This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
These 19 States Just Hiked The Minimum Wage: Here Come The "Unintended Consequences"
Starting on January 1, 2015, a one year-delayed component of Obamacare kicks in: according to the health care law, businesses that employ at least 100 full-time workers — or full-time equivalents, including part-time workers — must offer health benefits to at least 70% of those working at least 30 hours a week by Thursday, or pay a penalty. This will expand to by next year, when companies will have to provide insurance to 95% of their workers, and firms with 50 to 99 employees must offer coverage as well. As a result, and as even the USA Today reports, "many businesses in low-wage industries have hired more part-time workers and cut the hours of full-timers recently to soften the impact of new health law requirements that take effect Thursday."
More details:
Businesses in low-wage sectors, such as restaurants, retail and warehousing, are feeling bigger effects because health insurance represents an outsize share of their total employee costs, says Rob Wilson, head of Employco, a human resources outsourcing firm. Many of those with just fewer than 100 staffers have hired more part-timers in recent months, while those with at least 100 are reducing the hours of existing employees, he says.
Michelle Neblett, senior director of labor and workforce policy for the National Restaurant Association, says many restaurants are being more cautious about boosting the workweek of part-timers to 30 hours or more, doling out such increases to reward top performers.
Those strategies have not had a noticeable impact on the labor market. Monthly job growth has averaged 240,000 this year, up from 194,000 in 2013. And full-time employment has increased at about twice the rate of part-time payrolls, Labor Department figures show.
Still, the number of part-time workers who say they'd prefer full-time jobs has remained stubbornly high. That can at least partly be traced to the inclination of the restaurant, retail and hotel industries to hire more part-time workers to sidestep the ACA mandate, Royal Bank of Scotland wrote in a recent report.
Of course, the reason why the BLS has not yet revealed the reality of the shifting US labor force, and why there is virtually no real wage growth across the US since the Lehman bankruptcy, is that the BLS simply backs into statistically goal-seeked results, using seasonal and statistical (birth/death) adjustments to smooth a trendline to beat a monthly bogey used by algos to bid stocks higher. Meanwhile, the reality at the micro level, is that increasingly more Americans are seeing their work status transformed from full-time to part-time status, earning less in the process, having no healthcare and retirement benefits and virtually no job security.
As a result, starting this year, some 19 states just increased their minimum wage threshold, with 3 more states due to follow later in 2015. This takes place at the state level because for numerous reasons, there simply wan't enough of a consensus to pass this at the Federal level. The Daily Signal has the details:
In three states—Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota—voters approved ballot measures in November to increase the minimum wage, effective Jan. 1, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Alaska voters passed an initiative raising the minimum wage in the state to begin Jan. 1. But the pay increase isn’t effective until 90 days after the election results are certified, Feb. 24.
Meanwhile, legislatures in seven states—Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia—approved laws boosting the minimum wage. Those laws go into effect today.
Though Delaware and Minnesota’s state lawmakers voted to raise the minimum wage, those increases won’t begin until June and August, respectively. The District of Columbia will see a minimum wage hike beginning July 1. New York raised its minimum wage to $8.75 an hour beginning yesterday and will see another increase to $9 an hour beginning Dec. 31, 2015.
Nine other states will see increases in their minimum wages today as state laws mandate automatic increases to make up for rising prices. Those states are: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon and Washington.
Among states raising the minimum wage, Washington state will boast the highest at $9.47 an hour–but only until July 1, when the District of Columbia will have the highest in the nation at $10.50 an hour.
These are the states in question:
So in the grand scheme of this this should be net neutral: more part-time jobs offset by higher wages, not too bad right? Wrong.
For one thing, For according to a recent UCSD study, for three years, researchers followed low-income workers residing in states that saw wage hikes and those that did not. The study found that minimum wage hikes had negative impacts on employment, income and income growth. In other words, the probability of part-, and full-time workers to get fired rises even more as a result of an artificial push to the wage/labor supply-demand curve.
In fact, while one can applaud the attempt to boost standards of living, one can be certain that the only thing the media will be focusing on in 2015 will be the "unintended consequences" of this action:
“Minimum wage supporters have good intentions, but those good intentions cannot repeal the law of unintended consequences,” James Sherk, an expert in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. He added: "Minimum-wage increases reduce the total earnings of low-wage workers — the higher pay for some workers gets completely offset by the nonexistent pay of those no longer employed."
In its study, UCSD researchers found that after minimum-wage increases, the national employment-to-population ratio decreased by 0.7 percent points between December 2006 and December 2012.
In addition, the study found that minimum-wage increases hindered low-skilled workers’ ability to rise to lower-middle -lass earnings.
And then there are rising prices. As shown previously, just the adverse impact to the bottom line already led to increases in consumer prices across various restaurants in the US.
That's just the beginning. As small and medium-businesses struggle across America to make ends meet, it is the big businesses that have all the economies of scale and all the leverage. And, as a result, prepare for this:
Which is just the intended result: after all, the one thing missing from the "recovery" is inflation. Well, prepare to welcome unintended consequences number one of central planning. The only problem, declining wages aren't going anywhere. And that's for those who are lucky enough to hold jobs. Also, don't forget that the only shining spot in the US wage field - shale jobs - is finished, and going forward not only will the shale patch not generate rising wages, but will in fact lead to the largest surge in layoffs seen in years.
Which is precisely what propaganda is for. And after all, Americans who can no longer afford to buy, or even rent a home can always live in their car, and now, thanks to plunging gas prices, heat themselves while sleeping in someone's driveway. Because as the media loves reminding us each and every day, sub $2 gas is a "tax cut" for improverished American consumers everywhere.
Now if only those same consumers had full-time jobs and/or anything resembling stable (forget rising) wages, they would even spend more just as Keynesian theory suggests, if only in theory.
»
- 44805 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Why There Shouldn’t Be a Minimum Wage
http://investmentwatchblog.com/why-there-shouldnt-be-a-minimum-wage/
Great way to start 2015.... We are now on Recovery year 7
Layoff / Business Closing List: http://www.dailyjobcuts.com
-
Oh No!!! In 2015 you might have to go to the market, buy some healthy food in bulk and make your own cost effective, healthy meals.
You know it's not just food affected right? More thaan just food workers make minimum wage.
