That is someone's opinion of what Buffett said - care to cite a source?
That is someone's opinion of what Buffett said - care to cite a source?
_________________________________________________________________________
The Wall Street Journal.
It is not "someone's opinion of what Buffett said".
It is exactly what Buffett said.
Here are his actual words from the WSJ - not someones opinion of what he said, like you posted....
by WARREN BUFFETT
May 21, 2015 7:12 p.m. ET
The American Dream promises that a combination of education, hard work and good behavior can move any citizen from humble beginnings to at least reasonable success. And for many, that promise has been fulfilled. At the extreme, we have the Forbes 400, most of whom did not come from privileged backgrounds.
Recently, however, the economic rewards flowing to people with specialized talents have grown dramatically faster than those going to equally decent men and women possessing more commonplace skills. In 1982, the first year the Forbes 400 was compiled, those listed had a combined net worth of $93 billion. Today, the 400 possess $2.3 trillion, up 2,400% in slightly more than three decades, a period in which the median household income rose only about 180%.
Meanwhile, a huge number of their fellow citizens have been living the American Nightmare—behaving well and working hard but barely getting by. In 1982, 15% of Americans were living below the poverty level; in 2013 the proportion was nearly the same, a dismaying 14.5%. In recent decades, our country’s rising tide has not lifted the boats of the poor.
No conspiracy lies behind this depressing fact: The poor are most definitely not poor because the rich are rich. Nor are the rich undeserving. Most of them have contributed brilliant innovations or managerial expertise to America’s well-being. We all live far better because of Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton and the like.
Instead, this widening gap is an inevitable consequence of an advanced market-based economy. Think back to the agrarian America of only 200 years ago. Most jobs could then be ably performed by most people. In a world where only primitive machinery and animals were available to aid farmers, the difference in productivity between the most talented among them and those with ordinary skills was modest.
Many other jobs of that time could also be carried out by almost any willing worker. True, some laborers would outdo others in intelligence or hustle, but the market value of their output would not differ much from that of the less talented.
Visualize an overlay graphic that positioned the job requirements of that day atop the skills of the early American labor force. Those two elements of employment would have lined up reasonably well. Not today. A comparable overlay would leave much of the labor force unmatched to the universe of attractive jobs.
That mismatch is neither the fault of the market system nor the fault of the disadvantaged individuals. It is simply a consequence of an economic engine that constantly requires more high-order talents while reducing the need for commodity-like tasks.
The remedy usually proposed for this mismatch is education. Indeed, a top-notch school system available to all is hugely important. But even with the finest educational system in the world, a significant portion of the population will continue, in a nation of great abundance, to earn no more than a bare subsistence.
To see why that is true, imagine we lived in a sports-based economy. In such a marketplace, I would be a flop. You could supply me with the world’s best instruction, and I could endlessly strive to improve my skills. But, alas, on the gridiron or basketball court I would never command even a minimum wage. The brutal truth is that an advanced economic system, whether it be geared to physical or mental skills, will leave a great many people behind.
In my mind, the country’s economic policies should have two main objectives. First, we should wish, in our rich society, for every person who is willing to work to receive income that will provide him or her a decent lifestyle. Second, any plan to do that should not distort our market system, the key element required for growth and prosperity.
That second goal crumbles in the face of any plan to sizably increase the minimum wage. I may wish to have all jobs pay at least $15 an hour. But that minimum would almost certainly reduce employment in a major way, crushing many workers possessing only basic skills. Smaller increases, though obviously welcome, will still leave many hardworking Americans mired in poverty.
The better answer is a major and carefully crafted expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which currently goes to millions of low-income workers. Payments to eligible workers diminish as their earnings increase. But there is no disincentive effect: A gain in wages always produces a gain in overall income. The process is simple: You file a tax return, and the government sends you a check.
In essence, the EITC rewards work and provides an incentive for workers to improve their skills. Equally important, it does not distort market forces, thereby maximizing employment.
The existing EITC needs much improvement. Fraud is a big problem; penalties for it should be stiffened. There should be widespread publicity that workers can receive free and convenient filing help. An annual payment is now the rule; monthly installments would make more sense, since they would discourage people from taking out loans while waiting for their refunds to come through. Dollar amounts should be increased, particularly for those earning the least.
There is no perfect system, and some people, of course, are unable or unwilling to work. But the goal of the EITC—a livable income for everyone who works—is both appropriate and achievable for a great and prosperous nation. Let’s replace the American Nightmare with an American Promise: America will deliver a decent life for anyone willing to work.
Mr. Buffett is chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/better-than-raising-the-minimum-wage-1432249927
Many of the comments after this talked about income taxes being a once a year event, which doesn't really help the family throughout the year.....
That is someone's opinion of what Buffett said - care to cite a source?
_________________________________________________________________________
The Wall Street Journal.
It is not "someone's opinion of what Buffett said".
It is exactly what Buffett said.
Check again....... maybe someday you'll understand the difference......
