To play devil’s advocate, those same innovations and inventions that increase productivity also give us free time and allow machines to perform dangerous jobs that were once done by humans. While a new technology sounds the death knell for one industry it also opens up careers that were never before imagined. Web designers, programmers, cybersecurity experts, computer help desk personnel, etc., these professions and numerous others were either numerically insignificant or didn’t exist before the internet.

While I appreciate your desire to look after every member of a society, I quail at any suggestion that the government force the population to change or begin taking the assets that one group has worked so hard for and giving them to another group.

It seems like we're looking at this from two different angles. If I understand your points correctly, you appear to believe that a college would be better served by having the money that would be spent on its coaches be distributed throughout the school. I believe that a college program that brings in more money than it spends is beneficial to the school because there is a greater amount of cash to be shared by the programs in the college. Both of us agree that more funding is good for the college, we just see different ways of obtaining those funds.

The various military services do have sports teams that receive perks above and beyond their salaries.

The basketball coach for my alma mater makes nearly $4 million per year. The profit generated by his team is just under $20 million per year not including donations from alumni who are only to happy to give money to a school with a winning tradition. That's an excellent return on investment for the university I attended and I am glad they have decided to spend their money so wisely.

I don't think someone from the 1950s would consider many Americans who are said to be living in poverty to be poor. Based on the government's data from 2005, the average poor person has a car, air conditioning, color TV, DVD player, cable, a washing machine, and a dryer. Additional government data from 2003, shows that 92.5 percent of poor households say that they have always had enough food to eat in the four months preceding the poll that was taken. On average, poor children at age 18 are taller and heavier than soldiers who fought in WWII.

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/pdf/bg2575.pdf

That top marginal rate applied to a very small number of people who made in excess of $3.3 million in today's dollars and loopholes and deductions turned their average income tax rate to 31%. Now, the top marginal rate hits anyone making $400,000 and the average income tax rate for that population is 25%. In addition, most business income is now subject to the individual income tax. In 1954, the capital gains tax was 25%, it is now 20%. Granted, that's 20% less that it was but we should also take into account that it's double taxation. Perhaps the man from the past would be more interested to know that more than half of America pays no Federal income tax and that welfare spending and the national debt have increased dramatically.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_19.htm#.UYGoXiPG-tq
http://blackburn.house.gov/uploadedfiles/jec_republican_staff_analysis_historical_tax_rates_rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf

Those rhymes work in North America but not in the rest of the world. Still, nice to hear something from my youth!

Just a few minor things like providing medical support for Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Haiti (multiple times), New York after 9/11, the war in Iraq, tsunami victims in Thailand, Hurricane Katrina, etc.

My apologies, I should have clarified that I meant the talks in the Senate regarding up to 200,000 legal immigrants coming to the U.S. on work visas. But in regard to illegal immigrants, they are working in jobs unlawfully and are therefore not subject to minimum wage restrictions. It's immoral, not illegal.

Money should bunch up in places unless everyone is to be paid an equal amount and to have equal expenses. I believe in this concept whole-heartedly because it means that if I work hard, educate myself, and save my money, I have the opportunity to better my socioeconomic standing. With the same fervor, I believe that those who do not make the sacrifices I do should not enjoy the same rewards.

Competition works both ways; corporations who want the best and brightest are willing to provide pay and benefits that will sway workers to their sides. This would constitute a race to the top, but it’s only logical that there be a plateau that would keep income from astronomical rates as no company is going to pay an infinite amount to land their dream employee. Even if they had the funds, they would need to account for other expenses involved in production, which limits the amount of money they can shower upon one person. As for the scenario of a company paying employees next to nothing, they’d end up with a defective product or service no one desired because an employee earning a deficient salary will not put forth their best effort. Employers know that and most wouldn’t want to deal with that situation because it would lose them customers, market share, or both. It also hinges on the belief that bosses are of the cruel and inhumane type one finds in bad fiction.