Agreed, it is everything and this is inflationary (so the Fed must raise rates? (laugh track deafening))
Food, rent and utilities still come first so why will a large chunk of the population have any $$ left to eat out as this works its way through the cost systems?
just the first two paragraphs...
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-minimum-wage-ri...
"We can afford to pay people more for the same low-wage, low-profit, lower-class serving service industry work because the lower classes have enough extra money to pay more for the same thing."
Does that mean we can say goodbye to MickD's $1 menu?
Those dollar menu prices were creeping up to two dollars anyway.
Hello new $3 dollar menu.
Why there shouldnt be inflation...
Wage Hikes Lead To The Demise Of Fast Food.
In otherwords, GOOD RIDDANCE
It's not your business to decide what others can eat.
Agreed. And it is not their business to tell me to pay for their Sickcare because of it. If this were true, I imagine things would be quite different.
Miffed
Initiation of force is the lynchpin for all that ales society.
I like ale.....particularly winter brews.
Oh My Gosh!
The minimum wage went up a whole whopping 15 cents an hour today.
Looks like fast food restaurants will be closing in mass as they can't afford to pay people $8 an hour now!
Looks like the robotic burger flipper which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in investment to implement nationwide will start rolling out to make better burgers than $8 an hour help can.
Oh the tragedy!
I better "hedge" against this 15 cent an hour increase by "backing up the truck" to buy gold at $1190 and go hide out in the woods in a trailer with an SKS and a can of beans to "weather this storm".
/sarc
This doom crap ceases to amaze me.
Minimum wage goes up a few cents to keep up with annual inflation, and the Austrians blame the few cent increase causing the inflation. Austrian Schoolers accuse the cart of pulling the horse. Every graph out there shows that wages have not even come close to keeping up with inflation.
Minimum wage in the good old 1950s (the favorite decade of these blowhards even though the US was under the New Deal and enjoying the fruits of the post WWII era) was $1 an hour. Today's equivalent would be $20 an hour, yet the Austrians are crying over today's $8 an hour.
$8 an hour on 20 hours a week barely even covers transportation to get to the shit job. So low and behold, if one is on these wages, they have to go on government assistance. So which way is it blowhards? Do you want unrealistically low wages where employees go on welfare to make ends meet, or do you want wages where when people work at a job they can actually pay for their own transportation out of their own pocket to get to the said shit job? Can't have it both ways guys.
These Austrian blowhards are mostly academics or white collared types where daddy paid for everything and handed them everything on a silver platter on third base. Some of us actually grew up in the hood and worked our way up, so that's why we are "liberal" in your eyes, because we know you greedy business types don't know what its like to start from the bottom because being born on third base doesn't mean you hit a triple!
I agree with everything you said.
Apart from the last paragraph. Austrian blowhards are only a bunch of financial sector workers who have never done anything productive in their lives and make money from money. Yet they love to portray themselves like they really care about anyone else.
Noone in the academia is an outright Randian sociopath like these charlatans.
I understand why you have that critique. It's called the "Austrian School" so they are academics. Yet, their ideology is defintely NOT mainstream in academia.
I look at the resumes of these Mises crowd and none of them run a big business, yet they stand in awe of big business. It's bizarre. Their wonder woman Ayn Rand, an ardent Atheist, NEVER ran a business, yet in her novels she gives lots of lipservice to big business.
I'm all about walk the walk, then talk the talk, and that is 180 the opposite of these charlatans.
Dying to hear your bullshit work experience. Yeah, raising capital, valuing financial assets, etc. how useless. Not like we need capital formation and capital asset pricing to make the world work. Idiot.
If I generalize Id say plus $1 = $8.25 for 7 States.
Since it was last reset on July 24, 2009, the federal minimum wage in the United States has been $7.25 per hour.
With the few cents moar per hour, maybe the FF employees can afford to add on "Chair Insurance" to their health insurance; namely, hospital/trauma insurance when they're beaten senseless by a pack diverse peeples roaming the mawl knocking people out and throwing chairs around.
"$8 an hour on 20 hours a week barely even covers transportation to get to the shit job."
I know a Mexican who walked(3 miles each way) to his fast food job, for years, before he ultimately became manager. He still supports family back in Mexico. I stopped eating there when I heard white employees complaining about his racist hiring and scheduling.
He might have taken one of your bro's jobs. Just kidding, I know they don't have to work, thanks to Uncle Sugar.
Very interesting! You "know a Mexican" who walked to work.
I would have respect for you if you said "I" "walked to work 3 miles".
BTW, my first job, I walked to work about two and a half miles. Bragging rights for me? I guess. But still at the end of the day, it's still an excellent representation of what I am getting at. A bunch of munchers of silver spoons bragging about hard work when they haven't done it themselves.
You must be a dumb fuck--I never had to walk to work--I could always get a ride somehow---or--you're just a lying sack of shit troll
On my first job i walked to work 4 miles, going and coming.
I was a dishwasher with two degrees in physics. Those days are in the past but... shit happens.
I walked to save the bus money and also because i liked the view and cool air.
40 minute daily commute time for me, on foot. Don't know the mileage, I take shortcuts through the woods.
Bicycle cuts the time by 2/3 and gives me cargo capacity for groceries on the way home.
Not a living.
not expensive.
not enjoyable in blizzard conditions.
But hey, I feel lucky, just look around at other people's problems.
Says the sociology major. You're a bit out of your league if you want to try to disprove Say's Law, but when your arguing points are all based upon emotion and0 not fact it wouldn't surpirse me to see you try. If you can explain how too high of a price does NOT create a surplus, or too low of a price does NOT create a shortage, then I'll totally change my view and embrace sky high minimum wage. Since scientifically these economic laws are axiomatic, you'd probably be better off going back to your job flipping burgers or being a typical government employee. Hey, if minimum wage increases do not marginally increase unemployment, then why not raise it to $35/hour? Really, you're saying it does not increase unemployment then why stop at $8, why $15. Or has the central planning board (bunch of idiot PhDs who wouldn't operate a lemonade stand) determined the exact minimum wage that is "perfect"? Thanks for making it totally apparent that you've never worked in business, never created, never took risk, and yet think you have all the answers that woe the economy. Let's be honest for a second: you couldn't read a balance sheet.
This post is full of gems once again. Only a few retards like you still believe Say's law, which only applies to a barter economy without hoarding, is true. It does not even hold in a barter economy with hoarding, let alone in a monetary economy where money is used as a store of wealth.
