Social security and medicare taxes for small business owners

[Art]

I think the $5.25 minimum wage was set in the 1960's. Why on earth hasn't it been adjusted in the last 48 years

Now there's a statement I can't let fly by. The minimum wage in the '60 was $.75 that means 75 cents, then it went to .90 then to a dollar an hour.

If you are going to spout "facts" they should at least be credible. It amazes me how someone can just say anything the want, regardless of any vague resemblance to the truth and nobody complains. Hummmmmm, sounds like the very administration everyone "hopes" will "change" all those inequities.

Art

[electrathon]

I think the $5.25 minimum wage was set in the 1960's. Why on earth hasn't it been adjusted in the last 48 years

Now there's a statement I can't let fly by. The minimum wage in the '60 was $.75 that means 75 cents, then it went to .90 then to a dollar an hour.

If you are going to spout "facts" they should at least be credible. It amazes me how someone can just say anything the want, regardless of any vague resemblance to the truth and nobody complains. Hummmmmm, sounds like the very administration everyone "hopes" will "change" all those inequities.

Art

Ed has begged forgiveness for saying that. But it definatly does show the predisposition of a belief to be able to arrive at a conclusion. Yes, I do know people on both sides of the fence do this, but this statement was so far away from any posibility of reality it is scary.

[esantoro]

I was wrong about the straight dollar amount, but not the amount adjusted for inflation. One dollar in 1960 does not mean the same thing as a dollar today. One was able to buy a house in 1960 for less than $25,000.

Humble apologies for my oversight, but I was more right than wrong. Between 1960 and 2001, the minimum wage value, adjusted for inflation, declined.

"For Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist, and William Julius Wilson, a sociologist at Harvard, ghetto neighborhoods reinforce poverty and contribute to it. But dismantling ghettos and integrating neighborhoods, a hugely complicated endeavor, has not been high on the agenda of any administration in 20 years. Nor has the minimum wage. Adjusted for inflation, it has declined from more than $6 an hour in the 1960's to $5.25 today [2001]."

Next month, the adjusted minimum wage will be on par with the economy in 1997.

ed

Ed has begged forgiveness for saying that. But it definatly does show the predisposition of a belief to be able to arrive at a conclusion. Yes, I do know people on both sides of the fence do this, but this statement was so far away from any posibility of reality it is scary.

[bustedlifter]

"For Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist, and William Julius Wilson, a sociologist at Harvard,

I see the problem right here!

[hiloboy]

Oh Ya!! it took some time to get here after reading for days.. but thats the problem for sure..a economist, and a sociologist from Harvard. that is just what we need right now to save the day..or do we.. i think we have some of those in office already..and what has its doing for us.. not much of anything is being done.. for our country or its people..for me i'm not going to follow the king of"Os" ANY MORE..just my 2 cents

Edited June 3, 2009 by hiloboy

[esantoro]

I see the problem right here!

I'm not crazy about the students at Harvard, but the university does have some good minds. Elizabeth Warren comes to mind. The research by Warren and the two academics in this article can be supported by other academics.

I found another source that states that for the minimum wage to be at a level similar to what it was in 1960, it would have to be around $8.25 today in 2009.

Question: If the minimum wage was pegged to a certain level in 1960, should it have maintained that level till today or even improved? We know that corporations have made enormous increases in profits -- something in the range of 250 percent -- but 80 percent of Americans are making maybe $300 to $600 more in INFLATION ADJUSTED dollars annually than they were in 1970. Corporations depend on workers to do the work, shouldn't those workers at all levels have improved their financial situation, if the corporation has been increasing profits?

My main concern is not that people who are not making much money should be given a hand out. My main concern is that the economic game of the last thirty years has been skewered and that 80 percent of Americans are being taken for a ride. If home prices have been artificially boosted 300 percent (see the you tube lecture with Elizabeth Warren), nearly anyone who bought a home in the last 10 years has been taken to some extent, especially if the housing market for the next 20 years ends up being more realistically valued.

