Living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common: ‘I see no way out.’

[the cac mamba]

Unless you believe deporting all illegal immigrants will restore the middle class.

would it hurt or help? one word answer only

 

[Pressure]

If Dumb and Ass each have $100 to spend at the mall and 10 people enter the room who ask to borrow money so they can go shopping too, upon sharing their $100, do Dumb and Ass:

A) have more money
B) have less money
C) have the same amount as before
D)

It’s real simple

Imagine you thinking this makes sense or reflects reality.

Companies are making record profits and hoarding record amounts of cash. They are actively choosing to pay people less or hire illegal immigrants to maintain or increase profit for shareholders.

And they do so because most lack the labor protections necessary to prevent them from doing so.

In reality, you're fighting over 100 dollars because they told you that's all they have whole they put the other 900 in their pocket and walk off.

 

[Pressure]

would it hurt or help? one word answer only

Low wage workers won't receive a pay raise because the company didn't hire illegal immigrants.




Did the tax cuts lead to companies hiring more workers and increasing pay?

 

[the cac mamba]

the answer is help

thanks :jaymelo:

 

[Pressure]

fukk em

The country broke. You pay for them. Bernie supports my views. Trump and the right obviously supports my views. Obama deported them nikkas like it was a sport and Hilary is chilly on the subject at best. Most of the politicians you probably stan don’t agree with you. Maybe they don’t agree with the inhumane treatment they received which ain’t cool but they still don’t agree with you and your open border steeze

Illegal immigrants pay taxes and can't use the majority of services they pay taxes toward.

Illegal immigrants get deported all the time and come back because there is no enforcement mechanism being used to deter employers from hiring them. So they just come back.

 

[Pressure]

thanks :jaymelo:

If Trump gets 50bn this year for a wall will workers see a 50bn gain in pay and other services?

Answer yes or no.

 

[Pressure]

if anyone can do it, it's these dudes

Imagine thinking the reason black people struggle in this country is because of illegal immigrants and not racist whites and attempt to call people out of touch.

But that eases your guilt so I see why you do it.

 

[chico25]

Google it. There’s 11 to 22 million illegal migrants already here with hundreds of thousands crossing every year. Fact.

So what to your other point. They lower wages and they’re illegals. You have no ground here. That’s like saying if I got $50,000 stolen from me, I shouldn’t trip over someone stealing $200.

Look around. Use common sense. Again, use Google. All those blue collar jobs you keep disregarding paid livable wages once. We shipped most of our manufacturing overseas to lower wages, with Mexico being a large recipient and a good amount of blue collar jobs here were replaced with immigrants to do the jobs for half or a third the pay.

If Dumb and Ass each have $100 to spend at the mall and 10 people enter the room who ask to borrow money so they can go shopping too, upon sharing their $100, do Dumb and Ass:

A) have more money
B) have less money
C) have the same amount as before
D)

It’s real simple

Your analogies are garbage and do a horrible job of making your point. If two people stole from you then why are you only going after the one that stole the smaller amount. The fact that you equate immigrants working the job as stealing something from you, instead of the people actually giving out the jobs is telling of your mindset.

The issue isn't people coming in and "borrowing" money from you. It's the store raising the prices of products while you still walk in with the same amount you've gone in with for decades. So now the hundred dollars gets you less and less each week. Again how much you get is determined by employers, who do everything they can to pay you as little as possible. The fact that you have no union and no bargaining power means if you don't like what they pay they can get rid of you because someone more desperate will take that job for what they're offering. Sometimes that's illegal immigrants, sometimes it's ex-convicts who can't get work anywhere else and sometimes it's just people who have been out of work for so long they'll take anything. Employers take advantage of the desperate because the law doesn't stop them and employees are all acting as individuals. They can hire all the illegal immigrants they want and nothing will happen to their business and they can fire one guy asking for a raise without missing a beat.

Bottom line, you're punching down because it's easier than punching up at the people that are actually responsible.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

them trickle down reaganomics. free reign for the free market blessed america

 

[chico25]

would it hurt or help? one word answer only

Neither

 

[the cac mamba]

Imagine thinking the reason black people struggle in this country is because of illegal immigrants and not racist whites and attempt to call people out of touch.

But that eases your guilt so I see why you do it.

you're doing a lot of dancing around this question sad that you can't give a straight answer

does illegal immigration hurt or help the middle class? hurt or help black people?

why can't you address what's being discussed instead of deflecting?