It's so funny morons like you think they've understood how capitalism works when they learn the nonsense (Say's Law, deadweight loss. etc) in an Econ101 textbook. A sociology major surely knows more about capitalism than you...
I actually analyze companies for a living (still waiting on you and the other genius to weigh in). Yeah, Say's law only applies to a barter economy - that is one of the most hysterical things I've ver read. If you don't believe shortage/surplus apply to a monetary economy you're just outright delusional. Must be another PhD who never had a job outside a classroom. Considering you and other idiot think Rand and and the "Austrian" school are similar I really doubt how much "economics" you've read. No wonder Wall Street laughs at you guys.
I will not waste another two minutes with such an illiterate genius like you after this post. Read and learn:
http://mises.org/library/what-extent-was-rand-misesian
Or may be you want to educate the Mises institute on Rand and Austrian economics with your great knowledge!!!
Regarding Say's law, in its simplest form, it argues that supply creates its own demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say%27s_law
Here is Say himself on the topic: "As each of us can only purchase the productions of others with his own productions – as the value we can buy is equal to the value we can produce, the more men can produce, the more they will purchase.[2]"
Which is of course wrong when one considers that there is hoarding. If this was true, there would NEVER be any shortage of demand. Period. Once again, I recommend you don't pretend to know too much on topics you clearly don't.
If I make dildo plungers, who will buy them?
Since I made them at a loss, and used resources to make a product no one will buy, where does that supply go? Without demand, what have I done with the supply of energy/materials/hours that I've wasted?
You don't need hoarding to explain a shortage of demand.
Of course, the answer to this is to take the money/time/resources of the taxpayer, and socialize the losses, while capitalizing the gains when I sell all the stocks to my farce at an IPO.
EDIT: To explain, with enough inefficiencies like this in the system, shortages in supply and demand will occur. People who are being swindled before they are paid cannot contribute demand, and legitimate suppliers without materails cannot, well, supply.
Despite you invoking "hoarding" as some boogeyman, you have not actually refuted how marginal compulsory increases in the minimum wage contribute to unemployment. The statement is self-evident. While I understand the inequity of the system we all live and suffer under, further artificial distortions of what is left of "the market" to compensate for prior impositions is not a solution. That's why things as they are.
I,ve been hoarding chain burgers for years now.
Getting ready to re release them to the market and crash the affordible meal cost.
Where is there an economy where money is a store of wealth?
Money is conjured from thin air and costs nothing to produce. How is it possible for something like that to be "a store of wealth"?
HUH?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/15/it-cost-1-7-c...
I like to think of society without government.
http://www.freenation.org/a/f61h2.html
Gateway to an Altered Landscape:
Law in a Free Nation
by Richard O. Hammer
I'm sick today and not much in the mood for reading but is it along the lines of Rothbard?
Hope you get better soon.
Yes, shorter with some better insights.
Like how private roads would be much better for tracking criminals.
God forbid we should shift the cost of health care for low wage earners from the government and the folks who have insurance, to their employers. Why should I have to pay more for health care and healt insurance because Walmart refuses to cover their workers forcing them to use welfare or the emergency room for their primary care physician?
They can still eat fast food, they just have to pay for it.
Those low prices were only sustainable because a huge amount of people got exploited and the gorging masses gave a fuck about it.
My, my, what could we do without our betters always deciding for us lessers how, and how much, we-the ostensibly free citizenry, should spend, and spend of, OUR money. From toilets, light bulbs, medical care, fast food, electric cars, and many more sundry items too numerous to mention, the proggies have created such an imbecilic fairyland for us. I'm sure the personal liberty taken from their political priorities and thus to our own individually, would be too much for us to bear anyway.
Even when they don't say it, they do, to wit: "I will always know better than you what's best for you, and so logically it follows that YOU MUST do what I (and my fellow travelers, of course) PREFER you to do." At someone else's expense, always.
I'm glad at least one person will be sleeping better at night content in the knowledge that it was their intrinsic goodness that awakened the gorging masses, and suddenly made them altruistic. Pfft.
Many of us worked in fast food jobs as teenagers to earn extra money and we didn't feel exploited.
Now those fast food jobs are held by illegals and recent immigrants and many of those who you mistakenly labeled as "exploited" will soon find themselves out of jobs and replaced by technology like robots.
That is definitely valid. One starts at these shit jobs and works their way up. But at least in the 1980s we got $3 something an hour, which actually bought things back then.
If these Austrian blowhards had their way, there would be no minimum wage at all and High School seniors would have to "intern" at these jobs for no pay and feel guilty to ask for money for a bus ticket and a uniform allowance to get to the internship. Meanwhile the owners would show off their latest toys on their Facebook accounts for their "hard work" exploiting their subordinates.
The opposite of progressive is "regressive". Despite all of this advanced technology coming out exponentially, we still have an Industrial Revolution Calvinistic work "ethic" which is becoming more apparent by the day that it is becoming obsolete and antiquated. Our values are incompatible with the amount of technology and its role in labor.
We need a radically different economic system that actually is compatible with automation. The reason why I laugh at these minimum wage arguments is that it is like putting a bandaid on a compound fracture... or better yet putting a bandaid on someone who is postmortem. The real question to ask is why these shit jobs even exist in the first place at all. If a robotic burger flipper can do a more efficient job, than this needs to be rolled out ASAP. Then we have $20 an hour technicians who stock or repair the machines as needed. Then with enough innovation the burger machine can stock itself and repair itself and you have full unemployment.
If our economic system is just 1s and 0s that Central Bankers enter into a mainframe anyways, than what difference does it make if we have a guaranteed income? This is the reality of the new millennium but the Austrian Schoolers want to regress back to the late 1800s, yet these blowhards wouldn't be caught dead toiling on a shop floor. They have "too many skills" and would be busy puffing cigars at an executive desk with their feet up on it while paradoxically advocating "hard work" Those days are long gone. It is automation and ecommerce, and these labor saving devices need to save more labor. Full unemployment should be a goal as opposed to low unemployment. This would free up the human family to focus on things such as spirituality, art, music, creativity, instead of wasting time at shit jobs and serving the Man. It would even free up The Man too from having to constantly supervise subordinates so The Man can too pursue what he wants.
It's a win-win with these emerging technologies, yet the regressives shoot themselves in the foot and don't want any part of it.
