So What Do You Think Is A Fair And Decent Wage?...

[BlackSand]

I have conversations with employees all the time, it keeps us focused on the tasks at hand. When we buy equipment or equipment breaks down, I'll discuss how much that will cost and what additional revenue will be needed to justify our decisions.

I believe that most employees care about the company they work for, I also realize that outside their jobs, they have little clue as to what goes into running a company.

When I read posts by those on this board, I can tell who has and doesn't have a clue about running a successful business.

You hit the nail on the head right there.

Most of the time ... All it takes to run a successful business (as far as employees are concerned) ... Is taking the time to communicate and tell them what you need and what your expectations are.
In return ... Listening to the employees ... Understanding their concerns ... And providing them with the tools they need to perform better, earns everyone more money.

Sometimes ... Middle management stumbles over concepts like lean manufacturing and continuous improvement by trying to shackle them to short-term production concerns ... And that can be a nightmare for employees.

.

 

[Mac1958]

It would not be a painless or easy fix, but the fix is simple. Siimply pass a law--a constitutional amendment if necessary--that prohbits the government from passing out attractive free stuff to supplement and/or encourage those who lack the incentive, work ethic, or skill sets to stay in that situation.

Provide sufficient welfare to provide group shelters and all the rice, beans and powdered milk people can consume to ensure that nobody starves or freezes to death, but stop giving dignity and encouragement to poverty along with a full ban on all federal charity or payoff of any kind to any person, group, or entity and a relaxation on all unnecessary taxation and regulation. That would restore a thriving, healthy economy with employers clamoring for people to apply for work.

And if you make poverty unpleasant and boring enough, there will be private sector jobs out there to encourage people to do what they have to do to escape it. And I am convinced that with the federal government out of the charity business, there will be sufficient private sector charitable organizations who will offer a hand up to those who need one.

And meanwhile--even though Kaz is quarreling with me on this --set the minimum wage at say $3/hour to ensure that employers cannot totally steal labor from anybody and then turn the U.S. economy loose to provide the opportunity to earn that 'fair and decent' wage.

And let the people themselves determine what a 'fair and decent' wage is that they will aspire to earn.

Hey Mac, did you find this interesting. On the one hand, some think the government should regulate the high end of the earnings ladder and here is the idea of the using the government to regulate the low end of the earnings ladder.

I had to laugh at some of this though. Like the part about the private sector stepping up to help with all the poor. Like they ain't doing that now. And under these ideas there will be even more that need help. And the private sector is swamped now with requests for help.

I really like the idea that the people will determine a "fair and decent wage". And I thought the employer set the wage scale.

And points made go zoooooooooooooom, right over another liberal's head. I'm getting so many examples of that happening, I think I'm gonna write my own book about it.

But just to set the record straight, employers are people too.

But in a thriving economy, the employee is empowered to be able to sell his labor to the highest bidder and it will be a sellers market. And the employer will pay what he has to pay to get the best people who will generate the maximum profit for his business. However, if the employee demands more than the employer can pay and still make a decent profit, then both lose out. Because the employee won't work and the employer won't do business at all. In a free market thriving economy the relationship between employee an employer can be a mutually satisfactory contractual agreement.

Once the government starts short circuiting that process, everybody other than an elite few will lose.

Yeah, Zeke, holy crap, you completely missed the point. You automatically equate "the people" with "the federal bureaucracy". That's not what he was saying. Wasn't the phrase "aspire to earn" a clue?

It's up the individual to create their value in a job market. Education, certification, skill set, experience, achievement.

Then it's up to that specific employer to decide what, based on the above, that person is worth to that specific company. The employer then pays accordingly. If that pay is not enough for the employee, the employee is free to offer his/her services to other employers who make the same determination. Perhaps it will turn out that his/her skill set is worth more to another employer, perhaps not. But if that employee can't find a buyer for their services who is willing to pay more than their current employer, it's up to that employee to face the fact that they're not worth more than they're being paid, that it's likely they had an inflated view of their value.

I saw posts above in which Noomi is saying that some employers don't pay employees "what they're worth". How the hell would she know? This is the type of simplistic thought that many employees have, those who have never run a business. Who is to determine an employee's worth to a company? The employer, of course. They are, in effect, purchasing the services of that employee. If it's not enough for the employee, they can test their value on the job market. Simple as that. But her naive view is the view of many employees who know nothing about running a business.