How do we know that the business is not doing well because the pizza sucks?
There are many factors I take into account when deciding who to do business with, and more often than not the quality of the product is the top priority, even more than price.
The following is strictly my opinion, enjoy hearing and reading the opinions of others on the subject.
Minimum wage as a "livable wage" will always be a red herring in a capitalist economy. As the wages increase, so do the prices, and so things stay relatively the same. I remember making minimum wage in the 80's when it was $3.70 and hour. That wasn't a "livable wage" then- I survived, but lived with roommates, etc. It's the same with minimum wage now, and it will be the same if it's $15, $20, $30 an hour. That's what minimum wage means, the bare minimum we will allow workers to be paid (unless its "under the table"). The higher our wages go, the more corporations look to outsourcing for cheaper labor. Good intentions, but less than desirable results. Unless you are going to restructure the nature of our economy I see this as nothing but a treadmill that will eventually cost us jobs. We need to grow our economy and increase the knowledge and skill of our labor force to improve earning power in this country and grow our middle class. Minimum wage jobs should be for high schoolers and college kids in an economy hitting on all cylinders.
[Edited on 8/30/2015 by DougMacKenzie]
You (& alloak) use an example that has nothing to do with raising the minimum wage in an area, just 1 business, and try to say that your wrong example proves something.....
My OP and subsequent comments have nothing to do with the minimum wage, rather this "living wage" that we hear so much about. There is a difference. Actually I think the federal minimum wage should be raised to $8.00/hr.
for this to work, the other people in the community also need the wage hike, so they have the additional money to spend on things........ great example!
That's just classic inflation and devalued currency.
True. And what about the $32,000 a year welder, truck driver, or construction worker with a wife and two kids barely making it as it is. He doesn't get the raise, but all of the sudden the guy bagging his groceries gets his "living wage" and an $9/hr raise. A dozen eggs goes to $5, and a gallon of milk to $10. Disastrous. And again, what about people on fixed incomes?
That is someone's opinion of what Buffett said - care to cite a source?
_________________________________________________________________________
The Wall Street Journal.
It is not "someone's opinion of what Buffett said".
It is exactly what Buffett said.Check again....... maybe someday you'll understand the difference......
_________________________________________________________________________
What I posted were Warren Buffett’s actual words from the interview video which was posted on The WSJ Digital.
Warren Buffett clearly explains why raising the minimum wage too high is detrimental to both the private sector businesses and the workers.
Your political agenda blinds you from seeing the facts.
Minimum wage vs. Living wage.
The minimum wage was never, nor should it be a living wage. People who earn minimum wage should be driven (by that lousy paycheck) to work harder, get promoted or go out and find a better paying job.
That $15.00/hr thing is also causing a problem for the entitlement society. At that wage they lose some of their hand-outs.
$15.00/hr is not a living wage. You can’t pay the rent, eat and get to and from work on $15./hr.
Of course none of this would be a problem if the economy and job market didn’t suck.
That $15.00/hr thing is also causing a problem for the entitlement society. At that wage they lose some of their hand-outs.
True. Reports indicate that workers in such places as Seattle are asking to work fewer hours to not lose their gov't assistance. Kind of defeats the whole purpose. Real life and human nature intrude again, the two factors often ignored by Liberal policies.
[Edited on 8/30/2015 by alloak41]
That $15.00/hr thing is also causing a problem for the entitlement society. At that wage they lose some of their hand-outs.
True. Reports indicate that workers in such places as Seattle are asking to work fewer hours to not lose their gov't assistance. Kind of defeats the whole purpose. Real life and human nature intrude again, the two factors often ignored by Liberal policies.
[Edited on 8/30/2015 by alloak41]
i heard some of them are pot smokers too.
That $15.00/hr thing is also causing a problem for the entitlement society. At that wage they lose some of their hand-outs.
True. Reports indicate that workers in such places as Seattle are asking to work fewer hours to not lose their gov't assistance. Kind of defeats the whole purpose. Real life and human nature intrude again, the two factors often ignored by Liberal policies.
[Edited on 8/30/2015 by alloak41]
i heard some of them are pot smokers too.
______________________________________________________________________
Grow your own. It is free.
Why is so hard for liberals to see that nobody is willing to pay 30 dollars for a cheese pizza? the problem must be everyone in the community and not the concept. Instead, they will then make middle class patrons pay the full 30 dollars and subsidize the pizza cost for the low information/low income patrons. Business will flourish with the gov subsidizing the menu. A successful program viewed through a liberal lens.
Reports indicate that workers in such places as Seattle are asking to work fewer hours to not lose their gov't assistance.
That's been going on for decades. If you are a manager in the restaurant industry, you actually have to give solid thought to obliging those requests as having an employee working for only 4 hours is better than not having anyone in the position at all.