"We need a radically different economic system that actually is compatible with automation."
You were just bitching about 20/hr work weeks combined with gov. assistance. Well, that is pretty effing radical. Also, unsustainable, since it's being financed by the Federal Reserve's counterfeiting. Section 8 housing projects are enough proof, for me, that this;
"This would free up the human family to focus on things such as spirituality, art, music, creativity, instead of wasting time at shit jobs and serving the Man."
is just plain ridiculous.
Karl Marx never held down a job, either.
No, I'm pointing out their bitching. They want it both ways.
No what's ridiculous is shuffling paperwork all day, morning commutes, urban sprawl, dumping children in day cares instead of raising them ourselves, being slaves to clocks, environmental destruction, I could go and on and on about what is more ridiculous.
Marxism is a front for the big banks. Party officials get everything, and labor gets nothing but claptrap and work camps. Marx is a non-sequitur. Nice reactionary kneejerk.
Just admit everything you advocate involves coercion and violence (government). God forbid somebody makes their own decison, God forbid we treat people like the adults, oh the humanity! You mean a burger flipper won't make as much as a brain surgeron? How unfair.
Your entire field relies on the concept of private property, which itself depends on government's force.
HUH?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
What i meant was that there is no private property in nature. Property rights come from a contract between a so called private owner and the government: By paying taxes the government gives you the right to call some property "your property" with all that it entails. This contract, like all contracts, expires if one of the parties dissapears.
Without government there would be no way to determine who owns what. Your own home for instance, your car or the gold in a mason jar under your bed. What makes them yours? Physically? If i say they are mine and you say they are yours, whose right and why? What strange subspatial link makes some artifact "yours" or "mine"? What does it even mean to say that you own something?
In practice this problem is solved with threats of government force. If you have a deed to your property (an insignificant piece of paper if there ever was one), the government will protect it if it wants to remain as a government for long (if it wants to keep collecting your taxes in exchange for their protection).
Basically government is like a security agency, willing to use the violence you survivalists are too chickenshit to perform by yourselves except on a few opportunites like at the Bundy Ranch. The problem is this agency charges too much and its service sucks, so they wont stay in business for long.
I seem to remember Native American tribes had territories and seasonal migration locations.
The gods didn't seem to require too much in the way of patronage, a heartfelt thank you often sufficed. Utopian? No.
Protection was tribal.
Obviously it not cover all threats or liens..
Read about anarcho-capitalism, I'd suggest Bob Murphy's "Chaos Theory" which shows your claim to be totally false. How does an enetity that exists by taking property from others serve as the defender of property? Government itself is a jackass idea.
So more violence is better than less? And by whom should it be conducted?
Oh bullshit. Demand would set the price, and the price would be shitaceously low if there are 15 million illegals competing for the positions, but if there weren't then the "high schoolers" (who for the most part in this discussion are going to be people incapable of entering into a contract without their guardian/parents consent) would make a decent intro level wage because there would be demand for them.
The first entry wage job I held was above minimun because there were not a lot of teenagers that wanted to W O R K to earn money in northern Virginia at someplace that might involve some sweat or dirt (general store, golf course maintenance, throwing hay, thinning apples, pizza delivery). Before I could actually be hired by someone I rebuilt lawnmowers, mowed lawns and shoveled snow.
Damnit, you didn't let on that you were an idiot until the end...
Before you call anyone an idiot. better you notice what an utter illiterate idiot you are yourself.
"Demand would set the price, and the price would be shitaceously low if there are 15 million illegals competing for the positions, but if there weren't then the "high schoolers" (who for the most part in this discussion are going to be people incapable of entering into a contract without their guardian/parents consent) would make a decent intro level wage because there would be demand for them."
Whoaah!! Yes demand would set the price and if there were not any minimum wages, with over 10 million unemployed in the US, the minimum wage those bloodsuckers would offer would be at most 3$ an hour, and those workers would be ripping the heads of those bankers and the 1% on the streets. Minimum wage was put there to put a ceiling to exploitation so that this does not happen. Same goes for unemployment benefits, these are security measures for the system.Minimum wages and unemployment benefits are there not because US is a socialist country like the morons on this website think but because your capitalist founding fathers were smarter than morons like you.
"...if there are 15 million illegals competing for the positions, but if there weren't..."
Yes, finally, confess that you are a racist. It is all the fault of immigrants, without them, you would be so well off.
Why I am even wasting my time with a retard like you I don't really know...
Still waiting on how keeping a price artificially high doesn't create a surplus. It's OK, I'll wait. BTW, wouldn't it logically follow that if nominal wages were reduced that dramatically prices would fall as well and thus the living standard is pretty static?
Before we move onto what "an artificially high" minimum wage even means, you first need to learn other things such as Say's law.
Go play in the sand kid, the elders are talking here.
Tell us your career, undergrad Keynesian student. Pretty easy for me to increase compensation expense per employee in a model and determine the ripple effects...oh wait, that's the real world, sorry about that.
My nickname says it all. I have studied/read more economics than your age, and I work as a consultant to your seniors junior financial analyst. I've spent years discussing with Austrian charlatans you so eagerly follow so careful before you make ad hominem attacks.
Forgot to say: I also lecture in economics, including Austrian economics. You'll have to grow up a little bit more to be my match.
I'm a senior buyside equity analyst, you're a pissant "economist" that is the laughing stock of the finance world. My pay is nearly entirely based upon my performance. "Lecture" lol. Thanks for the laugh man.
I;ve been here for over 5 years and your illiteracy (the famous Dunning-Krueger Syndrome) is standard for this blog so I am not surprised. How about Rand and Say above? Still got nothing to say apart from your salary? You think I get paid for lecturing as a forecaster?
Anyways, since you have been so eager on getting answers, when you learn a little bit more, I will wait for YOUR answers above. But if you don't have anything better to talk about than your salary, don't pretend to know too much, you'll make a fool of yourself again otherwise.
Enjoy your evening.
Mr. Economist, you think Rand and the Austrian school are the same which is absolutely hystrerical. Perhaps if you realized the entire basis of Rand was "objectivism" and Austrian economics came from the "subjective theory of value", along with about 25 other fundamental differences that if you bothered to read the Austrian school, as you claimed you have, you'd never associate the two. Sure, did the two have some things in common, of course. But claiming that they are inherently similar on an ideological level is untenable.