This is terribly fundamental stuff here.

You clearly have a very government-centric of business, that's automatically where your mind goes, and your government-centric interpretation of what Foxfyre said is a perfect example. It didn't even occur to you that he was talking about the individual's freedom to improve their own lives, you went right to the government. This isn't about the freaking government. The government has nothing to do with an employee's value, that's between the particular employee and the particular business. That's it. Anything beyond that is artificial market manipulation and distortion.

.

 

[Spiderman]

What the employer thinks the job is worth and what the job is really worth are likely two different things.

No wonder people prefer to stay on welfare - they get more money sitting on their butts than working for a few dollars an hour.

You really have no clue or you have low self worth.

I have employees that are worth their weight and I have a couple I wouldn't mind if they found a new job.

Our company works hard to employee the best we can afford. There is a line where if we pay more, then we need to raise prices. Then we are not competitive. We try to be competitive in wages and prices, not easy to do.

I do have a clue. I know that some employees refuse to pay their employees what they are really worth.

People don't get paid on their worth. they get paid on the worth of the job they do.

A broom pusher's job is not worth as much as a mechanic.

If you want to get paid more then you must learn to to a job that is worth more than your current job.

It's quite a simple concept.

 

[Spiderman]

What the employer thinks the job is worth and what the job is really worth are likely two different things.

No wonder people prefer to stay on welfare - they get more money sitting on their butts than working for a few dollars an hour.

And that is the biggest problem. NOBODY should make more sitting on their asses than working. Maybe the government should get out of the business of subsidizing lazy f**kers.

They sit around because the employer doesn't pay them what they are worth - the government pays them because they need to buy food and pay the rent, all the things they can't do if they are working!

Why can;t they work more to pay their bills?

Where is it written that 40 hours a week is all one need work in order to pay their bills?

 

[zeke]

Hey Mac, did you find this interesting. On the one hand, some think the government should regulate the high end of the earnings ladder and here is the idea of the using the government to regulate the low end of the earnings ladder.

I had to laugh at some of this though. Like the part about the private sector stepping up to help with all the poor. Like they ain't doing that now. And under these ideas there will be even more that need help. And the private sector is swamped now with requests for help.

I really like the idea that the people will determine a "fair and decent wage". And I thought the employer set the wage scale.

And points made go zoooooooooooooom, right over another liberal's head. I'm getting so many examples of that happening, I think I'm gonna write my own book about it.

But just to set the record straight, employers are people too.

But in a thriving economy, the employee is empowered to be able to sell his labor to the highest bidder and it will be a sellers market. And the employer will pay what he has to pay to get the best people who will generate the maximum profit for his business. However, if the employee demands more than the employer can pay and still make a decent profit, then both lose out. Because the employee won't work and the employer won't do business at all. In a free market thriving economy the relationship between employee an employer can be a mutually satisfactory contractual agreement.

Once the government starts short circuiting that process, everybody other than an elite few will lose.

Yeah, Zeke, holy crap, you completely missed the point. You automatically equate "the people" with "the federal bureaucracy". That's not what he was saying. Wasn't the phrase "aspire to earn" a clue?

It's up the individual to create their value in a job market. Education, certification, skill set, experience, achievement.

Then it's up to that specific employer to decide what, based on the above, that person is worth to that specific company. The employer then pays accordingly. If that pay is not enough for the employee, the employee is free to offer his/her services to other employers who make the same determination. Perhaps it will turn out that his/her skill set is worth more to another employer, perhaps not. But if that employee can't find a buyer for their services who is willing to pay more than their current employer, it's up to that employee to face the fact that they're not worth more than they're being paid, that it's likely they had an inflated view of their value.

I saw posts above in which Noomi is saying that some employers don't pay employees "what they're worth". How the hell would she know? This is the type of simplistic thought that many employees have, those who have never run a business. Who is to determine an employee's worth to a company? The employer, of course. They are, in effect, purchasing the services of that employee. If it's not enough for the employee, they can test their value on the job market. Simple as that. But her naive view is the view of many employees who know nothing about running a business.