Furthermore, I see that one of the economic strategies of the financial ruling class is to make middle class Americans feel that they have nothing in common with those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder -- divide and conquer.

I certainly could be wrong, but please show me another breakdown of reality that explains what has been going on in America for the past 30 years. If you argue that the government has been redistributing wealth for the past thirty years and not encouraging innovation, I don't think you can point to any credible research that supports this.

We have to move beyond opinions and point to the research. My claim about the straight dollar amount of the minimum wage not increasing was motivated by opinion, but, semantics aside, the research does bear out that the actual value of that minimum wage in inflation-adjusted dollars has declined.

It seems that the consensus is in disagreement with my earlier claim that 80 percent of Americans are less well off than they were in 1970.

Question: If Americans today are paying 50 percent more of their income for housing alone, would you agree that this alone accounts for a declining standard of living, as it translates into less financial security? I believe that Elizabeth Warren's lecture contains very sound research (linked to in a previous post).

Usually people point to multiple computers, televisions, big screen televisions, ipods, etc., in the home as evidence of increased standard of living. Prices for these and similar consumer electronics have dropped drastically in comparison to their 1970 counterparts, but the flip side is that housing costs have jumped enormously in comparison. I'm leaning toward the perspective that there has been a bit of "bait-and-switch" going on in the American economy since 1970.

ed

[esantoro]

Here's some interesting research that argues persuasively against what I've been arguing:

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-...ow-are-we-doing

It should be noted that the above article is from a journal of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank started in 1943.

So in the blue trunks standing 5'10" and weighing 182 lbs we have the liberal agenda. In the opposing corner, wearing red trunks standing 5'8" and weighing 275 lbs we have the conservative agenda.

Gentlemen, let's have a fair fight. No hitting below the belt, and no calling each other's mothers any pejorative names.

Ding. Ding.

ed

Edited June 3, 2009 by esantoro

[esantoro]

Oh Ya!! it took some time to get here after reading for days.. but thats the problem for sure..a economist, and a sociologist from Harvard. that is just what we need right now to save the day..or do we.. i think we have some of those in office already..and what has its doing for us.. not much of anything is being done.. for our country or its people..for me i'm not going to follow the king of"Os" ANY MORE..just my 2 cents

The new administration, which is decidedly the most liberal we've seen since FDR, has been in office for four months. Conservative rule, including Clinton democrats (more centrist than left), had been in office for the nearly 30 previous years.

Too soon to call. To soon to call.

But I am loving my flex shaft rotary tool. Thank you for the suggestion.

ed

[electrathon]

I found another source that states that for the minimum wage to be at a level similar to what it was in 1960, it would have to be around $8.25 today in 2009.

Question: If the minimum wage was pegged to a certain level in 1960, should it have maintained that level till today or even improved? We know that corporations have made enormous increases in profits -- something in the range of 250 percent -- but 80 percent of Americans are making maybe $300 to $600 more in INFLATION ADJUSTED dollars annually than they were in 1970. Corporations depend on workers to do the work, shouldn't those workers at all levels have improved their financial situation, if the corporation has been increasing profits?

I just looked, the minimum wage where I live is $8.40 per hour. It is not the same in all states. I am sure that you are aware that minimum wage is not what most Americans make. It is where, generally youth, start into the job market. The mean averare salery is really what matters. People only want to bicker about minimum because it is an easy target. I have worked since I was 14 and I have never in my life been paid minimum wage.

One of the reasons there has been so much prophit in the stock market is that so many Americans are heavily invested through retirement investments. The prophits that the evil job providers make is what is funding all of our retirements. The more they make, the more the stockholders (all of us to one extent or another) make. You have not mentioned the huge numbers of corperations that have lost money. Using your reasoning that prophits should be shared, should not all of the people that work for the loosing companies pay to work there? That is likely as absurd to you ( I hope it is) as I see it being absurd to beat up the companies that are providing work for the rest of us. Unfortionatly, that is exactly what your current administration is doing.

