) can ever imagine. If that 1% were to demand just a little bit less( say 1%) from profits and other share-taking in the businesses they involve themselves in, and were to pay just a little bit more taxes, that would be enough to allow fair and sustainable labor compensation for the rest of us as well as allow proper funding of necessary government collective services.
I see job creation and wage growth primarily a function of tax policy. But let me address teachers salaried first. The right wing has attacked organized labor for 30 years. Today Governors like NJ's Chris Christie demonize teachers. And yet teachers and education are vital to our country being competitive in the global economy. Obviously this needs to be reversed. The fact is the federal government used to pay 100% for Federally mandated School programs, since the 1980's the fed share has been cut, and now the feds pay about 24% of fed mandated school programs. This has forced Towns and Cities to raise taxes to pay for these programs.
Combined, all things lead to teachers making less than they did in 1970, adjusted for inflation. Trust me, or ask for the data, which I can provide.
Heres an article I wrote that examines how tax policy was used to create jobs stimulus. ANd how that stabilized the economy and engaged working and middle class families in the economy. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/12/1015409/-Taxing-the-rich-promotes-smart-investments,-not-class-warfare
Thank you for the link.
[Removed]
I would not even try, this movement is a dead end movement that will eventually die because of the stupidity of what this movement is really about, these guys are only for destroying the economy of the US and pretty much turning your country into a socialist nation.
I started in OWS because I believed their original message was a good one. We shut down our local camp when OWS got violent with the first Oakland port takeover/invasion/blockade. I still think the objective of changing our economy is a good one, but there are other ways to go about it, if you want to do something.
Please provide proof of Occupy violence, video of cops being attacked or stores being vandalized, cars being turned over and set fire. The sort of thing that would convince us youre not a troll blowing right wing smoke up our rear ends. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
This official headline news from Occupy http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-oakland-just-voted-to-close-down-the-ports-/
I said violence, not bloodshed. An invasion/blockade of an area that takes, by force, even if just force of numbers, control and keeps the little guy from going to work to earn a living. The 99% that we say said we were for.
An official OWS invasion and blockade of the ports, even without bloodshed, is a violent act. I know, OWS says they 'have a right to do it'. Well, no. The constitution provides for the right to peaceably assemble (e.g., the way Westboro does it, blocking nothing, and they have plenty of news coverage without invading and blockading) but not to infringe upon other people's rights to keep them from using their parks/roads/sidewalks/ports/bridges/and subways.
This 12/12 official call to blockade is why we took down our local camp. Anyone with half a brain cell can see its far from a peaceful or protected action.
Personally I think Oakland is giving the whole movement a bad name. I wonder if they got infiltrated early in the game?
hm, could be. Did you see Toronto's livestream during their eviction this week? OWS calm, respectful of police, not stopping them from doing their 'job'. They lost their tents but kept their dignity and message. Quite a contract between that and NYs, with its antagonism of the officers and a huge departure between Toronto and Oakland.
Didn't see the livestream but I'm glad it was peaceful and respectful. I'll bet that fact doesn't get picked up by the MSM.
Quote: "when OWS got violent". GO ahead and run from your own quote.
that made no sense, Roger. Oakland has already been violent, and this calling for the total shut down of ports multiplies on that exponentially. Though Oakland can blame the violence already done on 'Black Bloc' they are not distancing themselves from it.
Please prove that Occupy Oakland was violent. I watched it live, I saw no Occupiers engaging in violence. Surely with so many Oakland PD officers with video cameras they should have captured a protester engaging in violence, and charged those protesters. But no protestors were ever charged.
Again Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
[Removed]
So if we were to upheave everything and start from scratch what would it look like.
It would almost certainly have to start as a small movement or several that expand. Establish a small community that has no economic system and where all basic needs are met... and I mean basic... food, clothing shelter. Expand from there.
that's been done before .. it was called the Soviet Union
but we have automaton to do our work for us now. Not that there won't be ANY work to be done, but most work can be automated.
that sounds like a nightmare to me, it means even more dependence on a smaller amount of people.... also, I don't trust any system that doesn't assume most people are stupid, like capitalism
Well tf that small group of people had NO advantage over anyone else when it comes to resources, then they would have to do a small amount of work for no other reason than they love to do it. We could easily find a small percentage of people who love to do what we traditionally call work and combine them with the automation of everything. And no I am not joking. I know engineers and technical people who do extra work all the time during there free time just because they love it. All you need is a small group of those people and automation.
well then I guess that you are all for the current system?
