This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

With a living wage in place, he doesn't need SNAP and he pays his own food bill.  As a bonus, he doesn't have the likes of you call him a 'taker'.

I see a lot of people asking if the lowly "working man" janitor is even worth a "living wage" (CLC says he isn't.)...

...but relatively few asking whether the CEO is worth their salary/benefits/golden parachutes.

I would wager that the work put in by the janitor is much closer on average to their pay scale than that of the CEO.

Either way, let the boards/shareholders pay the CEO what they want...as long as the peons get their workman's wages with reasonably affordable health insurance and two weeks' vacation.

In response to NO MO O's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

CEOs are but a few...janitors, there are thousands of these positions. Imposing a "living wage" will result in fewer of these positions, no question.

Liberals are typically  snotty and condescending toward a "janitor"."peon".....first of all, many who start in the cleaning profession just need a chance to show what they can do, and can rise in the ranks...or use the position as a stepping stone to another profession. Or a second job to help their family. These arent "janitors" , they are people who want  a chance to show what they can do...they dont need a condescending notion that they are failures and must be paid a "living wage" from liberals, for a lifetime position, without earning it.

Liberals by imposing a so-called "living wage" limit the number of these positions ! Thereby limiting opportunities for those willing and able to be self reliant, and who want to earn their keep.

Living wage for janitors will hurt janitors :  more part time positions, and more automation, which wil be more efficient than overpaying janitors.

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

Your ratio of a few CEOs to many janitors only points to the massive amounts of s**t those few executives produce that needs to be cleaned up.  Because, rest assured, if the CEO indeed "fails", many more lower-wage workers will also lose their jobs.

The recession is hard proof of that.

Way to pretend you care about the little guy though...someone may believe you, some day.

This post has been removed.

In response to Newtster's comment:

Sounds like govt has learned some of the same lessons...

...but in many cases, it's reversed to where people use their public service to gain lucrative private jobs at those cushy 'think tanks' and such.

I can understand protecting the assets of the company, but that would seem to include the employees as well as the reputation.

Alas, everyone is replaceable, and the days when we could work for the same company securely for 30-35 years are long gone.

This post has been removed.

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

What are you thinking of when someone says "living wage"?

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

Oh, I see. What they clearly need is to be sneered at and publicly cursed for being consider "takers" despite holding a full time (often two, actually) job.

The alternative to a reasonable minimum wage is to simply pay for the gap with your tax dollars.

But of course, we know the solution you secretly favor: Do away with the safety net, and if magical thinking about nice charities doesn't do the trick, let 'em eat cake.

Right?

This post has been removed.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

The so-called "Living Wage" results in fewer jobs...do you deny this?

"But of course, we know the solution you secretly favor: Do away with the safety net, and if magical thinking about nice charities doesn't do the trick, let 'em eat cake."

We know the solution you favor: government taking over the greedy private sector; after all, the Nanny State knows best.

This post has been removed.

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

If you are stating the proposition as a universal truth, yes. It is demonstrably false.

1968:   3.6% unemployment + Minimum wage at highest real dollar value (approx. $10.40).

Setting a minimum wage at about $10 is "government taking over the greedy private sector"?

Was enacting workplace safety rules or child labor laws "government taking over the greedy private sector"?

Or is that somehow becomming magically different in such a way that only new propositions are bad government takeovers?

If you want to be greated like a reasonable adult, stop sloganeering and focus on the actual issue. You're just slinging around political curse words, as always.

Why is the right so bitter about 48 million Americans on food stamps ...... do you guys own stock in 9 Lives Cat Food or something ?

In response to Sistersledge's comment:

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

A living wage will hurt janitors? And what is this "automation" of which you speak?

President Obama argued in his State of the Union address that “no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty.” That is a noble goal, but it has little to do with the minimum wage rate.

Only 2.9 percent of U.S. employees work for the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Very few of those fit the stereotype the President painted. Less than a quarter of minimum wage workers live at or below the poverty line, while two-thirds come from families above 150 percent of the poverty line. In fact, the average family income of a minimum wage worker exceeds $53,000 a year.

How do workers making $7.25 per hour live in families making over $50,000 a year? Because most of them are not the primary income earner in their families—many are students. Over half of minimum wage workers are under 25, and better than three-fifths of those report being enrolled in school. Two-thirds of minimum wage employees work part time.

Dr Thomas Sowell:

“It would be comforting to believe that the government can simply decree higher pay for low-wage workers, without having to worry about unfortunate repercussions, but the preponderance of evidence indicates that labor is not exempt from the basic economic principle that artificially high prices cause surpluses. In the case of the surplus of human beings, that can be a special tragedy when they are already from low-income, unskilled or minority backgrounds and urgently need to get on the job ladder, if they are ever to move up the ladder by acquiring experience and skills.”

Moonbats always try to play this class war crap... but the truth is CEO is not overpaid

The median expected salary for a typical Chief Executive Officer in the United States is $727,044. This basic market pricing report was prepared using our Certified Compensation Professionals' analysis of survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at employers of all sizes, industries and geographies.

http://www1.salary.com/Chief-Executive-Officer-Salary.html

Of the roughly 30 million businesses in the United States, less than 6,000 are publicly traded on major stock exchanges. As anyone who gets their information from mainstream news and media outlets well knows, the spotlight and analysis for business (especially in regard to CEO compensation) are firmly focused on S&P 500 companies. That means that virtually 100 percent of media coverage of CEO compensation focuses on less than 8 percent of all public companies and less than .002 percent of all companies in the U.S.

With this narrow and statistically insignificant scale in mind, how could the information disseminated about CEO compensation be meaningful? The plain truth is that it isn’t.

The reality of CEO compensation is drastically different from the coverage given by major media outlets in articles like, “Typical CEO made $9.6 million last year, AP study finds” and the USA Today’s “CEO pay rises again in 2011, while workers struggle to find work,” as well as The New York Times’ “C.E.O. Pay is Rising, Despite the Din.” The Associated Press report’s assertion that the “typical CEO” had a $9.6 million annual pay package in 2011 and the media’s portrayal of that finding as part of a trend of increased CEO compensation could not be farther from the truth.

In 2011, the median private company CEO in our survey earned a total compensation package of $362,900. That is just 3.8 percent of the number reported as “typical” in the Associated Press study. For private companies with at least $1 billion in revenue, the median CEO compensation package totaled just under $1.7 million, which is still less than 18 percent of the AP figure.

http://chiefexecutive.net/how-much-does-the-average-ceo-really-earn

...

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

This post has been removed.