Separate And Unequal

"I slept 35 minutes last night."

“I slept 35 minutes last night.”

In a recent Carnival of Wealth we ran a post from someone who wrote:

In an era when the 400 richest Americans account for the same amount of collective wealth as 62% of the nation’s entire population combined and the United States is the fourth most wealth-unequal country in the world, something is grievously wrong with the way income is earned, saved, and distributed.

Yes, every dollar that Dennis Washington earns is ripped from the mouth of a starving welfare baby. The author’s premise is ridiculous, but it resonates with people who still haven’t shaken off the infantile idea of fairness being a supreme attribute in any of its forms. If one person has more, and another has less, that in itself is wrong and subject to correction. Differences in effort, resourcefulness, and refraining from poor decision-making aren’t important. Only the final numbers are.

We can’t quote the author without tripping over the clunky phrase “fourth most wealth-unequal country”, and wonder if being the 195th most wealth-unequal country would be something worth striving for.

When the people at the bottom have a decent standard of living (and in no other country is it better to be poor than the United States), why is what the people at the top make important? Does Donald Trump’s conspicuous consumption – or even a Kardashian’s – impact your or anyone else’s ability to get ahead? Instead of comparing countries, which requires more data than is readily available, let’s compare two subsets of the population with vast differences in their respective income variances: on the one hand, commercial truck drivers and on the other, NBA players.

Here’s what commercial truck drivers make, more or less. We don’t have salary numbers for individuals, given that there are tens of thousands of them, but this is the best we can do:

truck driver salaries

The seasoned drivers make only 39% more than the rookies, and isn’t that a just and equitable scenario that all of society and by extension all of the world should try to emulate? That the rookies are making barely enough to live on is not our problem. In this example we have fairness, or something close to it.

Now, let’s look at what NBA players make. Here are the ten best-paid players in the league. Yes, 8 of them make more than LeBron:

NBA top salaries

And here are the ten lowest paid players, restricting ourselves to full-timers (guys who have been in the league all year, as opposed to being on 10-day contracts):

 NBA bottom salaries

They all make league minimum, a number mandated by the league’s collective bargaining agreement.

You see the stinking injustice here? Kobe Bryant makes 59 times what Khris Middleton makes, an obscene state of affairs that’s emblematic of an undeniably American phenomenon, capitalism planting its pivot foot on the throats of the downtrodden.

Khris Middleton makes half a million dollars a year, an amount that almost anyone reading this (and as a group, y’all are not exactly poor) would gladly exchange for her current salary. We don’t know for sure, but we’re also guessing that if you brought up the topic of income inequality to Khris Middleton, he’d either laugh at you or walk away. He’s a bench player who bounces to the D-League and back, while Kobe Bryant has a handful of championship rings and is one of the 8 greatest players who ever lived. The one can make tens of millions of dollars’ difference to his team’s bottom line, while the other is where he is largely due to roster requirements. Fans go out of their way to patronize the former, offering their money as part of the deal. Fans barely know the latter exists. No rational person thinks that this subgroup of the economy should have its workers making identical or nearly identical wages. And no one’s complaining, because the guys at the bottom are doing just fine.

But isn’t it far preferable to have an economy, or a segment of such, in which some people make $13 an hour and others make $18? We’re not qualified to answer: again, you should probably ask the people at the bottom.

Nothing in life is normally distributed. Not athletic ability, not higher-order intelligence, not a capacity for earning money. More importantly, some people enjoy making bad decisions. Look at the poorest of the poor wherever you live (you’ll find them on street corners, drinking MD 20/20 out of paper bags) and ask them if they ever smoked, enjoyed drugs, bought lottery tickets, got neck tattoos, flipped off the boss man, showed up to work late, made the minimum monthly payments on their credit cards, or had kids when they were in no condition to do so.

Now, if you can get past the security guards and high fences, ask the richest people in your town the same thing. Income inequality is a wonderful thing, within reason. (The kind practiced by Kim Jong-Un is a little over the top.) Forget the notion of wealth in our society being “distributed”, like pillows and sleeping bags at camp. Wealth is earned, squandered, built upon, and leveraged. It being “distributed” implies the existence of a Distributor, benevolent or otherwise, whose job it is to see that everyone gets an appropriate share. Which sounds tempting – you don’t have to do anything, just sit there and collect.