This is terribly fundamental stuff here.

You clearly have a very government-centric of business, that's automatically where your mind goes, and your government-centric interpretation of what Foxfyre said is a perfect example. It didn't even occur to you that he was talking about the individual's freedom to improve their own lives, you went right to the government. This isn't about the freaking government. The government has nothing to do with an employee's value, that's between the particular employee and the particular business. That's it.

.

LMAO. Hey Mac, read much? Did you miss the part about the government making a constitutional amendment to not hand out "free" stuff. Did you miss that entire point?

And "aspire to earn". Just wtf does that MEAN?

To bad Mac that people like you base your view on wishful thinking and not the reality of a situation.

You just do the ole; pay no attention to the man making millions of dollars off the labor of others, all the while paying the laborer chump change. No that's fair (according to you) because ALL of us (even you Mac) could be multi millionaires if ONLY we would ASPIRE to be multi millionaires.

LMAO.

 

[Mac1958]

And points made go zoooooooooooooom, right over another liberal's head. I'm getting so many examples of that happening, I think I'm gonna write my own book about it.

But just to set the record straight, employers are people too.

But in a thriving economy, the employee is empowered to be able to sell his labor to the highest bidder and it will be a sellers market. And the employer will pay what he has to pay to get the best people who will generate the maximum profit for his business. However, if the employee demands more than the employer can pay and still make a decent profit, then both lose out. Because the employee won't work and the employer won't do business at all. In a free market thriving economy the relationship between employee an employer can be a mutually satisfactory contractual agreement.

Once the government starts short circuiting that process, everybody other than an elite few will lose.

Yeah, Zeke, holy crap, you completely missed the point. You automatically equate "the people" with "the federal bureaucracy". That's not what he was saying. Wasn't the phrase "aspire to earn" a clue?

It's up the individual to create their value in a job market. Education, certification, skill set, experience, achievement.

Then it's up to that specific employer to decide what, based on the above, that person is worth to that specific company. The employer then pays accordingly. If that pay is not enough for the employee, the employee is free to offer his/her services to other employers who make the same determination. Perhaps it will turn out that his/her skill set is worth more to another employer, perhaps not. But if that employee can't find a buyer for their services who is willing to pay more than their current employer, it's up to that employee to face the fact that they're not worth more than they're being paid, that it's likely they had an inflated view of their value.

I saw posts above in which Noomi is saying that some employers don't pay employees "what they're worth". How the hell would she know? This is the type of simplistic thought that many employees have, those who have never run a business. Who is to determine an employee's worth to a company? The employer, of course. They are, in effect, purchasing the services of that employee. If it's not enough for the employee, they can test their value on the job market. Simple as that. But her naive view is the view of many employees who know nothing about running a business.

This is terribly fundamental stuff here.

You clearly have a very government-centric of business, that's automatically where your mind goes, and your government-centric interpretation of what Foxfyre said is a perfect example. It didn't even occur to you that he was talking about the individual's freedom to improve their own lives, you went right to the government. This isn't about the freaking government. The government has nothing to do with an employee's value, that's between the particular employee and the particular business. That's it.

.

LMAO. Hey Mac, read much? Did you miss the part about the government making a constitutional amendment to not hand out "free" stuff. Did you miss that entire point?

And "aspire to earn". Just wtf does that MEAN?

To bad Mac that people like you base your view on wishful thinking and not the reality of a situation.

You just do the ole; pay no attention to the man making millions of dollars off the labor of others, all the while paying the laborer chump change. No that's fair (according to you) because ALL of us (even you Mac) could be multi millionaires if ONLY we would ASPIRE to be multi millionaires.

LMAO.

So now we fall back to the standard partisan ideologue straw man arguments, while completely ignoring and avoiding a wide range of specific points.

Okay, that's usually a good sign.

"LMAO"

.

 

[zeke]

[/B][/I]

And that is the biggest problem. NOBODY should make more sitting on their asses than working. Maybe the government should get out of the business of subsidizing lazy f**kers.

They sit around because the employer doesn't pay them what they are worth - the government pays them because they need to buy food and pay the rent, all the things they can't do if they are working!

Why can;t they work more to pay their bills?