My main concern is not that people who are not making much money should be given a hand out. My main concern is that the economic game of the last thirty years has been skewered and that 80 percent of Americans are being taken for a ride. If home prices have been artificially boosted 300 percent (see the you tube lecture with Elizabeth Warren), nearly anyone who bought a home in the last 10 years has been taken to some extent, especially if the housing market for the next 20 years ends up being more realistically valued.

Remember, the construction workers and other middle calss people are paid what they earn relitive to what housing sells for. If new housing was priced 30% lower, respectively, we would be paid about 30% less to build those houses. There is a little room for wiggling, but not all that much. One of the huge increases in housing costs (at least around here) is the exorberant fees that government charges. All of those fees are added into the price of the house (about $30-$50,000 around here).

It seems that the consensus is in disagreement with my earlier claim that 80 percent of Americans are less well off than they were in 1970.

Question: If Americans today are paying 50 percent more of their income for housing alone, would you agree that this alone accounts for a declining standard of living, as it translates into less financial security? I believe that Elizabeth Warren's lecture contains very sound research (linked to in a previous post).

Usually people point to multiple computers, televisions, big screen televisions, ipods, etc., in the home as evidence of increased standard of living. Prices for these and similar consumer electronics have dropped drastically in comparison to their 1970 counterparts, but the flip side is that housing costs have jumped enormously in comparison. I'm leaning toward the perspective that there has been a bit of "bait-and-switch" going on in the American economy since 1970.

I do not agree that paying more for one thing and less for another (coming out to a nearly equil end outcome) makes for a lower standard of living. To me, it makes a leval standard. I know of very few people that would accept the lifestyle today that our parents lived 30 years ago. I personally have struggled. Looking back to when I was a child, my family has so much more than we did as kids it is not even vaguely an equil comparison. I have never, and may father never recieved and assistance from the government either, we earned our way.

Funny (pathetic actually) story. My moms husband was a highley educated economic professor at a university. He declared bankruptcy twice in his life and woudl haev a third time if he had lived a little longer for his third financial colapse. He taught that this was OK, even good as it helped keep the economy moving. It made sure that risk takers took risk. You loose, you do not have to pay. You win, you make lots of money.

[electrathon]

The new administration, which is decidedly the most liberal we've seen since FDR, has been in office for four months. Conservative rule, including Clinton democrats (more centrist than left), had been in office for the nearly 30 previous years.

Too soon to call. To soon to call.

But I am loving my flex shaft rotary tool. Thank you for the suggestion.

ed

It is hard to believe that anyone would feel that conservatives have ruled for 30 years. Congress has been liberal for about that long. My memory says that the only time it was differant was when Clinton was in office and there was a republican congress and senate. A lot did get fixed then, some did not. Once liberal thinking got back in control, liberal spending followed. Now we have three branches of govenrment (senate, house and executive) and within a few months the deficate has gone up at levals that were unimaginable in the past.

[esantoro]

I just looked, the minimum wage where I live is $8.40 per hour. It is not the same in all states. I am sure that you are aware that minimum wage is not what most Americans make. It is where, generally youth, start into the job market. The mean averare salery is really what matters. People only want to bicker about minimum because it is an easy target. I have worked since I was 14 and I have never in my life been paid minimum wage.

Ed: Fair point. I just see no reason that the minimum wage should not be on par with that of 1960. I'm also using the reference points of the 1960's and 1970's because to my understanding, these were periods of leaders paying attention to economic realities. I also have an interest it wondering about the economic changes that slowly took place after the immigration act of 1965. I see that as a crucial pivot point, where American leadership began thinking differently about just what they thought America was all about. My hypothesis is that the burgeoning service and financial sectors needed low-wage labor, and all the rest started falling into place.

