They compared Wall Street bonuses to the total earnings of every minimum wage worker. Oh, it's sad.

I think it's a little backward. What do you think?

In 2014, Wall Street bonuses totaled $28.5 billion.

First, congratulations, Wall Street! I'm sure you really earned each and every dollar. Now let's break that down to a figure the rest of us can wrap our heads around. According to the New York State comptroller, Wall Street employees (167,800 of them, to be exact) received an average bonus of $172,860.


My math put it at just shy of $170,000, but when you're rolling like that, what's a few thousand dollars? Especially considering this figure doesn't include their salaries, which are almost certainly very generous. But hey, they're doing God's work.

Meanwhile, in the vast land of minimum wages, a million workers earned about half as much as Wall Street made in bonuses alone.

The average Wall Street bonus is three times higher than the median U.S. household income.

While those 1 million minimum wage employees also include tipped workers who are probably earning more than the federal minimum, let's be real: A server's earnings are a far cry from a six-figure bonus on top of a six-figure salary.

$28.5 billion would be more than enough to pay living wages to millions of low-wage workers.

If the term "living wage" is new to you, here's the short of it:

A living wage is "an approximate income needed to meet a family's basic needs." Today's minimum wage doesn't even come close. According to MIT's living wage calculator website:

"The minimum wage does not provide a living wage for most American families. A typical family of four (two working adults, two children) needs to work more than 3 full-time minimum-wage jobs (a 68-hour work week per working adult) to earn a living wage."

Putting more money in the pockets of low-wage workers does more for the overall economy than Wall Street bonuses.

Before we dig in, try to put yourself in the shoes of a Wall Street worker. What are you going to buy with that $170,000 bonus? Remember, this is just extra cash on top of your salary, and all of your basic needs are well taken care of. And how much of it are you actually going to spend? Got some stuff in mind? OK, hold that thought.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of a minimum wage worker. What are you going to buy with that paycheck? Remember, housing costs will put a big dent in your finances. Then there's your utilities, and you have to eat, right? Oh, and if you have a family, it's probably dwindling even more quickly. See where I'm going with this?

The Institute for Policy Studies writes:

"Wall Street bonus season may coincide with an uptick in luxury goods sales, but a raise in the minimum wage would give America's economy a much greater boost. To meet basic needs, low-wage workers tend to spend nearly every dollar they make. The wealthy can afford to squirrel away more of their earnings. All those dollars low-wage workers spend create an economic ripple effect."

What would happen if that $28.5 billion went to low-wage workers instead?

We already know that minimum wages are barely, if at all, providing the lowest earners with what they need to get by. A modest boost in their wages from the federal minimum of $7.25 to $15 an hour would allow them to more fully meet their needs, and that spending would stimulate the economy.

The person with an extra $170,000 on hand isn't likely to spend it all because, well, there's only so much a human being needs. Sure, that might fund a vacation home, a boat, maybe some expensive trinkets — but for the most part, it just becomes accumulated wealth. And stockpiled cash does nothing for the economy.

"Every extra dollar going into the pockets of a high-income American only adds about $0.39 to the GDP. By contrast, every extra dollar going into the pockets of low-wage workers adds about $1.21 to the national economy. These pennies add up considerably on $28.5 billion in earnings."

Considerably, indeed. A wage increase totaling $28.5 billion to minimum wage workers would boost the country's gross domestic product by three times as much as the same amount going to people who are already well-off, like Wall Street employees.

Raising the minimum wage to a living wage serves everyone's interests — even the short-sighted people who would argue otherwise.

And lastly, consider this: Those massive Wall Street bonuses? Those are rewards for exactly the kind of risky decisions that tanked the economy in 2008. Doesn't that seem a little backward for a country that says it values an honest day's work?

More
Photo by Hunters Race on Unsplash

If you're a woman and you want to be a CEO, you should probably think about changing your name to "Jeffrey" or "Michael." Or possibly even "Michael Jeffreys" or "Jeffrey Michaels."

According to Fortune, last year, more men named Jeffrey and Michael became CEOs of America's top companies than women. A whopping total of one woman became a CEO, while two men named Jeffrey took the title, and two men named Michael moved into the C-suite as well.

The "New CEO Report" for 2018, which looks at new CEOS for the 250 largest S&P 500 companies, found that 23 people were appointed to the position of CEO. Only one of those 23 people was a woman. Michelle Gass, the new CEO of Kohl's, was the lone female on the list.

Keep Reading Show less
popular

Netflix

How much of what we do is influenced by what we see on TV? When it comes to risky behavior, Netflix isn't taking any chances.

After receiving a lot of heat, the streaming platform is finally removing a controversial scenedepicting teen suicide in season one of "13 Reasons Why. The decision comes two years after the show's release after statistics reveal an uptick in teen suicide.

"As we prepare to launch season three later this summer, we've been mindful about the ongoing debate around the show. So on the advice of medical experts, including Dr. Christine Moutier, Chief Medical Officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, we've decided with creator Brian Yorkey and the producers to edit the scene in which Hannah takes her own life from season one," Netflix said in a statement, per The Hollywood Reporter.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture

At Trump's 'Social Media Summit' on Thursday, he bizarrely claimed Arnold Schwarzenegger had 'died' and he had witnessed said death. Wait, what?!


He didn't mean it literally - thank God. You can't be too sure! After all, he seemed to think that Frederick Douglass was still alive in February. More recently, he described a world in which the 1770s included airports. His laissez-faire approach to chronology is confusing, to say the least.

Keep Reading Show less
Democracy

Words matter. And they especially matter when we are talking about the safety and well-being of children.

While the #MeToo movement has shed light on sexual assault allegations that have long been swept under the rug, it has also brought to the forefront the language we use when discussing such cases. As a writer, I appreciate the importance of using varied wording, but it's vital we try to remain as accurate as possible in how we describe things.

There can be gray area in some topics, but some phrases being published by the media regarding sexual predation are not gray and need to be nixed completely—not only because they dilute the severity of the crime, but because they are simply inaccurate by definition.

One such phrase is "non-consensual sex with a minor." First of all, non-consensual sex is "rape" no matter who is involved. Second of all, most minors legally cannot consent to sex (the age of consent in the U.S. ranges by state from 16 to 18), so sex with a minor is almost always non-consensual by definition. Call it what it is—child rape or statutory rape, depending on circumstances—not "non-consensual sex."

Keep Reading Show less
Culture