One of our favorite quotes about money is by Thomas Sowell. Paraphrasing, he said that if you could wave a magic wand and instantly double everyone’s net worth, some people would be against it because it would increase the gap between rich and poor.

Why We Need a $50-an-Hour Minimum Wage

And a shiny hat, to boot

And a shiny hat, to boot

 

It’s simple, really. In a progressive society, everyone needs a basic level of sustenance. A $9/hour minimum wage as proposed by the President, although a step in the right direction, means a mere $18,000 for someone working 40-hour weeks with 2 weeks’ vacation. That’s hardly enough to sustain any kind of lifestyle, especially for people with children. Especially for people with multiple children. $18,000 is a step up from the current $14,500 a full-time minimum wage earner would make, but it’s nowhere near enough.

Our proposal – $50/hour – guarantees the dishwashers and housekeepers of Our Great Nation at least $100,000 a year. Every man a king, right? Why should internists and litigators be the only ones to benefit from 6-digit incomes? A sharp, sudden jump in the minimum wage would finally bring the equality that most politicians only pay lip service to. $50/hour (and remember, that’s just a minimum. Employers are encouraged to pay more) is the difference between a society of wildly disparate incomes, and a society in which no one, no matter their education level or background, ever has to do without again. Furthermore, a 6-fold increase in the minimum wage will spur consumer spending and make the economy hum again. With more money in their pockets, the working classes will have more for outlays, getting the money circulating and creating greater prosperity for all. It’s just good business sense. Politicians of both parties need to reach a bipartisan consensus on this and pass meaningful reform, right away. No more half measures.

(We couldn’t expand this post to regular length and keep it fully satirical. Time to go earnest on you.)

Reality time. A wage isn’t just remuneration that an employer decides to pay you. It’s a function of your worth to said employer – how much you can bring in. Johnny Depp’s next endeavor is allegedly worth $90 million. If that’s true, will he receive such a windfall just for being that much more breathtakingly handsome and charismatic than your average minimum-wage worker? No, or the person writing these lines would be making at least as much. Johnny Depp commands that kind of money because the previous 5 movies in his current series have grossed $2.8 billion on a budget of barely a billion. For whatever reason, millions of people like to see him on screen. If those numbers are legitimate, the $90 million might even be on the stingy side.

The franchisee who runs the Burger King that you work at isn’t paying you $7.25 an hour to man the counter because he’s cheap. (He might be, but that’s beside the point.) He’s doing it because that’s all you’re worth. Granted, you’re not “bringing in” money in as direct a way as Johnny Depp is, but your position still has value. Consider the alternative; not having someone on the premises to take customers’ orders.

Say the $50/hour minimum wage was enacted. Then what? That franchisee would have to raise prices to the point that he could cover his employees’ new salaries yet continue to make something of a profit. Even if you think profits are evil, he might still need to recoup $1.2 million in startup costs. But no one’s going to pay $17.50 for a patty on a bun, meaning the franchisee would have to close up shop and lay off his entire staff, raising the unemployment rate that much more.

A $9/hour minimum wage differs from a $50/hour minimum wage only in degree, not in kind. Raise a job’s wage beyond whatever the market clearing price is, and at some point that job becomes no longer economical.

The pro-increase forces have managed to convince a gullible public (ah, but we repeat ourselves) that the average minimum-wage earner is an exhausted single mother with 5 kids, living in the projects, of darker complexion than your average U.S. senator, and just trying to make a go of it in a system that’s stacked against her. Multiply her by tens of millions, and that’s Obama’s Bush’s America. Welcome to dystopia.

It’s a load of crap. You know how many true minimum-wage jobs there are in this country?

1.7 million. Which means 99.3% of people in the workforce are making something more than minimum wage.

Furthermore, most of those 1.7 million are under the age of 25. And almost all of those are teenagers.

You turn 14, your parents stop handing you things, and you start earning your own money. It’s called growing up. And so at the onset of your work career, you make very little money. Why? Because you’re one step above useless, and you haven’t developed any skills. But it’s OK. You’re not supposed to have developed any skills, because you’re 14. Also, you’re not paying for room and board. If anything, we should be lowering the minimum wage. There are plenty of kids who’d be happy to have a little extra cash for swinging a mop and a bucket, but who can’t because prospective employers would rather hand the job off to an unpaid family member than hire someone at $7.25 an hour.

