Let's set the wages...here's our take - The Daily Reckoning
The Daily Reckoning by Bill Bonner
On This Day - 7 September 2015
PRINTER FRIENDLY | ARCHIVES
Let's set the wages...here's our take A  A  A

- By Bill Bonner

Bill Bonner
Gualfin, Argentina

Dear Diary,

Today is Labor Day. Most of the rest of the world pays homage to its sweating, bussing, trucking classes, its poor huddled masses...yearning for a cushier seat and a better deal...on May 1st. Grover Cleveland chose the first Monday in September.

On Friday, the Dow fell again...down 272 points. But don't worry, Tobias Levkovich, Citi's chief strategist, told CNBC that there was a 96% chance - 96%, not 95%! - that the Dow would be higher one year from now. Well, we can't fight those odds, can we? B...b..buy!

No, wait. What does he know? Nothing! Just like the rest of us. We're all guessing. But our guess is that the risk of losing money is 82.7% greater than the risk of not making more. No, make that 82.8%.

--- Advertisement ---
This Special Segment Should Not Be Missed...

Returns like 288% in 2 years and 5 months, 124% in just 7 months, 250% in 2 years, 123% in just 3 months and more... all from the small cap segment... are too good to be missed.

However, the problem most investors face is that they don't have access to reliable research on the small cap segment. But you won't have that problem.

Why?

Because we at Equitymaster have been recommending high-potential small caps for more than 7 years. And as you can see from the returns above, we have done a good job at identifying them from hundreds of stocks in this segment.

So click here to see how the small cap segment could work wonders for your portfolio also...
------------------------------

So, let's go back to Labor Day.

Of great interest to people in America, as indicated by the newspaper headlines, is how much other people earn. No one, or almost no one, writing in the editorial pages works at McDonalds or earns the minimum wage. But practically every one of them seems to have an opinion about how much low-wage people should earn. A 'living wage' is what they say they want. Thirty thousand dollars is the amount we've seen discussed.

Of course, a national 'living wage,' is absurd. It costs far more to live in Manhattan than in the Ozarks. And it is far less expensive to live with mom and dad than have a place of one's own.

But we are not so much concerned with the practical details as with the theory. We have been told that the people who work at McDonalds need to earn more. But what about those who don't work at McDonalds? Perhaps, they should set each others' salaries. Well-educated, well-liquored, and well paid employees can decide the wages of McDonald's workers. And the burger flippers can decide the wages of the chattering, meddling, and improving classes. Were that to happen, our guess is that the well-paid know-it-alls would take a pay cut. Which seems proper and just to us. We walk into McDonalds and a minimum wage worker serves up our order. We get what we pay for and are content with the transaction; we do not begrudge the worker his recompense. We read the paper, on the other hand, and we get bilge and nonsense.

Generally, we get decent service and good value-for-money from the blue-collar worker. What do we get from the white-collared clown? Grief.

Logically, there are only two possibilities. Either wages are determined by a free give-and-take between those who offer their labor and those who want to buy it. Or, someone(s) sets wages according to his own standards. The do-gooders want to use other peoples' money to raise the wages of the least well paid, but they make no mention of their own. Nor do they even offer to pay more for their hamburgers so that McDonalds can pay its workers more. And what about the poor people who cannot find jobs at all? If the minimum wage were raised there would surely be more of them - either because McDonalds could not afford to hire so many people at higher salaries or because it had replaced its minimum wage employees with machines!

But the price fixers are so self-satisfied taking what they think is the high road - driving along comfortably in their Subarus and Priuses - that they can't be bothered to look out the window. If they did, they would see that setting prices always...always!...makes people poorer, not richer.

Nevertheless, we will give them the benefit of the doubt, if there were any, by trying to imagine how the world could be improved by setting wages for other people. So let us begin with a modest nod to fairness: if it makes sense to set the wages of the least among us, why the most? In other words, if people not involved in a labor transaction themselves can know, better than the participants, what the terms should be, why not set the salaries of editorialists? Publishers? CEOs? Sports celebrities? Movie stars? There may be cheapness on the low end, but there is extravagant generosity on the other. If one side should be fixed, why not both?

You can see what a jolly undertaking this would be for a bureaucrat with a sense of mischief. Instead of allowing the market to set prices, we will set them ourselves. Yes, we will not stop by rigging up the stock market...we'll rig up the labor market too - by assigning salaries where we think they should be.

So, let's have a go. We have taken the lead to propose annual salaries for the following trades according to the good we think they do society.

Entrepreneurs (including your editor), poets, inventors and whacked-out metaphysicians -- $100,000

Priests, teachers, mathematicians, scientists, pilots, nurses and flimmakers -- $85,000

Corporate CEOs, prostitutes, writers, bartenders, hedge fund managers -- $75,000

Drivers, laborers, nurses, clerks, salesmen, farmers, firemen, policemen -- $50,000

Psychologists, bone crackers, doctors (including witchdoctors), financial planners, -- $40,000

Government employees (those not included in the groups above), politicians, drug dealers, world improvers, economists, counterfeiters, psychiatrists, sociologists, political scientists, pollsters and flimflam artists--- $30,000

We do not mean this list to be comprehensive or final. It is just a suggestion, a point of departure towards a "fairer" distribution of national income. Readers are invited to make their own contributions.

Bill Bonner is the President & Founder of Agora Inc, an international publisher of financial and special interest books and newsletters.

Disclaimer:
The views mentioned above are of the author only. Data and charts, if used, in the article have been sourced from available information and have not been authenticated by any statutory authority. The author and Equitymaster do not claim it to be accurate nor accept any responsibility for the same. The views constitute only the opinions and do not constitute any guidelines or recommendation on any course of action to be followed by the reader. Please read the detailed Terms of Use of the web site.

Get The Daily Reckoning directly
in your mail box.
Just enter your e-mail address » 

Read our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.

Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "Let's set the wages...here's our take". Click here!

1 Responses to "Let's set the wages...here's our take"

Athmanathan

Sep 7, 2015

Politicians are equated with drug dealers and corporate CEOS with prostitutes. Psychiatrists among doctors deserve only the minimum wage. Bill Bonner has entertained us with his hilarious views on the economy.A must read for the American politicians.

Like 
  
Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "Let's set the wages...here's our take". Click here!

Recent Articles:
Trump Takes a Beating
August 18, 2017
Donald J Trump, a wrasslin' fan, took a 'Holy Sh*t!' blow on Tuesday.
Which Gods Will Bring Down the US Empire?
August 17, 2017
Mr Trump is in the White House and the gods are in their heavens; what's not to like?
Will They Haul Off Trump's Statue, Too?
August 16, 2017
All across the country, the old gods become devils. New, gluten-free gods take their places...
Farm Loan Waivers: Why Bad Economics Makes for Good Politics
August 14, 2017
It is because the negative effects of the waivers aren't clearly visible.