You claim prices being set to clear only applies to barter. So I guess if BMW came out tomorrow and said "All our 5 series are now $8,000" there woulnd't be a shortage? Or if Welch's said a small container of Jelly is now $900 there wouldn't be a surplus? Gee, look at that, I didn't even need be a "lecturer" to figure that out with common sense.
My point above was about profession, not salary. My salary is pretty modest, but my bonus which is based upon my performance to make ACCURATE forecasts for individual companies is what incentivizes me to do my job right. My point, again, is that my job involves analysis of real companies, meeting with real management, with real investors, etc. Your job, is, quite frankly bullshit.
I have a MS in finance and I recall all the people like you both undergrad/grad school. The idiot PhD economists, who would "consult" on the side and were utterly clueless in the real world. The basic and undeniable fact is that people like you are a dime a dozen, and after my first internship in equity research during college I came back to my final semester just finding all these professors laughable. No wonder people like the cozy lecture/consult work, because they failed miserably in doing anything performance based because they have zero talent. The smart guys in the room, the club you could never be a part of, finds your entire "career" a joke, as do I. Have fun with your little textbook arguments you can't even get right.
Hehehhee you are getting worse and worse with every post. I put something for you to read on Rand and Austrian economics from Mises Institute above, but of course you haven't even bothered. And of course, you don't even know what Say's law is. We are not talking about what you are murmuring about here (price system as a clearing mechanism)
You're just another sociopath who thinks you get paid becuase you are smart, and every economist is clueless about the real world. That is something not even worth discussing. Typical Dunning-Krueger effect as I said. I have many students who turn out to be like you. I am bored already, see a psychologist.
Have fun combing through your textbooks and making your bullshit lectures over semantics and other assorted, trivial crap. I'll focus on what's really going on in the world and get paid for it. Three economists go deer hunting in Canada, the first shoots and misses five feet right, the second shoots and misses five feet left, the third doesn't shoot but simply stands up and exclaims "We have got it!" There's a reason you don't get paid for your accuracy; you're essentially useless.
Exactly the answer I expected from you. When you have no arguments and your illiteracy is exposed, you immediately start personal attacks without having a clue about what my job involves. I said forecast, do you even know what that means? Do you think your stupid job picking stocks in a manipulated stock market which ONLY goes up is more difficult than mine? Really? Because that is pathetic.
Let me remind you boy: Unlike the Austrian charlatans on this blog predicting hyperinflation, 50000$ gold, collapse of stock and bond markets and all the other utter nonsense every day and night, I have been right for over 5 years. And if you really care about accuracy so much yourself, I recommend you stop listening to the Austrians, no one has been so wrong since 2009.
Praxeology, right? Hehehehhe.
You're an "economist" and lecturer; I'm sorry but that's just a joke. The institutional buyside (and hell even sell side) runs circles around you clowns, and we'll keep doing so. At least one day if I get dementia and believe 12 bureaucrats sitting in a room can guess what interest rates can be I can get a PhD and have a loser job like you with tenture. Oh wow, you said hyperinflation wouldn't occur in 5 years, gee golly what a forecast! Only a jackass would think hyperinflation would occur in the US prior to the collapse of other toilet paper like the Euro and Yen first. We're a ways off. Remember, you get paid for bullshit forecasts (macro, lol 5% GDP growth is awesome with 18% of the population on food stamps) while I'm paid for performance. Pretty easy to to see who the idiot is. All stocks have gone up, lol, there's that Ivory Tower kicking in. Go write another useless thesis that ends up in journal. God help your poor students.
Practically useless, yes, but politically useful. Pols can't get past $XXXT in debt all by their lonesome. They need encouragement from their soothsayers.
Good point, LM. That guy, like Keyenes, is a BS "scientist" who really just advocates whatever the government does as economically "good". He, like 99% of academica in economics, is a useful idiot providing de facto justification for the government printing money and running up debt. He's pretty transparent.
He has a kinda thin skin for such an accomplished academician.
But even a broken clock is right twice a day. (Tm cliche a Day some rights reserved.)
My skin would be thin too if I believed in the economic doctrine of a guy who said building pyramids and digging holes in the ground would stimulate the economy. That's apparently way more sensible than what Mises/Rothbard/Hayek/Menger wrote.
Completely agree. Minimum wage jobs are excellent for building employment experience and a great motivator for young people. My kids were the only white kids on the jobs they performed. Ultimately we lost money in the gas and wear and tear on our vehicles but the experience was worth our subsidy. Raising the minimum wage will only make this job pool smaller.
I don't hear of families bemoaning the fact they have no time for spirituality, art, creativity ...etc. It seems like flapping their arms as they gaze at flickering baubles is the most popular pursuit today. However, if such were desired, these can be easily attained while doing mundane chores like gardening, clothes washing or flipping burgers. It is simply achieved through contemplation. I wish my job would pay me while I meditated on my navel but it seems they wish me to be more productive for my pay.
Miffed
Damnit, you didn't let on that you were an idiot until the end...
The9thDoctor does post some worthwhile opinion, but that sentence indeed jumps the shark, outdoing even Sister Pelosi's claim that Obamacare would permit all sorts of creative activities since young people, you know, would no longer have to slave away at meaningless low-wage jobs just to be able to afford health insurance.
Well, many countries have tried creating as many 1's and 0's as they pleased to pay for things. That was back in the dark ages though, before they were refered to as 1's and 0's. Not a single one of them succeeded. Quite the contrary actually. The crumbling western world is already an example of what you describe. The kalidescope of welfare in the presence of your emerging technologies has delivered us to our current predicament. I guess a rose by another name doesn't smell so sweet after all?
You pontificate, but only offer logical fallicies and platitudes. State intervention is the positive feedback loop of Monetary destruction--both a cause and a symptom. These are the ills of our world right now. Hiking minimum wages only further compound these issues.
define "exploited" please?
Feeling exploited=Exploited.
That certainly narrows it down, Oskar Lange would not approve. Feelings...nothing more than feelings...take it away Louis...and Morris...
dupe
That's a chart of price increases for food I will never ever put in my mouth. $8 for a horseshitburger? No thanks.
With a minimum wage model, at some point they have to raise the min. wage or face backlash from those who work full-time but can't afford the basics. The 'basics' for a min. wage worker likely includes fast food. A 10% increase in wages, compared to a 30% increase in food, is a net loss for the worker. You make more, but you feel like you're poorer, because you are.