Perspective is needed, too. One could gin up some moral outrage at such a request. I was a store manager for a large corporate fast casual chain and I had people that would say that they couldn't work "too much" or they'd lose some assistance benefit. Initially, that made me angry. But, then I realized...it's never that simple. Every single day after the breakfast rush I ran a report off the POS system, it could do labor cost in real time. What? We are 12% over for the day already? Someone gotta go home early. A vast majority of the time for every person willing to leave early, another one wanted to stay because they needed the money. Multiple times we had to flip coins to see who could stay.
The article in the OP describes a noble gesture, but perhaps it isn't a realistic parallel to compare that to the Fight For $15 movement, which specifically targets the megacorporate fast food entities.
Reports indicate that workers in such places as Seattle are asking to work fewer hours to not lose their gov't assistance.
That's been going on for decades. If you are a manager in the restaurant industry, you actually have to give solid thought to obliging those requests as having an employee working for only 4 hours is better than not having anyone in the position at all.
Perspective is needed, too. One could gin up some moral outrage at such a request. I was a store manager for a large corporate fast casual chain and I had people that would say that they couldn't work "too much" or they'd lose some assistance benefit. Initially, that made me angry. But, then I realized...it's never that simple. Every single day after the breakfast rush I ran a report off the POS system, it could do labor cost in real time. What? We are 12% over for the day already? Someone gotta go home early. A vast majority of the time for every person willing to leave early, another one wanted to stay because they needed the money. Multiple times we had to flip coins to see who could stay.
The article in the OP describes a noble gesture, but perhaps it isn't a realistic parallel to compare that to the Fight For $15 movement, which specifically targets the megacorporate fast food entities.
_________________________________________________________________________
It is the workers that will suffer the most by The Fight For $15 movement.
The people who actually work in the restaurant and retail world know this only too well but no one listens to them.
The noise is coming from the union backed paid-protester and the far-left activists.
i will continue to refrain from judgement. this was about how one business handled the issue. i'd have to know how and what other businesses in the area are handling the issue and how they are doing. shouldn't be that hard for a reporter to do a door by door survey of the restuarants in the area......take a year to do it. no rush. hell, set it up to do 2 interviews at different times of the year. both sides make solid arguments. i'll wait for more data.
its harder to move forward than it is to move backwards?
naw they are both difficult.
[Edited on 8/31/2015 by LeglizHemp]
Reports indicate that workers in such places as Seattle are asking to work fewer hours to not lose their gov't assistance.
That's been going on for decades. If you are a manager in the restaurant industry, you actually have to give solid thought to obliging those requests as having an employee working for only 4 hours is better than not having anyone in the position at all.
Perspective is needed, too. One could gin up some moral outrage at such a request. I was a store manager for a large corporate fast casual chain and I had people that would say that they couldn't work "too much" or they'd lose some assistance benefit. Initially, that made me angry. But, then I realized...it's never that simple. Every single day after the breakfast rush I ran a report off the POS system, it could do labor cost in real time. What? We are 12% over for the day already? Someone gotta go home early. A vast majority of the time for every person willing to leave early, another one wanted to stay because they needed the money. Multiple times we had to flip coins to see who could stay.
The article in the OP describes a noble gesture, but perhaps it isn't a realistic parallel to compare that to the Fight For $15 movement, which specifically targets the megacorporate fast food entities.
You are correct. Perspective does matter. Without it, isolated examples and false conclusions derived are myopic at best & ignorant at their worst. We've certainly seen examples of posts reflecting not even a thimbleful of knowledge of how elasticity of demand is analyzed and how economists would derive conclusions using case study.
Reports indicate that workers in such places as Seattle are asking to work fewer hours to not lose their gov't assistance.
That's been going on for decades. If you are a manager in the restaurant industry, you actually have to give solid thought to obliging those requests as having an employee working for only 4 hours is better than not having anyone in the position at all.
Perspective is needed, too. One could gin up some moral outrage at such a request. I was a store manager for a large corporate fast casual chain and I had people that would say that they couldn't work "too much" or they'd lose some assistance benefit. Initially, that made me angry. But, then I realized...it's never that simple. Every single day after the breakfast rush I ran a report off the POS system, it could do labor cost in real time. What? We are 12% over for the day already? Someone gotta go home early. A vast majority of the time for every person willing to leave early, another one wanted to stay because they needed the money. Multiple times we had to flip coins to see who could stay.
The article in the OP describes a noble gesture, but perhaps it isn't a realistic parallel to compare that to the Fight For $15 movement, which specifically targets the megacorporate fast food entities.
You are correct. Perspective does matter. Without it, isolated examples and false conclusions derived are myopic at best & ignorant at their worst. We've certainly seen examples of posts reflecting not even a thimbleful of knowledge of how elasticity of demand is analyzed and how economists would derive conclusions using case study.
______________________________________________________________________
Based on your response do you think the rise of the minimum wage to$15/hr. is justified?
If so, should the hand-outs also be increased to compensate for the loss of hours someone can work?
[Edited on 9/1/2015 by Muleman1994]
