Here's One Wall Street CEO Who Agrees With Obama

     I know some liberals they hear the words Wall St and it's boo and hiss. Not me, I like Wall Street-even if I do think they need to be regulated and treat their employees well. Here's one CEO who seems to agree with this. He seems to be in the spirit in which Obama gave his SOTU last night-and has previously called for raising the MW. 

     "Aetna raised employees' wages to a base of $16 per hour because paying them less was not fair, Mark Bertolini, CEO and chairman ofAetna, told CNBC on Wednesday."

      "Here we are a Fortune 50 company and we're about to put these people into poverty and I just didn't think it was fair," he said during a"Squawk Box" interview from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland."

     "Aetna first made the announcement last week during the JPMorgan Health Care Conference. The wage and benefit hikes will impact about 5,700 workers who were making between $13 and $14 per hour."

      "Many of those workers were single mothers who had to rely on food stamps and Medicaid because they could not afford Aetna's health care plans, Bertolini said."

     http://www.cnbc.com/id/102354509

     This is not Scott Sumner's CEO I guess. When he was interviewed on CNBC, of course he was asked if he was firing people-to take away the brunt of the $2 dollar rise in pay. He said no. 

     Actually this is one reason I do like Wall Street. There are a lot of good people like this guy here. I do think that the President's setting the agenda for a higher MW has lead a number of companies like Aetna to consider doing it. 

     At the same time, the company is seeking to update its workforce as consumers take a greater role in health care decision making. The company will undertake what Bertolini called an "infrastructure investment in the quality of our employees" in order to create so-called knowledge workers who can do more than just recite rules.

     "He said that did not mean Aetna would cut under-skilled workers."

     I notice that last night a GOPer interviewed by CNBC had the normal jibe on the MW-'why not raise it to $50 an hour.' I'm not sure what this reduction absurd em argument is supposed to prove. There are many things that are good but you could overdo-so what?

     I mean, if the doctor tells you to take 2 pills an hour it doesn't follow you could be 5 times as healthy if you took 10 pills an hour. Here the CEO showed he couldn't be sidetracked by this argument either:

      "Asked what pay level would prove too expensive for the company, Bertolini responded, "We shouldn't look at it that way. We've sort of destroyed business after business in this country by looking at spreadsheets with numbers we call truth."

       "Instead, enterprises should consider both the hard and soft benefits that come with wage and benefit increases, including savings from lower turnover costs. Aetna spends about $120 million in expenses associated with rehiring and retraining each year, he said."

       "Asked whether Bertolini can convince other CEOs to do the same, he said he is already doing so. A number of companies have asked whether Aetna has a template and formula they can follow."

     I don't think Obama is the only reason for moves like this but I think he really has set the tone-remember that CEO who in 2012 warned his employees not to vote for Obama and is now giving everyone a raise?

     http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/01/05/3607810/ceo-fire-obama-raise-wage/

     I guess Americans aren't going to please Sumner anytime soon as clearly a rising MW is an idea who's time has come and lots of Wall Street guys are leading the charge. 

     P.S. I saw some GOPers last night complaining that the President was making a 'political' speech as he was proposing things like a $10.10 MW that won't pass the Congress. What is the SOTU supposed to be anyway? He's defining his position and the Democratic party's position. He suggested many things that the GOP could at least work and compromise with him on if they are even slightly operating in good faith which of course they seldom do. I mean the President made his proposals. The way it's supposed to work is now the GOP makes it's proposals and see if they can't meet in the middle on some that they hold in common-on free trade the President is closer than to his own party. 

    I mean if you disagree with a $10 MW what about a $9 one? There are surely some agenda items of the GOP-XL and tax reform they could horse trade with Obama on some of his proposals; in principle the GOP has always supported the child tax credit so why not raise it?

   In fact some Republicans did suggest that while they likely would not support a $10 MW they probably could do a smaller raise as part of a larger deal.