Where is it written that 40 hours a week is all one need work in order to pay their bills?

Why can't they work more you ask. Shouldn't you ask their employer why his/her employees can't work more than 40 hours a week?

And where is it written you ask that 40 hours of work should let you make enough to live on? I think if you look at the Dept of Labor you will find where the 40 hour week was made law so that when you worked OVER 40 hours a week, you got paid overtime.

If you want to work more than 40 hours for no additional pay, your employer might let you.

 

[zeke]

And now Mac, you are doing your same ole bullshit. You come up against a question you don't want to address and all a sudden it's the "straw man" that came out and bit you in the ass. LMAO.

STRAW MAN kicked the Big Macs ass again.

But really Mac, did you read the part Foxy wrote about the government doing an amendment or not about poor people.
Easy question there Mac. I didn't even write what I am asking about. Can you say you read that or not?

Straw man got your tongue again Mac?

 

[Spiderman]

They sit around because the employer doesn't pay them what they are worth - the government pays them because they need to buy food and pay the rent, all the things they can't do if they are working!

Why can;t they work more to pay their bills?

Where is it written that 40 hours a week is all one need work in order to pay their bills?

Why can't they work more you ask. Shouldn't you ask their employer why his/her employees can't work more than 40 hours a week?

And where is it written you ask that 40 hours of work should let you make enough to live on? I think if you look at the Dept of Labor you will find where the 40 hour week was made law so that when you worked OVER 40 hours a week, you got paid overtime.

If you want to work more than 40 hours for no additional pay, your employer might let you.

This might come as a surprise to you but it is actually possible to work more than one job for more than one employer.

 

[zeke]

Why can;t they work more to pay their bills?

Where is it written that 40 hours a week is all one need work in order to pay their bills?

Why can't they work more you ask. Shouldn't you ask their employer why his/her employees can't work more than 40 hours a week?

And where is it written you ask that 40 hours of work should let you make enough to live on? I think if you look at the Dept of Labor you will find where the 40 hour week was made law so that when you worked OVER 40 hours a week, you got paid overtime.

If you want to work more than 40 hours for no additional pay, your employer might let you.

This might come as a surprise to you but it is actually possible to work more than one job for more than one employer.

Well hell, why didn't I think of that? Instead of paying someone enough to live on by working 40 hours a week, these people should get another 40 hour a week job and then work 80 hours a week.

Of course that cuts the labor participation rate because someone already with a job just took the job that the person without work could have taken. But what the hell.

Working 80 hours a week will also make you worthless (other than a paycheck) to the rest of their family or other non work life. But what the hell.

Sounds like you are willing to do about anything to keep the rich from paying higher wages to the poorest worker.

Do you work 80 hours a week? I have. For a short time. It sucked. 60 hours is manageable.
But you sure are tired at the end of that week.

 

[Spiderman]

Why can't they work more you ask. Shouldn't you ask their employer why his/her employees can't work more than 40 hours a week?

And where is it written you ask that 40 hours of work should let you make enough to live on? I think if you look at the Dept of Labor you will find where the 40 hour week was made law so that when you worked OVER 40 hours a week, you got paid overtime.

If you want to work more than 40 hours for no additional pay, your employer might let you.

This might come as a surprise to you but it is actually possible to work more than one job for more than one employer.

Well hell, why didn't I think of that? Instead of paying someone enough to live on by working 40 hours a week, these people should get another 40 hour a week job and then work 80 hours a week.

Of course that cuts the labor participation rate because someone already with a job just took the job that the person without work could have taken. But what the hell.

Working 80 hours a week will also make you worthless (other than a paycheck) to the rest of their family or other non work life. But what the hell.

Sounds like you are willing to do about anything to keep the rich from paying higher wages to the poorest worker.

Do you work 80 hours a week? I have. For a short time. It sucked. 60 hours is manageable.
But you sure are tired at the end of that week.

Who said they need to work another 40 hour a week job? What's wrong with another 15-25 hours a week?

And where is it written that one 40 hour a week job needs to be enough to pay all your bills?

And from the time I was 15 I was working at least 50 hours a week. When I quit school at 17 I worked at least 80 hours a week. When I was flipping houses I worked well over 100 hours a week.