The argument that every dollar give to an athlete or executive detracts from the income of others falls into the zero sum game trap. For me to find that valid, I would have to believe that neither one provides any benefit to their organization. We do agree on one thing, a small amount of money makes more difference in the life of a person of meager means than it does to someone with a fortune. What I don’t see is the reason to take from the rich and give to the poor other than a desire to end income inequality. I would like to reiterate that I never called for the abolition of the minimum wage.

Perhaps the most efficient free market in the world is Hong Kong. With few natural resources it rose from an Asian backwater to an economic titan in no small part due to the lack of government regulation by the British. It is far easier to open and run a business in Hong Kong than in the U.S. so many more people take advantage of that opportunity and then have the ability to enrich themselves and provide jobs for their countrymen. In the process, the average income of all of its citizens, not just the upper crust, rose dramatically.

I shudder when anyone considers it a good thing that the government would force its citizenry to do anything. Regarding these companies that are made to cut the salaries of their highest paid employees, what’s to keep them from raising the prices they charge their customers and causing inflation, eventually erasing the gains of the poor, instead of biting the bullet? Sure, the employees in the lower income brackets will get a cut of that increased price but will the customers be willing to foot the bill? Even if we assume that it’s an inelastic product or service, customers won’t be able to buy as much as they once did. What’s to keep these companies in the U.S., instead of jumping ship to a country that lets them spend their money largely as they wish? As for the employees, why would they not vote with their feet and leave the country to go somewhere with lower or non-existent income taxes? Regarding that 20%, some of it is going to have to go to the government in order to pay for the eyes and ears that would regulate these companies.

Conversely, the only reason we can pay the janitors, vendors, etc. their wages is because of the highly-paid athletes. No one is going to come to a stadium or arena without athletes and those who do are going to pay much less if there are no stars to see. If less money is coming in, there is less to be shared with all. I’m not stating that one class of employee is better than the other just that neither is a parasite. It eludes me as to how the market is failing to pay people what they are worth. It has been shown without a shadow of a doubt that there is a disparity between the incomes of the two groups; I do not dispute this, but I don’t believe in redistributing income solely because some people make substantially more than others. Before we posit one more law regulating business we should consider its potential unintended consequences very carefully. The Affordable Health Care Act Tax has led to an increase in part-time workers and limited the growth of businesses as they strive to stay under the 50-member limit. The Americans with Disabilities Act led to a decrease in the employment of disabled men because businesses were scared that they would be unable to fire someone with disabilities if they turned out to be ineffective in their position. What would more rules and regulations of business lead to? The only thing that is worse than an unfettered invisible hand is one guided by the monstrous tentacles of government.

With all due respect, neither of us is going to agree with the other, the gulf between us is much too far, but thank you for the discussion.

Do you think that the talks about raising the minimum wage for immigrant workers would lead to a similar increase in the minimum wage for U.S. citizens? It seems unlikely that our fearless leaders would grant such rights to non-citizens without making a move toward raising the minimum wage for those born here.

Please understand that I did not argue for the abolition of the minimum wage. I said that the people who work in the stadiums, who in my area make more than minimum wage, are not underpaid for the services they provide.

Let me qualify my following statement by saying that it is merely a fact, not me championing the anti-immigration cause. Anyone who is here illegally isn't going to receive the same salary as someone here legally but I think we need to take into account that U.S. citizens will not perform many of the jobs that illegal immigrants will. And companies can get prisoners or foreign workers to perform certain jobs, but not service industries that are tied to a location in the U.S. There are plenty of reasons to pay someone a decent wage: to keep good workers around, to not have to train someone new to replace them, to keep companies in similar industries from poaching your employees, to provide the best service possible to your customers so they continue to frequent your business, etc. Too often society tends to paint all employers and businesses as evil and miserly, as if every gain by a company only comes from something taken from an employee or customer. I've found that it's quite the opposite, whether I worked at a grocery store stocking shelves or in an office managing others, my employers wanted me to do my best and rewarded me for doing so.

You took my words as a personal attack, they were not.

Please show me the text where I stated that anyone should be paid less than minimum wage. If you would like to debate the things I actually did say, fine. If not, that's fine as well but please don't build up a ludicrous straw man argument that likens my words to a call for slavery.