One of the reasons there has been so much prophit in the stock market is that so many Americans are heavily invested through retirement investments. The prophits that the evil job providers make is what is funding all of our retirements. The more they make, the more the stockholders (all of us to one extent or another) make. You have not mentioned the huge numbers of corperations that have lost money. Using your reasoning that prophits should be shared, should not all of the people that work for the loosing companies pay to work there? That is likely as absurd to you ( I hope it is) as I see it being absurd to beat up the companies that are providing work for the rest of us. Unfortionatly, that is exactly what your current administration is doing.

Ed: I never said profits should be shared. I said that if a business is seeing enhanced profits, all employees in that business should also see some improvement in compensation, as they all participate in keeping the company working.

At some point I want to get back to social services in Germany, but to my understanding, social welfare in Germany is somewhat of a shared enterprise between private companies and government. Private businesses are responsible for making sure their employees receive a livable wage. For the most part, this has worked because of the moral scruples German business leadership has. I imagine this is changing with increased immigration and availability of low-skilled work that native-born Germans don't want.

Remember, the construction workers and other middle calss people are paid what they earn relitive to what housing sells for. If new housing was priced 30% lower, respectively, we would be paid about 30% less to build those houses. There is a little room for wiggling, but not all that much. One of the huge increases in housing costs (at least around here) is the exorberant fees that government charges. All of those fees are added into the price of the house (about $30-$50,000 around here).

Ed: I wasn't aware of these fees, but where does that money go? Does the largest portion go to medicare, medicaid, and public education? How much goes to businesses? Even if a large portion goes to these areas, how much actually goes directly to these areas and not businesses providing unnecessary and inefficient products and services for these areas? For example, how many private businesses are actually consuming tax revenue that is earmarked for public education? How much is taken up by administrators at all levels and not put directly, into say, reducing all class sizes to 15 students.

I do not agree that paying more for one thing and less for another (coming out to a nearly equil end outcome) makes for a lower standard of living. To me, it makes a leval standard. I know of very few people that would accept the lifestyle today that our parents lived 30 years ago. I personally have struggled. Looking back to when I was a child, my family has so much more than we did as kids it is not even vaguely an equil comparison. I have never, and may father never recieved and assistance from the government either, we earned our way.

Funny (pathetic actually) story. My moms husband was a highley educated economic professor at a university. He declared bankruptcy twice in his life and woudl haev a third time if he had lived a little longer for his third financial colapse. He taught that this was OK, even good as it helped keep the economy moving. It made sure that risk takers took risk. You loose, you do not have to pay. You win, you make lots of money.

To my understanding, this is a big part of the problem, and is the logic of many corporations. Private gains, socialized losses. And I wonder how much of tax revenues are actually consumed in this direction. The corporate jet is a tax write-off, so is the million-dollar conference in the Bahamas, or wherever. Rather than be taxed on profits, corporations find ways to spend it down as write-offs. These same corporations have also been given free money by the government.

This, to me, is conservative rule, not liberal, and has been going on for decades.

Don't grill me yet. I'll need to consult David Cay Johnston's "Free Lunch: How the wealthiest Americans enrich themselves at governmnet expense (and stick you with the bill)" for the particulars.

Here's a bit from the book:

"The harsh reality is that for the past quarter century, policies adopted in the name of Adam Smith, policies that supposedly strengthen the invisible hand guiding the market, have weighed our economy down while simultaneously stuffing the pockets of those among the rich and powerful who solicited them or were just standing in the right place at a lucrative time. This is our story, not of one free lunch, but of the many banquets at which billions of your [tax] dollars are being served to the richest among us."

We should look at one company that has done well and look at what types of decisions it has made, including disparity in income of the top paid and lowest paid. I'll venture to bet that more than 60 percent of successful companies also have the lowest disparity in this pay gap. I'm focusing on the pay gap simply as an indicator of a general set of values that company possesses. I could be wrong, but that is the next question that intrigues me.