It seems to be working great! rolls eyes
In theory I see where you are coming from. but reality gives me a different POV. I think about food production, the labor per acre rate has dropped 98% over the last 100 years, and you still have people starving in this world. No I think our current system is very scary, and I think we need massive change ... but I've think we have progressed to the point in human history where we cant build a better mouse trap, without resorting to the barbaric use of force ..... anything OWS has to offer that doesn't involve force or threat of force I will sign on to whole heartedly
Well I am far from an expert on automation and It would be nice if their was an open discussion so that groups of people can come up with a great solution.
I am not even sure this is the best solution to our resource and wealth disparity problems but it seems promising. I wish there was a way to galvanize OWS towards working for the same small set of goals...
Automation is a scary thing. Has any one read the SCUM manifesto lately?
automations is already being done on a HUGE scale and that is why there are fewer jobs. If there are going to be fewer jobs then why are jobs necessary to live?
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
I don't necessarily agree with a raised minimum wage because of the prolem that you hint at. As soon as minimum wage goes up, the market adjusts and takes advantage.
So you pay $800 in rent and $3 for a gallon of milk. If they doubled minimum wage then all the sudden your rent would jump to $1200 and the price of milk would be $5.
I honestly do not have an answer that I am sure of but the problem is with the system. Any system that rewards people with money for work makes money the most important thing to every entity... including corporations and most people. People should not work for money but for the future of the human race and the health of our environment for all species. How the hell do you do that? I don't know but I believe the idea of a resource based economy is on the right track.
I do have a pretty radical solution but it would require an incredible amount of upheaval. more to follow.
I think the solution has to be radical. We often joke about a zombie apocalypse :)
Individually, teachers are mostly decent. Collectively, they are vermin. They are aligned against private employees and hate children.
ouch! Thanks for being the one to bring hate to the table. I had a choice to work in the district as a non union teacher but joined because our district is trying to close schools in our low income neighborhoods and we are working to save the neighborhood schools. I certainly don't hate children, or I would hate my job because I see nearly 150 kids a day through my classroom. I'm sorry if you have had a bad experience with unions.. I know it can happen.
He's not an OWS supporter. There are people that come here to spread hate speech and oppress people. This is the world we live in. People like you dedicate your lives to educating and essentially raising the nations children. This guy acts like people want to pay 10 grand a year to send their kids to private schools where they learn the same history. My mom went to a private school. They used to beat the kids because it was acceptable back then. I had a friend that went to private school. I make more money than he does.
Demonizing teachers is a right wing narrative and fake. Not that Dems are angels, they've enabled the GOP attacks on the middle class. And yes, you can tell the haters and trolls because they use divide and conquer. Because they know, United, we can never be defeated.
Thank you. That's the toughest thing.. knowing who is a supporter and who isn't. Who's comment to give weight and who's to blow off. I have friends who send their kids to private schools and are bankrupting themselves to do it. They get pretty vocal with their feelings about public schools. There is a lot of hate out there. Your comment made me smile.. thanks again.
If it's filled with hate instead of reason and logic, blow it off.
Yep.. definitely Trevor.. hate. After reading the more recent posts, all I could think is.. "Deep breath, Oregon! You're gonna stroke out!" The cost of education isn't just paying teachers.. it's paying special services to care for kids who are struggling with behavior disorders, emotional problems and in our district, sending food home on the weekends so kids can EAT when they aren't in school to have breakfast and lunch. The list goes on and on. He/she has no clue what percent TEACHERS actually get out of all the taxpayer money that goes into the system. Yes, it costs more to educate a child now than it did 40 years ago. The average cost of a new car was $1500 in 1950 as compared to $28000 in 2010. It's fine.. I am used to haters. I still do my job because I love my job and the kids who's lives I get to be a part of for a moment in time. :)
Thanks for your service to America's youth. God knows I can't handle that kind of stress of a classroom. It's crazy that some people support senators trying to take away teachers' benefits and lower salaries... when those senators make a couple hundred grand a year, have insane benefits, and the best retirement packages the government has to offer.... like 174 thousand dollars a year FOR LIFE
It costs the taxpayer $23000 per pupil to educate a student in the DC public schools, $23000!!!! Look it up. Do a google search. No one, not one soul on this entire website understands the rip off that the teachers unions have foisted on the tax payer.