How Do You Guys Do It? Part II

 

All the money she's saving on cream cheese, she's blowing on haircuts.

All the money she’s saving on cream cheese, she’s blowing on haircuts.

Welcome to the latest installment in our series on how to avoid being poor – by adopting some of the easy and painless techniques we already did. Last time, we wrote about costs that provide negligible benefits, stuff like smoking and drinking. If you missed it, we said it’s dumb to ingest things that cost you money and compromise your health. Which either makes us sanctimonious, or richer than the people who think we’re sanctimonious. One, the other or both. We’re not sure, we can’t hear you over the endless cascade of silver dollars collecting on our kitchen floor (tiled with that $11-a-square-foot brown travertine medallion mosaic stuff, which can get really loud.)

Today, something additive instead of subtractive. It’s easy to tell you what not to do.

Leverage your time. If you’re going to be fanatical about anything in your financial life, let it be this.

We make fun of him weekly in this space, but that contradictory fat man Trent Hamm at The Simple Dollar deserves every last brickbat we throw his way. But he’s not the only one guilty of the practice of encouraging people to waste their precious time calculating returns that end up saving you far less than minimum wage. After hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, humans still don’t have an instinctive grasp on the idea of raw numbers being less important than those same numbers modified with respect to time.

What we mean is this: Would you like $100,000?

You’re going to answer yes, if you’re operating under the implicit assumption that we’re going to immediately hand you $100,000 in some negotiable instruments. Cash, a giant novelty check, whatever.

Okay, would you like $100,000 if you had to work for it for a year? The job is nothing awful. You’re not going to have to give foot massages to that fat actress on that TV show, or anything like that. Air-conditioned office, 9-to-5 workday, 2 weeks’ vacation, bagels in the break room every Monday, no ugly surprises.

Most of you presumably said yes, but a significant handful said no, why would I take a pay cut just to comply with the terms of Control Your Cash’s dopey hypothetical exercise?

How about $100,000 for 20 years of volunteering at a soup kitch—alright, you see where we’re going with this. Any commodity vital to existence that you take in (and in the case of money, give out) – food, water, whatever – has to be expressed in terms of time for it to have any meaning. Why? Because we’re mortal. The clock is always ticking. If you made it this far into the post you’re already that many minutes closer to death, and for what? We don’t want to waste your time, so let’s expand a little more on the importance of looking at dollars netted versus time expended.

An hour spent clipping coupons is a feel-good exercise, not a serious attempt to increase your wealth. Divide the penultimate line on your grocery bill (“You saved “$4.33 today, Smart Shopper”) by the time you spent going over your mailbox flyer with a jeweler’s loupe and an X-Acto knife, and it can be depressing. Don’t even get us started on the wisdom of receiving alerts from Gas Buddy. The reward is only worth the effort rendered if you think your time means nothing. It doesn’t. Rich people value their time. If that manifests itself as impatience on occasion, have sympathy. Those rich people have more important things to do. Warren Buffett may live in an old and modest house, but you can bet he takes a private jet everywhere. Does he do it because he wants to flaunt his wealth? Of course not. Hardly anyone can see him, and private jets don’t attract a lot of attention anyway, unless you happen to be hanging out at executive airports and general aviation facilities. Buffett flies a private jet because he doesn’t want to waste his time getting to the airport 2 hours early, taking his laptop out of its bag, or ensuring that his leave-in conditioner is in an approved bottle of less than 3 ounces.

When we say to be aware of what you’re spending your time on in lieu of spending your money, don’t go overboard. It doesn’t mean that every activity in your day has to have some economic justification. Watching TV is what you do after you’ve had a long day and just need to crash on the couch for a while. It earns you $0/hour, and that’s fine. Same goes for learning guitar, if that’s your thing, or trying to fix a leaky toilet. It’s when you’re doing a financially specious activity that you should step back and ask what it’s really costing you. For instance, cataloguing your 1000 used DVDs. Writing descriptions and taking photos of every single one so you can sell them on eBay. That’s an intensive project with miniscule rewards. Just spend 3 minutes putting them in a box, then drive them to your local library. And enjoy the time you saved.

Next up: Putting that time to worthwhile use.