[esantoro]

It is hard to believe that anyone would feel that conservatives have ruled for 30 years. Congress has been liberal for about that long. My memory says that the only time it was differant was when Clinton was in office and there was a republican congress and senate. A lot did get fixed then, some did not. Once liberal thinking got back in control, liberal spending followed. Now we have three branches of govenrment (senate, house and executive) and within a few months the deficate has gone up at levals that were unimaginable in the past.

We need some voting on this one. HAve the last thirty years been conservative or liberal rule. Numbers of dems and reps in congress doesn't have anything to do with this. The actual policies that got passed is what matters.

Reagan cried for smaller government but that is not necessarily what he wanted. He cried for it because he knew many Americans would go for it. They would fall for the rhetoric. What he wanted was big government for the benefit of big business, with the reasoning that big business will create jobs and prosperity, and the government would not have to spend money for social programs. There's no proof that this has worked.

Germany seems to have a better model of some kind of cooperation between private business and government.

ed

[esantoro]

Also, America is not a democracy, it is a republic.

I know I'm going to catch flak for this, and, no, I probably don't actually believe it, but I like the way it sounds, and the way it proffers a certain truth:

America is neither a democracy nor a representative republic. It is a representative oligarchy.

[electrathon]

We need some voting on this one. HAve the last thirty years been conservative or liberal rule. Numbers of dems and reps in congress doesn't have anything to do with this. The actual policies that got passed is what matters.

Reagan cried for smaller government but that is not necessarily what he wanted. He cried for it because he knew many Americans would go for it. They would fall for the rhetoric. What he wanted was big government for the benefit of big business, with the reasoning that big business will create jobs and prosperity, and the government would not have to spend money for social programs. There's no proof that this has worked.

Germany seems to have a better model of some kind of cooperation between private business and government.

ed

I do agree with you that under Regan none of us were ready for the growth level of spending that came from congress when the "income" went up. Collected revinue rocketed up, spending went up even faster. So there is an argument that sound policies that create added income are not always good, because the out of control spenders can do more damage with more money. If his policies had not worked so well, the income would not have been there for the growth in spending that happened.

[electrathon]

Ed: I wasn't aware of these fees, but where does that money go? Does the largest portion go to medicare, medicaid, and public education? How much goes to businesses? Even if a large portion goes to these areas, how much actually goes directly to these areas and not businesses providing unnecessary and inefficient products and services for these areas?

Government has got very good on charging "fees". All of the money goes to line the pockets of local government. System developement fees are big(this money is supposed to be collected and used to enlarge the system in the future, such as poo plants, water production etc.) parks fees (got to build parks so you have a place for criminals to hang out) inspection fees (around here, you will never pass an inspection the first time, they want the added hours of doing reinspections). Transportation fees are big(if you build a house, you will drive to it, so you have to pay a fee to the city to use the road). None of this money goed to private busness except possibly some that is paid through contracts for work done (such as well drilling , etc.)

Edited June 3, 2009 by electrathon

[electrathon]

Ed,

I just wanted to say to you once again: I am enjoying this conversation and I really appreciate that we are both able to share drasticly differant opinions in a civil discussion. I find it both stimulating and interesting.

Aaron

PS: I just wish you were right like I am. LOL

[esantoro]

Ed,

I just wanted to say to you once again: I am enjoying this conversation and I really appreciate that we are both able to share drasticly differant opinions in a civil discussion. I find it both stimulating and interesting.

Aaron

PS: I just wish you were right like I am. LOL

I'm also enjoying the conversation and the opportunity to go looking for research and perspective. All this in between, serial reinstalls of xp.

ed

[electrathon]

Ed: I never said profits should be shared. I said that if a business is seeing enhanced profits, all employees in that business should also see some improvement in compensation, as they all participate in keeping the company working.

Let me look at this and see if I am understanding:

Say I own a company that makes bags. Very nice, very expensive high quality bags, the best of the best. The bags do not more than a cheap low quality bag will do, but they are great, stylish and a wonderfull item to set on a desk in front of a judge. It tells him I am the man, you can trust me.