 

[the cac mamba]

Neither

 

[Pressure]

Before they derail this thread further into their favorite topics:

How To Fix Stagnant Wages: Dump The World's Dumbest Idea

The Advent Of The World’s Dumbest Idea

The fact is that in the 1980s and beyond, public companies began embracing a very different idea as to the purpose of a firm: the idea that the sole purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. Then, as executives were compensated massively with stock options to sharpen their focus on increasing shareholder value at the expense of everything else, and activist hedge funds began reinforcing the focus with corporate raids on firms that didn’t buy into the doctrine, public companies began to focus totally on maximizing shareholder as reflected in current the stock price.

Previously, firms had sought to balance the needs of all the stakeholders—customers, employees, shareholders and the community. Workers were valued both as contributors to the gains that had already been made and as the creators of future growth. But once shareholder value thinking took over, workers came to be seen as expendable commodities, whose training for the future and career development were simply not their problem. No responsibility was felt to those employees who had helped create the wealth of the company. Instead, corporate raiders, who had played no role in creating that wealth, extracted much of the gains, which they then used to conduct more raids.

“Fifty years ago,” writer Lynn Stout, the late distinguished professor of corporate and business law at Cornell Law School, in her book, The Shareholder Value Myth, wrote, “if you had asked the directors or CEO of a large public company what the company’s purpose was, you might have been told the corporation had many purposes: to provide equity investors with solid returns, but also to build great products, to provide decent livelihoods for employees, and to contribute to the community and nation. The concept was to focus on long-term performance, not maximizing short-term profits.”

“All this changed in the 1980s. Economists began arguing, confidently, if incorrectly, that shareholders ‘own’ corporations and that stock price always captures a firm’s true economic value. Thus shareholders should have more power over corporate boards, and executive pay should be tied to shareholder returns. These academic arguments were embraced by activist investors seeking to buy shares, pump up price, and sell for a quick profit. They also appealed to CEOs hoping to enrich themselves by boosting share price by any means possible (including, at Enron, outright fraud). The result is today’s world, where ‘shareholder value’ is king.”

Containing wages and benefits became key elements of corporate strategy of most public companies, while shareholders and executives were rewarded beyond their wildest dreams. But there was a cost: stagnant wages through downsizing and layoffs, and widening income inequality.

“It’s alarming,” writes Paul F. Cole, executive director of the American Labor Studies Center, “that the chairman of the Federal Reserve is ‘puzzled’ why raises are ‘elusive.’” Cole suggests that the Fed chairman should “read Lynn Stout’s book.”

Other notable books that the Fed chairman might read include:

Makers and Takers: The Rise of Finance and the Fall of American Business (Crown Business, 2018) by Rana Foroohar and
Tailspin: The People and Forces Behind America’s Fifty-Year Fall–and Those Fighting to Reverse It (Knopf 2018) by Steven Brill
The Fed chairman might also look at the many management studies that have denounced shareholder value theory. For instance, two distinguished Harvard Business School professors–Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine—recently declared in Harvard Business Review that maximizing shareholder value is “the error at the heart of corporate leadership.” It is “flawed in its assumptions, confused as a matter of law, and damaging in practice.”

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

These and other #ShutdownStories took off online after U.S. Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) suggested last week that a gap in wages wouldn’t be so bad.

“Who’s living that they’re not going to make it to the next paycheck?” he asked reporters, adding that most of those impacted would qualify for back pay.

According to economists: A lot of people.

how the fukk can idiots keep voting for such an out of touch party...like how do they pull the wool over your eyes that this is the party of "the common man"

 

[Pressure]

He might also listen to Jack Welch, who in his tenure as CEO of GE from 1981 to 2001 was seen as the uber-hero of maximizing shareholder value. In 2009, he famously declared that shareholder value is “the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy… your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products. Managers and investors should not set share price increases as their overarching goal… Short-term profits should be allied with an increase in the long-term value of a company.”

He might also pay attention to the CEOs who have spoken out against it. Vinci Group Chairman and CEO Xavier Huillard called it “totally idiotic.” Alibaba CEO Jack Ma said that “customers are number one; employees are number two and shareholders are number three.” Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, denounced shareholder value thinking as “a cult.” Marc Benioff, chairman and CEO of Salesforce, has declared it to be “wrong.”

But despite these denunciations, the “pernicious nonsense” of shareholder value has spread. Shareholder value thinking, say Bower and Paine, “is now pervasive in the financial community and much of the business world. It has led to a set of behaviors by many actors on a wide range of topics, from performance measurement and executive compensation to shareholder rights, the role of directors, and corporate responsibility.”

Stagnant worker salaries thus aren’t a bug in the current economy: they’re a feature. Holding worker salaries as low as possible is a key to securing short-term quarterly profits, executive bonuses and rising share prices. Seemingly unnoticed by the world’s leading economists, shareholder value is not only the gospel of the global economy. It’s also the root cause of stagnant worker salaries.