Now I'm 42 and don't have to work at all if I don't want to. Imagine if I followed your advice and only worked 40 hours a week then whined about not making enough.

It has nothing to do with rich or poor it has to do with manning up and taking care of yourself.

 

[MisterBeale]

Just curious. I'm really interested in hearing what you all consider a fair & decent Wage. I'd like to get some straight-forward answers without the Political debates and diatribes. I'm only interested in the numbers. Just list the numbers you think an average American should be able to survive on. I think it's a very interesting and important question. It should be fascinating in terms of numbers, seeing what Americans think an average American can or should be able to survive on. Thanks all for your participation.

It depends, does your question assume current conditions? If that is the case, it isn't a question of wages. Who cares about wages. It is prices we need to be concerned about. All the money in the world isn't going to solve the problem when the currency is worthless.

When the FED keeps pumping $85 trillion into the system every month, no matter what they pay workers, it will never be enough to buy bread, gas or pay the rent.

 

[BlackSand]

And where is it written you ask that 40 hours of work should let you make enough to live on?

Let me get this straight ... You really don't know where the 40 hour work week came from?

.

 

[MisterBeale]

A better example of what I mean is this. . .

The FED's policy has caused this.

And, it is only getting worse with each passing month. So what good would a minimum wage do? Remember in 2005 that box of Mac -n- Cheese that cost me 50 cents? Next month that box a Mac -n- Cheese that you bought that was a dollar will cost two. The minimum wage will be out dated, it can never keep up. Can you imagine trying to pass a minimum in Wehrmacht Germany? There is a reason why food and energy is not figured into the core CPI by which the FED and government make policy on.

They need to stop injecting 85 trillion into the economy NOW! More dollars mean the dollars are worth less. And it means they are becoming worthless! Screw a minimum wage, by bailing out the titans of industry and the cronies of capital, they are screwing the laborers and placing a tax on consumption. Most people are just too obtuse to understand.

You might get your raise in minimum wage, but you will be too ignorant to know it won't do any good.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hey Mac, did you find this interesting. On the one hand, some think the government should regulate the high end of the earnings ladder and here is the idea of the using the government to regulate the low end of the earnings ladder.

I had to laugh at some of this though. Like the part about the private sector stepping up to help with all the poor. Like they ain't doing that now. And under these ideas there will be even more that need help. And the private sector is swamped now with requests for help.

I really like the idea that the people will determine a "fair and decent wage". And I thought the employer set the wage scale.

And points made go zoooooooooooooom, right over another liberal's head. I'm getting so many examples of that happening, I think I'm gonna write my own book about it.

But just to set the record straight, employers are people too.

But in a thriving economy, the employee is empowered to be able to sell his labor to the highest bidder and it will be a sellers market. And the employer will pay what he has to pay to get the best people who will generate the maximum profit for his business. However, if the employee demands more than the employer can pay and still make a decent profit, then both lose out. Because the employee won't work and the employer won't do business at all. In a free market thriving economy the relationship between employee an employer can be a mutually satisfactory contractual agreement.

Once the government starts short circuiting that process, everybody other than an elite few will lose.

Yeah, Zeke, holy crap, you completely missed the point. You automatically equate "the people" with "the federal bureaucracy". That's not what he was saying. Wasn't the phrase "aspire to earn" a clue?

It's up the individual to create their value in a job market. Education, certification, skill set, experience, achievement.

Then it's up to that specific employer to decide what, based on the above, that person is worth to that specific company. The employer then pays accordingly. If that pay is not enough for the employee, the employee is free to offer his/her services to other employers who make the same determination. Perhaps it will turn out that his/her skill set is worth more to another employer, perhaps not. But if that employee can't find a buyer for their services who is willing to pay more than their current employer, it's up to that employee to face the fact that they're not worth more than they're being paid, that it's likely they had an inflated view of their value.

I saw posts above in which Noomi is saying that some employers don't pay employees "what they're worth". How the hell would she know? This is the type of simplistic thought that many employees have, those who have never run a business. Who is to determine an employee's worth to a company? The employer, of course. They are, in effect, purchasing the services of that employee. If it's not enough for the employee, they can test their value on the job market. Simple as that. But her naive view is the view of many employees who know nothing about running a business.

