Who works for minimum wage?

[bayoubill]

Minimum Wage Workers Largely Live In The South, Are Women (GRAPHIC)

Before someone attacks the source, note where the info came from stated at the bottom of the graphic.

Also note that the graphic is larger (easier to read) at the link.

your graphic forgot to include a breakdown for such thinks as:

"By Lack Of Initiative"

 

[Bern80]

Gee you right wing whacks are strange. IF a minimum wage job was the only type of job I could find, then of course my minimum wage job would have to cover my living expenses.
That means it would be helpful IF the minimum wage was a living wage.

Of course it would be helpful. Unfortunately to be helpful to you and accomodate your standard of leaving is not the reason an employer compensates and employee.



Not sure how many times I've seen this argument or how many times it has to be explained how bogus it is. It basically goes, 'employers may as well pay a living wage otherwise the tax payer is gonna pay it'. Those aren't the only two options. One would be cut off public assistance after a certain amount of time. Sooner than we do now. Or don't pay it all. Neccessity is the mother of invention and one hell of a motivator.

And what are you talking about concerning taxes? We now have some of the lowest effective tax rates ever paid by Americans. Where have you been or what do you read?


And how is it that you think people are "forcing" business's to pay workers more than they are worth"? They already don't pay any more than they have to and in many cases, wages for skilled work is going down BECAUSE there are more people CLAIMING that they can do skilled jobs. Of course the employer finds out the truth eventually but the employer still is not willing to pay for skilled labor what they once would.

This is just part of the continuing decline in the standard of living of Americans brought to us by the plutocrats of the Republican and Democratic parties.

You say that likes it's some revelation that employers pay as little as they can. Don't employees try to negotiate for as much as they can? What makes the employer's persepective wrong and the workers perspective the right one?

Now when an employee wants to negotiate anything, many see that as a big bad thing in which is seen as acting out in a unionized manor, and we know how people hate any unionizing at the bottom, so negotiate how like you are suggesting ?

The way I did is one way. I don't think the way our business does things is that unique. I work as phone tech. rep. in the customer service department of about a 200 million dollar a year company. There are eight other people who have the same job description I do. Each year at review time each department gets budgeted an amount of money to give out in raises on a merit basis. Last year I was awarded the largest raise in our department because despite being their the least amount of time, I was still making entry level pay for doing the same work and then some as everyone else and I had the documented the data to prove it.

THAT is how you negotiate a raise. It's pretty straight forward. Your job description says we'll pay you x for doing y. If you demonstrate you're doing y+, there's your grounds for a raise and you plead your case. If they're any type of company worth working for you'll probably get it. I did. It's not at all uncommon for higher skilled positions. You may have seen job descriptions for job openings that say something like 'pay dependent on experience'. Admittedly though you don't see much of that in the low skill, low paying jobs for a couple reasons. One is a lack of leverage on the part of the employee. There are just too many other people out there that can do what the company needs done for the same price that they don't need to budge to much on their low pay positions and if you bring so much more to the table you should be trying for something else anyway. The other is to FAQ's point; at some point libs have to start holding individuals accountable. That which you don't acknowledge will not change and libs don't acknowledge that all these poor people making sub living wages are where they are because the make bad decisions. That's where the problem solving has to start. If the goal is to get these people more money, you don't start by petitioning the government, or striking, or bellyaching about greedy bosses. You engage in critical, objective introspection and first ask 'What am I doing to contribute to how much income I bring in.'?

 

[Bern80]

Seems like it shouldn't be so hard to figure out what a minimum hourly wage would have to be to keep the person with the minimum wage job from qualifying for government assistance.

Is the number 8.50? 10 bucks?

If you apply inflation to the time period minimum wage has been in effect, the number should be around 15.
That's high, but eh you can't argue inflation. Look at the wage inflation for CEOs.

And of course, a higher minimum wage will give a push to wages for more experienced and valued employees. And that's a bad thing how? Since wages and earnings have been flat or declining for years.

Why you all against the hourly wage working man or woman? Just curious on that. I have worked either on 100% commission or bid my own jobs and made what I could. But I sure know a lot of people working for an hourly wage and they haven't had it so good for a while. No unions to represent their interest. No shortage of people looking for a job. Tough job environment.

Why you all so opposed to hourly people getting a little more money in their pockets? It,s not likely they will become your neighbors with a .75 cent raise. Unless you all live in a trailer park?

You can judge the integrity of person's moral compass by examining whether their opinions on something changes based on whether or not it benefits them. I say that because I DO work for an hourly wage ($15/hr). And according to you, since I may not have as much money as I would like, to fix that I should be petitioning the government, or striking, or seeking union representation. I apparently grew with better moral fiber than you because I learned it is not someone else's job to ensure that I have enough to live on. That's MY job. If I want more money, I EARN it. I do that by making myself more valuable to my employer and/or gaining skills that pay more.

The whole problem here is so many of you don't seem to understand the how the relationship between employer and employee works in compensation. THE REASON YOUR EMPLOYER PAYS YOU IS NOT BASED ON WHAT YOU NEED TO LIVE ON. Get that through your head and you'll be better off. Your employer compensates you for the value you add and the skill you provide. Period.