They are going to fuck those poor souls over until the riots start.
Pure Evil,
Hello new $3 dollar menu.
Yea, the dollar menu is gone, but they've sped thru $3 all the way to $5: (1) Burger King, 2 for $5; (2) KFC, various $5 entrees; (3) Diary Queen, 5 buck lunch; and, of course (4) 5-dollar foot long.
If hyperinflation happening first at the fast food level?
No, actually it's beginning at the grocery store thanks to EBT's (food stamps, SNAP). Grocery stores are now so high fast food looks cheap considering it's already cooked. Today, I ate at KFC for $2.88. No wonder KFC has lobbied CONgress for EBT's. They want some counterfeit script too! At Thanksgiving, I saw a frozen turkey that cost more than KFC was charging for a whole, prepared T-day meal!
How much will the robots that replace human labor make?
We need the Robots to Spend Money.
Then we can have the Utopia with velocity in the Economy.
lol. They won't do that for us. The money has to come from some where.
HFT already there, just interface the physical with the etherial, and bingo good to go.
Prices have to go up because CEO's expect to make at least 300 times more than their lowest paid employees.
Jacking up minimum wage is not the answer. It just means more money in circulation so the fleecing of average joe can keep going.
But now maybe they can afford Affordable Care, Yee Haw!!!
We jacked up the minimum wage the last time we entered a recession.
And here we are doing the same thing again...
We never learn.
'$10.10 in 2018"
Is that FRN's or the replacement currency?
+1.
Mother of 6 making $7.25 hourly. Un-fucking-real.
Like grocery store workers?
This would be the headline in M$M:
These 31 states just got more competetive
No, the MSM LIKES higher minimum wages. They would probably find a technology heavy fast food place that had relatively few workers and confront the owner about why he raised his prices, too. It might go like this:
MSM: Looks to many people like you would just be using the minimum wage hike as cover for raising prices and fattening profits. How do you respond:
Owner: We still offer a competitive product. Look at all our customers choosing to eat here.
MSM to customer: What do you think of the higher prices?
Customer: It's a ripoff. They should give back to the community and hire more folk. Elsewise, they shouldn't be allowed to raise prices.
MSM: And that's the way it is.
I get your point, JRobby, so I'm not arguing with you.
I just sometimes ponder, as I wait in line to get my $5 footlong from subway, how much it would cost me to go to the grocery store and make the same sandwich. I don't think I could do it as cheaply!
Sure you could, but it's an economy of scale thing.
You buy a loaf of bread, mayo, 1 1/2 pounds of ham, some lettuce, and a couple of other things for say $15, then you can make 5 sandwiches...which at Subway would cost you $25 (probably more like $40 -at least around here) -so you save overall.
Oh, and don'f forget tax on that sub (we have no tax on non-prepared grocery-store food in Iowa, and states that do have a grocery-store tax on food are pure evil -say, Obama's Illinois).
Unintended consequence #3: People learn to prepare their own food.
No idea for reason of downvotes here...
Quite typical; these examples in the article all being fast food companies. Have any of you ever thought about dropping the fastfood instead of paying absurd prices and the complainting about that afterward? Vote with your wallet! Stop buying at these joints and start eating real food!
I think another unintended consequence is that complete mechanization of fast food is incrementally becoming a viable model for the owners. This is even happening in my field where far fewer high paid individuals will be needed in the future. That they are advertising my field to young college grads is so terrible. Considering also they carry so much more debt load then when I graduated.
At least a home cooked meal is more filling. I can't imagine paying that kind of money for chemicals sprayed with essence of pink slime that provides so little sustenance. I've never seen anyone exiting McDonald's bursting with energy with a spring in their step, ready to take on the day. More like Fat, Sick and nearly Dead.
Miffed
True. They don't want you to think clear, it would only lead to more problems for them.
If we had honest money (and sealed borders), fast food mechanization would have already happened. Honest money would have prevented the indebtedness that supported the FF industry's growth. Sealed borders would have prevented the cheap labor. Subtract those two ingredients and I'd still be eating in the mom and pop restaurants that used to cook just like grandma! M&P's no longer exist around here.
How is that an actual "unintended consequence"? Engineers make a living designing automatic systems. They'll design them minimum wage or not. Its true. Noone of the automation engineers i work with (actually a bunch of physicists and mechanical, electronic engineers) ever stop to check for what the current minimum wage is in order to stimulate themselves to work.
Ok, ok, keep your Quarter Pounder w Cheese meals. Just a suggestion..............
I look at that site ....and yes there are plenty layoffs , closings ....
But they also have on that site companies that are hiring
http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/jobs.htm
We are still in a depression ,but there are jobs...
un-INTENDED, sure, y'all can call them that...
Unintended consequences? Unintended only by the useful idiot enablers, I suppose.
There is no such thing as "unintended" consequences with these evil fucks in charge.
What kind of stupid nimwit boot licking dog kissing fuck could vote this comment down.
The same stupid nimwit Obama boot licking dog ass kissing fuck wads that down voted you.
Welcome to Fight Club where down votes by Obama full libtards should be worn as a badge of honor.
"Welcome to Fight Club where down votes ... should be worn as a badge of honor."
No joke. Over the holidays I have learned more about ZH than anything. Definitely more people here with the ability to downvote than the ability to think critically.
PS: Thanks to the posters who offer reasoned analysis and unconventional ideas. Your posts are gold and worth sifting through all the shit.
I think there is a problem with your argument. I see no connection between down voting and critical thinking.
Miffed
I normally don't log in so I don't know the votes, but I have responded to some comments over the last 10 days so I have been able to see how people are voting.
In my opinion most voting is confirmation bias.
I don't like Obama? I'll downvote a comment praising him. I do like Obama? I'll downvote a comment critical of him.
There are some really profound comments here but I see that generally they are ignored, or if there is an insight buried within that isn't as obvious as a flashing light and a siren if it trips the confirmation bias then it gets voted that way.
PS: I never downvote, I only upvote. And only for really good or funny comments. Whoever posted "This is the best article of 2015" on the first article yesterday made me laugh, and got a greenie.
I'm not a down voter myself unless I respond. For some reason the anonymity bothers me in that case. I'm a more "state your case and let the arrows fly" kinda gal. In the end, I've been true to myself and have not curried favor to anyone. For me, authenticity must be number one even though I'm posting on a site that provides a semblance of secrecy. People here who have met me off line admit I do post as I am. I consider that a great complement.