After scratching out a living making bags for a while, someone notices how great they are and orders 50 of them for the executives at the bank, the desire is for everyone that comes in to see that we are the ones that have things going on. It works. The compitition notices and you get an order for 500 more bags. Far more than your small company can make. You get a loan, risk everything you have and expand. You look into the market and find that bag makers average salery is about 50K a year. You hire a bagmaker and the two of you work real hard. You make all the bags and get more orders. You make a lot of money. Your risk starts to pay off, orders keep coming in. You give your guy a raise because he is a good bag maker (or is it because you made money?).

There is another bag manufacture nearby. They do similar work but never get the sales or name recognition. It is all the place can do to keep the doors open. Your worker has a brother that works at the competitor. Should he be paid less money for the exact same work as your guy gets? The business will go under if that happens. The worker actually works harder than your guy does. Should his salery depend on the income of his employer? Or on the mean average wage of other workers in the area?

Time gos on. The econony has issues due to no direct fault of your own. You have marketed to the wealthy for years, done well and now find yourself selling a luxury item to the despised in the country. The orders slow down. You are barely making it, even sinking. Would you cut the income of your employee? You are loosing money, if your employee reaped the benifits of the profit, does he also share the burden of the losses?

My opinion on this. You desreve to be paid a fair wage reguarless of the profit or the losses of who you work for. It is wrong to say you deserve more (or less) money due to the income or loss of the business. Thsi is an oversimplification of the countrys economy, but hopefully it is full enough to get the idea.

[esantoro]

Let me look at this and see if I am understanding:

Say I own a company that makes bags. Very nice, very expensive high quality bags, the best of the best. The bags do not more than a cheap low quality bag will do, but they are great, stylish and a wonderful item to set on a desk in front of a judge. It tells him I am the man, you can trust me.

Ed: Yes, this is what the bag is all about. A canvas sack also works, but then so does a bicycle, so who needs a BMW. The sound of a door shutting on a BMW or JAguar or Rolls Royce--it's not the same as the sound of a door shutting on a kia sport. There are differences in aesthetics, form, and function that require a minimum of 40 hours of labor, this, your bag company. Not many people are doing this anymore. There are folks on Ebay selling similar bags made in China and Mexico--selling for $400 to $500. Swaine Adeney Brigg is still showing up and doing the work. I suppose Ghurka is , too. Not many others. Hermes is. There is something ineffable about a well made leather bag. One may not quite be able to articulate it, but that sense is always there. A bag is nothing more than a sack. We are talking here about an obsession. We are talking about The Brooklyn Bridge.

After scratching out a living making bags for a while, someone notices how great they are and orders 50 of them for the executives at the bank, the desire is for everyone that comes in to see that we are the ones that have things going on. It works. The compitition notices and you get an order for 500 more bags. Far more than your small company can make. You get a loan, risk everything you have and expand. You look into the market and find that bag makers average salery is about 50K a year. You hire a bagmaker and the two of you work real hard. You make all the bags and get more orders. You make a lot of money. Your risk starts to pay off, orders keep coming in. You give your guy a raise because he is a good bag maker (or is it because you made money?).

Ed: I give the guy a raise if the company can afford it and he is adding value to the company, ie. new products and ideas.

There is another bag manufacture nearby. They do similar work but never get the sales or name recognition. It is all the place can do to keep the doors open. Your worker has a brother that works at the competitor. Should he be paid less money for the exact same work as your guy gets? The business will go under if that happens. The worker actually works harder than your guy does. Should his salery depend on the income of his employer? Or on the mean average wage of other workers in the area?

Ed: Hmmmm. The ethic out there is don't do the work yourself, but go to China and Mexico. There are simply not many companies out there that are obsessed. This nearby company is not possessed, thus not really making the same thing. If they are, I salute them.

Yes, my guy's brother deserves less, because he is not making the same bag. That company's bag requires 6 to 12 hours of labor. That company is not insanely possessed with the same demons by which the 1850's Luis Vuitton was possessed.