This is terribly fundamental stuff here.

You clearly have a very government-centric of business, that's automatically where your mind goes, and your government-centric interpretation of what Foxfyre said is a perfect example. It didn't even occur to you that he was talking about the individual's freedom to improve their own lives, you went right to the government. This isn't about the freaking government. The government has nothing to do with an employee's value, that's between the particular employee and the particular business. That's it. Anything beyond that is artificial market manipulation and distortion.

.

Yes, the wage the employee receives is just part of the equation. In addition to the money the employee sees in his paycheck, the employer also has direct labor costs for:

FICA
SUTA
FUTA
Work Comp premiums based on the employee's wages
Often liability insurance premiums based on the employees wages
Any bonding or E&O costs
Any inadvertent wastage due to error
Training expense if the employee has to learn on the job
Extra expense for non productive but paid vacation, holidays, sick leave
Whatever other benefits the employer voluntarily provides
And now if there are 50 or more employees, mandatory healthcare coverage.

In addition the employer is providing infrastructure, office space, transportation, equipment, tools, disposable supplies, cost of marketing, assuming the liability exposure, taking the depreciation--all the costs of doing business.

The employee's labor has to produce sufficient revenues to cover all the expense incurred because he/she is employed, plus whatever wages are paid plus a decent profit for the employer who is taking all the capital risks to run the business. Or there is simply no practical reason to hire the employee.

The more profit the employee makes for his employer, the more valuable his labor will be. The employee who produces very little or no profit for his employer is not going to be worth anywhere nearly as much money in wages. And that is what determines a 'fair and decent' wage.

 

[gallantwarrior]

What the employer thinks the job is worth and what the job is really worth are likely two different things.

No wonder people prefer to stay on welfare - they get more money sitting on their butts than working for a few dollars an hour.

And that is the biggest problem. NOBODY should make more sitting on their asses than working. Maybe the government should get out of the business of subsidizing lazy f**kers.

They sit around because the employer doesn't pay them what they are worth - the government pays them because they need to buy food and pay the rent, all the things they can't do if they are working!

First, the pay they are offered is what the employer is willing to pay for their labor. If they don't think that's enough, they can negotiate, or change their lives to increase their value to an employer. Or how about they start their own business! Then they get to be the boss and pay exorbitant wages to low-skill workers...out of the goodness of their hearts, of course.
Second, the government should never, ever be in the business of supporting people unwilling to support themselves. Government interference is a large part of the reason why these people either can't afford what they need, or want.
For the most part, people need to learn to live within their means. If you don't get paid much, you don't go out and buy yourself a $250,000 home. You drive a less expensive car. Maybe you buy clothing and other goods at second-hand stores.
Oh, yeah...they sit around on their asses because they know that Unka Shugar gonna hand them money, food, and housing. Take the "free" goodies away, you'd see them moving off their asses fast enough. Root hog, or die. Amazing what hungry people will do to feed themselves when their keepers quit feeding them.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I do have a clue. I know that some employees refuse to pay their employees what they are really worth.

How do you determine what an employee is worth to the employer?

That is the 64 thousand dollar question - who does decide?

I'd say the employer has the deciding vote but the employee does have the option to increase his value, to market him(her-)self. Like anything else, a more attractive "product" will always draw a better price.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have a question to ask the OP or anyone else.

What price do you think it's worth to take out of your pocket and pay someone to do a job for you?

Would you pay someone 15.00 an hour to rack leaves in your yard?

 

[BDBoop]

I have a question to ask the OP or anyone else.

What price do you think it's worth to take out of your pocket and pay someone to do a job for you?

Would you pay someone 15.00 an hour to rack leaves in your yard?

Racking leaves is probably worth $30 an hour! First, you have to build the rack, and that's no mean feat.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have a question to ask the OP or anyone else.

What price do you think it's worth to take out of your pocket and pay someone to do a job for you?

Would you pay someone 15.00 an hour to rack leaves in your yard?

Racking leaves is probably worth $30 an hour! First, you have to build the rack, and that's no mean feat.

I did my yard twice this past weekend. Once on Saturday morning and on Sunday afternoon. I have a 20,000 sq ft + yard.. I bet you pay someone that much to do that