I don't think it is wise to analyze why people vote the way they do. Some may do as you say. Some, I believe, up or down vote the person as someone they like or dislike. In the end, does any of it really matter? Don't assume profound comments are being ignored either. There are some brilliant people here and I try to enjoy their contributions as much as I can but I rarely comment to them. Their sage-like presence is good enough for me and their commentary rarely needs my small inconsequential contribution.
Enjoy the roller coaster, it's so much more preferable to the carousel IMHO.
Miffed
I'd rather they get rid of the stupid arrows and we have a real debate. It's a total distraction.
I might +1 or -1 someone specifically and why in a reply but the voting just distracts from actual meat and potatoes debates.
Its just like facebook "likes" high school drama.
Posters on ZeroHedge often feel pressed to be cheerleaders for the typical libertarian themes: Low taxes, the regulations they like, closed borders, putin and the 50's decade. They either upvote those posts or support them with cheers of "Fuck You Ben" "If you like your X you can keep your X".
I would describe those posters as witty, sassy and empty.
Liberals care less about the futures of the low-end workers they claim to support. Hypocrisy to the core. They want nothing more than their votes.
It's pretty obvious they don't give a shit about the bottom rung of the ladder with their endless pandering to illegal immigrants and their "come take jobs from American's" open border stance.
Sadly, Republiturds fall into the same snake pit as Democraps.
More like a Demoncrap turns around and a Repugcant appears and vise versa.
One coin. Two sides.
Ever notice that not one of the turkey butts in Congress voted to subsidize the minimum wage? They could easily have added a tax surcharge onto billionaires to pay $5 of the minimum wage with this tax. I also never saw a billionaire suggest such a thing. A higher minimum wage hits the working poor the hardest because they are more likely to require the services of someone earning the minimum wage.
Seriously if one of the "unintended consequences" is fast food restaurants go out of existence just what in the world is America going to do??????????
Everything will just be Taco Bell like in the movie Demolition Man. ;-)
So what you're saying is Explosive Diarrhea will become a national sport?
Fast food will be driven to the back alleys. The horror.
Progressive liberal democraps are dummer than a box full of cat turds... they decree b.s. like this with no thought (as if they are capable of that) to the resulting response by employers to reduce their workforce, reduce hours and benefits of those employees who are fortunate enough to have a position and raise prices of their goods and services which hurts the common person who patronize these businesses. The common person subsequently will stop patronizing these businesses or will be unable to purchase as much as they did in 2014. The businesses will further reduce their workforces as a result of the loss of sales. It ain't rocket science. These democrap turds are brilliant.
How can restaurants reduce workforces? Dont they need workforces to do the working?
No one will reduce any workforce at open restaurants. If said restaurants end up closing because of this, let them close. So what? Maybe a more profitable business could use the space?
If workers end up replaced by robots, let them be replaced. So what? They'll find new jobs or go on welfare. So what?
Benjamin People do indeed lose jobs. Why? I can do the same with less workers. Make no doubt about it as my wife and I own a bakery. We use to have alot more people then we do today and did our best to accomodate their schedules. Those days ended two months ago. What you do not realize, and you say good I hope they close their doors and those that were employed are now out of a job. Great program for those that do not own nor run a small business. Get a dose of reality there is no such thing as a frigging living wage nor should there be for an entry level job you basically work until you get educated and move on or get experience until your new job comes along.
Indeed the Mcdonalds and big corporations can absorb higher wages. But many small business cannot so we do more with less. We small mom and pop business are not the problem. Entry level jobs are just that and most are part time. If you aspire to have a career flipping burgers at a fast food place you deserve what you get. Prices will indeed be headed up it always does when the government intervenes in the private sector.
Your typical of whats wrong with this country thinking we should pay what you think we should pay people. Get out run and own a small business and get back to me. OK!!!
What do you want, a medal? You hired some folks, found out they were not needed, and later fired them when costs increased too much.
Again, do you want a medal? Are you running a charity and feel all down for not helping as many folks as you used to?
By your own admission entry level jobs are not meant to be permanent. So your fired workers most likely moved on and have better jobs now. Whats the problem?
LOL you think so huh. maybe they moved on to better jobs like getting paid to troll small business owners on zerohedge. douche.
Well which wayn is it them? Are those jobs meant to be temporary or permanent?
In any case, you can still hire people for half time positions, as interns, external contractors, under the tabble, etc. Plenty of ways to hire people for less than minimum wage. Even more when its all done out of the goodwill and charity of a benevolent baker with a heart of gold, out to help his fellow man get the baking experience he needs to get into Goldman Sachs.
You got downvotes for critiquing their reactionary logic.
+1 for you Benjamin123
ROFLMAO did I state I fired anyone? Go back and read the post. Yes most entry level jobs are not permanent. But people like you think we should pay them a higer wage. As I commented above go run a business and get back to me otherwise you really have no perspective. For what it is worth I have fired one and another left because she could not show up on time!!!! We just did not hire more people to replace those that left.
Our bakery for what it is worth pays more then the minimum wage with the exception of new part timers for 6 months. Most are college students as we live in a college town. But you have no idea what I do but I do know you do not run a small business!
By the way I will take that medal!!! LOL At least I employ people and my permanenet people make alot more then the minimum wage!
Hey Assface.
The most dangerous thing a business owner can do is HIRE AN EMPLOYEE!!! Go FUCK YOURSELF from business owners everywhere.
In the immortal words of InTheMix96 you are a CUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!
You sound just like the ignoramus union laborers I work with. Fucking idiots the lot of them.
No one gives a shit. Say something of substance. No one cares about how you think this or that person are idiots.
Exactly, so what? Why then should it be of any concern except to the market participants what anyone is paid? So what? What difference does it make?
Reminds me of when the auto unions were bloated and the cars too expensive for serfs. Toyota, etc came in with better cars at better prices. Union Mgmt screwed the workers out of jobs. Owners screwed themselves with too much compensation for too little work in management.
How about a limit on the MAXIMUM wage?
That's a great point. I'd love to see a socialist try to argue against it.
But of course socialism is about wealth control not wealth distribution.
If you control wealth you also control its distribution. Sort of the same thing.
I like socialist ideals. I'm fine with both minimum and maximum wages. Not sure what your point is.