You are a sucker, a patsy, a sap being used by big public employee unions. If you can dispute one thing in my above post, go ahead, try. It will be comical because I know the teachers union scams. Real well. Ask mr insomniac to find out, in real inflation adjusted dollars, whether we are paying more or less than we did 40 years ago for per pupil costs. I knowbthe answer, do you or he?
He is a she, first off. And, with a masters degree I am still earning less than 30k a year to teach just under 300 kids. Yes, definitely feeling like I am taking the public for a ride with THOSE wages!
My issue with the teachers union are many. They oppose vouchers. Vouchers may or may not be a good thing, but let's try everything to improve education. With kids failing miserably, how could anyone be opposed to new tools in the fight. Teachers hate vouchers because they bring competition to the table.
I hate public employee unions. FDR himself was against PE unions. PE unions are secretly aligned against private unions and private workers. no one should be allowed to elect their own bosses and have SOMEONE else pay for it thru taxes. I have no beef with private unions, if the Steelworkers negotiate with US Steel, ok by me. If they unions get management to agree to higher wages, the stockholders foot the bill. If teachers get a higher wage, taxpayers, not the elected management foots the bill. That's wrong. And I get the constant whining by teachers about classroom size. Smaller class rooms mean more teachers and more votes that increase union power. I am on to that scam. In a collective bargaining battle, both sides should have skin in the game, in a CB public employee game NEITHER side of the table has skin in the game, just the private tax payer. That's SO wrong. Ask yourself why Rhode Island just put a hammerlock on PE pensions, lead entirely by Democrats!
If you are working to avoid school closures, put your money where your mouth is and take a pay cut to save schools. Agitate for longer school years. I have done the research. Kids in one room school houses 120 years ago had better math and reading skills than students today. Tell me how a kid on the Nebraska plains, in blowing freezing winters after likely milking cows at dawn got better reading skills than a kid today with air conditioning and electronic media?
And to the asshole named trevormonis, f* you. I was a PTA president for 4 years at a private school school. I did it for free. Our tuition wad $2300 while the local public school got $5500 per pupil, and our kids smoked the public school kids in all testing. I also was the girls basketball coach, the boys baseball coach, andbthe girls volleyball coach. For free. I walk the walk, how about you?
Please provide proof FDR was against Public unions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Nice of you to provide the right wing narrative.
In 1980, federally mandated school programs were paid 100% by the Feds. Now the Feds pay 24%. The difference has been made for by increasing Municipal taxes. If you are working to avoid school closures, put your money where your mouth is and admit the truth.
Here you go, Mr Room temperature IQ
http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2011/2/19/text-of-fdr-letter-opposing-public-employee-government-union.html
And here is the actual excerpt:
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
FDR said in that 1937 letter:
"that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service"
The Wagner Act was passed in 1935, giving unions the right to bargain, and to strike. So FDR doesnt think Public unions should strike.And in fact the Wagner Act doesnt allow for Federal Public Unions to strike.
Quote:
"employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied.
"employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.
Instead of using the link to conservative blog and exposing yourself, in the future try using the original link:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445#ixzz1ensv6Ot4"
FDR then goes on to compliment the same Public employees Union that invited him to speak, for placing in the Union Constitution a provision not allowing a strike.
"It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.".
You stated, and I quote:
"I hate public employee unions. FDR himself was against PE unions."
No where in that letter does FDR say he was against Public employee unions, FDR said he was against Public employee unions striking.
Give it up. You got owned. Thanks for playing, chickens*.
come on. whats the point of winning people over if you cuss them out in the process? it's like throwing away a winning lottery ticket.
Because he is a childish person. Its all he undrestands. In adult discussion, if you make a sound point, the other person should acknowledge it. Parsing words simply to avoid offering a fair acknowledgement deserves scorn.
You do have balls. I'll give you that.
:). There is a terrific interview in today's Wall Street Journal of Fred Siegel, former editor of the left leaning Dissent Magazine. You should read it.
So, was I right or was I right, binary question, yes or no? At least acknowledge I am incredibly well versed in both government and economics. But you won't. You will run away and hide.
Game, set and match.
I knew you would be a coward when confronted with a superior intellect. KMA.