But assuming this guy is doing THE SAME work, yes, he deserves the same pay. However, if the owner of that company is a wanker and is not involved in the day-to-day madness of creation, then, again, it is not the same work. If business is as slow as you say, the owner will not be able to afford help. He will not need to afford help, and he will be saddle stitching by candle light till 3 am and sleeping till noon. And all will be good with a bit of water and bread. It's about the madness.

Time gos on. The econony has issues due to no direct fault of your own. You have marketed to the wealthy for years, done well and now find yourself selling a luxury item to the despised in the country. The orders slow down. You are barely making it, even sinking. Would you cut the income of your employee? You are loosing money, if your employee reaped the benifits of the profit, does he also share the burden of the losses?

Business Plan, we don't need no stinkin' business plan. We have the madness. If business slows down as you say, I will not be able to afford help and will only need 1.) cardboard box 2.) candlelight 3.) water 4.) breadcrums 5. ) a FedEx account.

I guess that employee does reap the burden of losses if I can no longer afford to employ him or her (equal opportunity employer, I am). But if he's as good as you say he is. He'll start his own company, stealing a few of my ideas, since he's seen them all, and I shall return the favor.

My opinion on this. You desreve to be paid a fair wage reguarless of the profit or the losses of who you work for. It is wrong to say you deserve more (or less) money due to the income or loss of the business. Thsi is an oversimplification of the countrys economy, but hopefully it is full enough to get the idea.

Ed: If the company is doing well, it is then time for risks, say, having an employee work more on ideas creation rather than reproducing the mainstays. Good ideas should be remuneration. This leads to added responsibilities for said employee, which deserves remuneration. I certainly believe the minimum wage should be no less than $8.50 for an employee who requires training in handstitching. Important, time-consuming, but not incredibly difficult. As employee improves skills,he or she can take on more assembly procedures requiring more skills, and more remuneration, as that employee would be freeing up my time to create more ideas. The end result is the company is being more productive, but do in good measure to employees putting out the effort to improve skills. I, the owner, should not be the only one doing better financially, as the company does not improve and grow only because of me. Yes, my wonderful managerial skills have allowed for good decisions, but I am remunerated accordingly for that ability, as are the employees for theirs.

It is also my responsibility as the owner to organize construction processes so that an employee who is starting out at minimum wage has the appropriate amount of work to do at his or her skill level. There might be about 8 to 12 hours of hand stitching required for each bag. If ten bags are always being worked on simultaneously that employee has an 80 to 120 hour steady stream of work to do. IF I have an employee skilled at cutting out parts and finishing the edges required prior to construction, productivity will greatly improve, and my workload may not be as high and I can focus on other things. An employee who can add two or three more tasks to hand stitching deserves no less than $10 an hour. Add machine skills and finishing, no less than $15 an hour. Those employees assuming the responsibilities I once had deserve higher pay. This could come in end-of-year bonuses or it could come in hourly pay raises. If business declines, pay should be the same, but I may not be able to afford as many employees, and I would step in to assume more of the responsibilities I once had. We'd have a company meeting and I'd solicit proposals for how to handle the downturn, a downturn in which I would also see my own financial returns diminish proportionately along with that of my employees.

Anyone making $50,000 a year would someone who is adding value to the company on a daily basis in skills, technique, procedures, new products, etc., all requiring additional employees in the future. Who knows, perhaps this person ends up running the company for $80,000 to $100,000 a year and I'm no longer working 9 to 5, increasing my hours only when I sense quality declining, which means the people getting paid the most for their skills and abilities are lagging in some respects.

ed

[bustedlifter]

The new administration, which is decidedly the most liberal we've seen since FDR, has been in office for four months.

Too soon to call. To soon to call.

It maybe early, but when you are in debt ,you don't get out of it by going further into debt. The worst thing the last administration did was the bailout.They should have just let the chips fall where they may. This new administration makes that bailout look like pocket change.

Edited June 4, 2009 by bustedlifter