"I like socialist ideals. I'm fine with both minimum and maximum wages. Not sure what your point is."
Of course you don't. My comment that I'd love to see "socialists' argue against a maximum wage obviously referred to those who are at the top of the pyramid--not the useful idiots / enablers who carry out their evil and actually believe in their rationalizations.
The fact that you don't see this is exactly my point.
Oh i see your point now. I suspected thats what you meant but was not sure.
I would just be happy with the top 1% paying the same proportion of their income in taxes (direct and indirect) as the other 99%...
According to you, in a more perfect world, Dimon and Blankfein would make a few trillion a year and the rest of us could grovel for the scraps from their garbage cans, except for the government workers that enforce this utopia that would be making a few million a year.
Let me be the judge of what's "according to me," shall we?
People would be wealthy or poor according to their achievements. What achievements? How much they contributed to providing goods and services that others want.
According to you, since you've stated a demand to be The Judge, what are the "achievements" of Dimon and Blankfein that cause them to "deserve" multi-million dollar yearly pay?
I see you've already had MORE THAN A WEEK experience here so far. Wow!
P.S. Fuck you!
Classic. I'm not worth listening to because I've registered recently. Great point!
What in the world leads you to believe I have said or implied anything about dimon or blankfein--other than they have made more money than they would in a capitalist system?
Well, if you can't debate me, then another FU will work. Go ahead...I'm sure it's frustrating to have nothing intelligent to say.
What are the "achievements" of Dimon and Blankfein that cause them to "deserve" multi-million dollar yearly pay?
You have had nothing intelligent to say, so according to you, you're sure you're frustrated?
Take another Valium.
The value of an achievement is determined either by markets, the collective action of all buyers and sellers, or governments, which are put in place by the collective action of all voters. Either way, value is subjective and set for a limited time window through negotiations and power struggles. That goes for both french fries and labor.
How rich you are depends on both your contributions and what the market/political mind thinks your contribution is worth.
If you look at the Ratio of incomes over the last 100 years for the CEO vs avg. Employee, you will find that this ratio has just kept climbing.
JPM thought that this ratio ought to be 10:1. It gradually climbed to 50:1 in 80 yrs. And then, in the 80s and 90s it jumped to 500:1, thanks to the stock market.
This was not a coincidence, as the Total Compensation of CEOs was now linked to stock performance. So what do they do? A: Everything to get those stock bonuses.
Which makes the "Argument" of how little 'bread' the actual worker bees make, a bit of a Red Herring and another distraction from discussing the more vital issue of Income Equity for employees and what that Ratio should be.
After all does the CEO really work 5000 hrs/day (500×10), think and move 500x faster, and is 500x smarter?
Or is he simply better positioned to be better Leveraged?
Unless you're biased (less than objective), or are a Plebeian suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, we all know what the answer is, if you want to talk about an Equitable Income.
Who is to decide what the ratio (CEO vs Average or top 1% vs all the rest, etc) should be? What ratio is "optimal"? Who decides?
The "argument"--that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer--doesn't do anything for me. I merely ask, "why"?
What matters to me is why--not what the ratio is.
Income inequality isn't the reason why the rich keep getting richer. (Though of course it's not helping to stop this madness)
The reason is merely power and wealth. If you're already rich, it's way easier to influence things to your benefit.
The Board of Directors usually determines the pay of the CEO and of course, themselves. Funny how they rotate positions and also serve on multiple boards, as well as fulfilling other well paying positions (while voting for each other, of course.)
See you on the golf course, after lunch and then we could talk about that latest M&A, the subsequent layoffs of the little people and all the money we'll make for taking that "risk"...
"Who is to decide...?"
A: The STAKEHOLDERS.
I.e. All those who have made a genuine value-add contribution, whereby they used their education, experience, intellectual capital (innovative ideas) and Rollodex connections. That's who. Clearly most people either have no idea what it takes to build and grow a company, its products and services, and the army of people (and their skills, ideas and connections) you need behind you.
The part that is (probably) being overlooked is the effect that the Stock Market and changes to executive compensation since the 1980s. Up until then, when a company's Income was more driven by their Revenue generated (EBIT), there was only so much EBIT to go around for everyone. Execs got a decent Base Salary and some nominal Bonus, that typically depended on the Annual Performance of the company. They thus increased their handsome salaries by 25%-50%. Typically.
But when the 80s came along, this all changed, and now the corporate culture was such that their Total Comp was MULTIPLES of their Base Salary. And it ALL hinged on stock performance. Which also went from Annual performance to Quarterly performance. In effect, it was no longer the Execs who were in charge, but the Mutual Fund managers -- who were asking these execs "Why should I buy your stock? What have you done for me lately?".
And I know of enough such execs, who will tell you that this is EXACTLY what happened: Corporate Governance became the Casino Boardroom and execs became Casino Floor Managers.
I can live with a range of 25:1 to 50:1 as being equitable (not same as 'fair') -- depending on the industry and size of company, but 500:1 or greater is just plain Obscene. IMO.
E.g. Zuckerberg becoming a multi-billionaire? Overnight? Gimme a break! It's not like he invented something truly useful or built a new industry -- the way Bill Gates or Steve Jobs did. And it is not as though Suckerberg help build a nation, the way guys like Carnegie, Vanderbilt or Rockefeller did in the 1800s. Even JPM and his father used a lot of their own capital to start new ventures and companies. Don't get me going on the .com or Hedge Fund billionaires... Casino Execs is all they are.
"What matters to me is why--not what the ratio is."
I can see "why" some guys righfully became "filthy rich": because they started a whole new industry that changes the country (for the better!). Iconic guys like Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Rockefeller... Ford, Hughes... Gates, Jobs.
I can not see why execs at companies like Coca-Cola, AIG, or why Hedge Fund managers or many Wall St firms make obscene fortunes. WTF have they done to create or build something lately, that added value to society? Are the descendants of the inventor of Coca-Cola rich? Or the guy who started McDonalds? What about the descendants of Edison, Westinghouse, etc, etc, etc? Do they hang out with Buffet, Dimon and Bankfine, or trumpet with multi-bankruptcy-billionaire Trump?
Bottom line: Since the 1980s and run-away Wall St, corporate governance and corp execs are mostly in the Shark Tank business and Casino Business. These are not the execs of old, the execs that we are conditioned to think of.