The Top 1% alone is making more than enough in earnings. The fact that billionaires exist at all is proof enough that far more money exists that could be spent on living wages at the bottom end than currently ever is. Whether or not the rest of the Top 10% contributes nearly as much to labor costs disparity as the Top 1% is mostly academic at that point, especially if all it does is serve to prop up the Top 1%, which is more than fitting for a terse reply in the pattern of the poster before me.

> Nothing will make up for the low wages in China.

China's wages aren't even that low anymore. Maybe you are thinking of Bangladesh or somewhere that China is now themselves outsourcing "cheap labor" to?

> America could push up minimum wage some, but it won't change the dynamics of export/import.

Correct, it's not a labor cost issue at the end of the day. As I said, companies are more than capable of finding margins that work and still pay labor what it owes them. There's too many externalities companies are willing to, and legally allowed to, ignore that keep them from feeling any pressure or need to actually do so. The point I tried to make is that is not "low wages exist in China" keeping jobs outside of the US. That's a solvable problem with honest dealing with the labor market. Companies just have no interest to solve it.

(The labor market isn't a fair market, for what that is worth, and has almost no liquidity. Corporate structures impact the labor market a lot more than the labor market affects corporate structures, whether or not you agree that the modern American "gentry" are playing too selfish a game with the American labor market and getting away with it.)

"The Top 1% alone is making more than enough in earnings. The fact that billionaires exist at all is proof"

No, this is an ideological statement, not a factual statement.

The 'earnings' (not wealth) of Billionaires would not move the needle that much.

But even the wealth: if Jeff Bezos gave $100B up his wealth, it would be a one-time check to every American for $300. That's it. And just once.

Take up all the billionaires and it wouldn't amount to much for Americans, and it would be shortlived.

"China's wages aren't even that low anymore."

Yes, they absolutely are. To the point wherein there is absolutely no way for America to compete with them on a wage-basis.

"Correct, it's not a labor cost issue at the end of the day."

Yes, it is a labour cost, you're misinterpreting my point. Nothing America can do will make the US competitive with China for things involving labour.

" As I said, companies are more than capable of finding margins that work and still pay labor what it owes them."

This is just fantasy business math. There is no 'finding margins'. There is 'increasing prices' or 'lowering costs'. So either they pay suppliers less, or increase prices in order to pay greater salaries.

And 'owes them' - is again, just made up. How much does Starbucks' 'owe' it's Baristas? What you say they owe? What the market will bear? Minimum wage?

"The labor market isn't a fair market, for what that is worth, and has almost no liquidity"

The term 'liquid' is generally not used for labour markets, you might mean to say 'fungibility'?

The US could afford to pay better minimum wages and probably better for the lower 1/3 - but again, it won't change what's happening vis-a-vis China.

> if Jeff Bezos gave $100B up his wealth, it would be a one-time check to every American for $300. That's it. And just once.

Yet we aren't talking about "every American", we are talking about increasing the labor force, so your math isn't that relevant. Instead, let's say that Amazon required Bezos to put that $100B back into wages for low level employees for ten years: $10B/year works out to as many as 320,512 people employed at a $15/hour full time job minimum wage for those 10 years.

You are correct that I suggested wealth rather than earnings because of course most of the wealthy play shell games with their incomes that launder as much as possible of their income into other things that aren't "earnings" on paper (because one is taxed much higher than most of the "capital gains" taxed sorts of passive incomes). I mentioned golden parachutes, I was not trying to hide that wealth is a bigger component of the debate than just "earnings".

That said, even Bezos' over-the-table non-stock "earnings" are still nearly 3x a $15 minimum wage earner.

All of the above is mathematically true, so easier to consider "facts" just as much as yours. No ideological statements there. I could bring out some actual ideological statements if you wish what those really look like.

> This is just fantasy business math. There is no 'finding margins'. There is 'increasing prices' or 'lowering costs'. So either they pay suppliers less, or increase prices in order to pay greater salaries.

I agree, it is fantasy business math, but it is fantasy business math that is the current language of the MBA and Wall Street folks managing this mess. I did not invent it, and I would use more direct language if it were weren't readily apparent this is the preferred language of those currently propping up the established system.

> And 'owes them' - is again, just made up.

By that logic, all of capitalism is made up. All of human history is made up.

Even setting aside the deeper ethical questions about what an honest society owes to its labor class, I did explicitly define it in that context as capable of meeting the requirements to move those jobs back to the US, which in this case would specifically mean "US minimum wage" as the law of the land people keep claiming makes US noncompetitive with China, and you are just needlessly splitting hairs here.

(To be fair, I'm happy to continue splitting hairs, as I did use "owe" to evoke both the indebtedness meaning as well as the philosophical one as well. But it was well defined in context.)