 

[beagle9]

Of course it would be helpful. Unfortunately to be helpful to you and accomodate your standard of leaving is not the reason an employer compensates and employee.



Not sure how many times I've seen this argument or how many times it has to be explained how bogus it is. It basically goes, 'employers may as well pay a living wage otherwise the tax payer is gonna pay it'. Those aren't the only two options. One would be cut off public assistance after a certain amount of time. Sooner than we do now. Or don't pay it all. Neccessity is the mother of invention and one hell of a motivator.



You say that likes it's some revelation that employers pay as little as they can. Don't employees try to negotiate for as much as they can? What makes the employer's persepective wrong and the workers perspective the right one?

Now when an employee wants to negotiate anything, many see that as a big bad thing in which is seen as acting out in a unionized manor, and we know how people hate any unionizing at the bottom, so negotiate how like you are suggesting ?

The way I did is one way. I don't think the way our business does things is that unique. I work as phone tech. rep. in the customer service department of about a 200 million dollar a year company. There are eight other people who have the same job description I do. Each year at review time each department gets budgeted an amount of money to give out in raises on a merit basis. Last year I was awarded the largest raise in our department because despite being their the least amount of time, I was still making entry level pay for doing the same work and then some as everyone else and I had the documented the data to prove it.

THAT is how you negotiate a raise. It's pretty straight forward. Your job description says we'll pay you x for doing y. If you demonstrate you're doing y+, there's your grounds for a raise and you plead your case. If they're any type of company worth working for you'll probably get it. I did. It's not at all uncommon for higher skilled positions. You may have seen job descriptions for job openings that say something like 'pay dependent on experience'. Admittedly though you don't see much of that in the low skill, low paying jobs for a couple reasons. One is a lack of leverage on the part of the employee. There are just too many other people out there that can do what the company needs done for the same price that they don't need to budge to much on their low pay positions and if you bring so much more to the table you should be trying for something else anyway. The other is to FAQ's point; at some point libs have to start holding individuals accountable. That which you don't acknowledge will not change and libs don't acknowledge that all these poor people making sub living wages are where they are because the make bad decisions. That's where the problem solving has to start. If the goal is to get these people more money, you don't start by petitioning the government, or striking, or bellyaching about greedy bosses. You engage in critical, objective introspection and first ask 'What am I doing to contribute to how much income I bring in.'?

Ok, but the whole thing goes to hades, if it is not a company worth working for, or as you spoke of greedy bosses, where as what has been a problem today is this trending that got started among companies and these bosses in this new way of thinking where companies began looking out into the deep blue sea of employee's, yet with a new greed and a lust in their eyes, but it wasn't a lust for a good employee; no but rather in the opposite, where as they wanted an employee who could be exploited and was dumbed down to a level in which could be exploited by them, and they got what they wanted because of the quickly changing landscape of major manufacturing companies taking advantage of Nafta, leaving hundreds of thousands floating out there to be taken in by others regardless of their skill sets (fish out of water), and then miss-treated sadly enough. It's all about leverage as you say, and the companies got a huge leverage over the American employee, and they showed what they could do with that leverage once they got it, and it wasn't pretty in many ways. Now the government decided that it would kick in and save these employee's once they (the employee's) became distraught and angry or confused badly over the situation, so they (the government) began trying to level the playing field, and they began giving great benefits or incentives for an employee to sit on their butts in resistance of the problems being faced by them, but what this caused was a huge dependency by the thousands on government, so the government becoming a union boss as it did, and therefore sidelining thousand's like it did wasn't the right answer either in the situation. What the government should have done, is become a mediator between worker and company but not a fix all in the situation, because that is how we got to where we are at today in all of this.

 

[beagle9]

Seems like it shouldn't be so hard to figure out what a minimum hourly wage would have to be to keep the person with the minimum wage job from qualifying for government assistance.

Is the number 8.50? 10 bucks?

If you apply inflation to the time period minimum wage has been in effect, the number should be around 15.
That's high, but eh you can't argue inflation. Look at the wage inflation for CEOs.

And of course, a higher minimum wage will give a push to wages for more experienced and valued employees. And that's a bad thing how? Since wages and earnings have been flat or declining for years.

Why you all against the hourly wage working man or woman? Just curious on that. I have worked either on 100% commission or bid my own jobs and made what I could. But I sure know a lot of people working for an hourly wage and they haven't had it so good for a while. No unions to represent their interest. No shortage of people looking for a job. Tough job environment.

Why you all so opposed to hourly people getting a little more money in their pockets? It,s not likely they will become your neighbors with a .75 cent raise. Unless you all live in a trailer park?

You can judge the integrity of person's moral compass by examining whether their opinions on something changes based on whether or not it benefits them. I say that because I DO work for an hourly wage ($15/hr). And according to you, since I may not have as much money as I would like, to fix that I should be petitioning the government, or striking, or seeking union representation. I apparently grew with better moral fiber than you because I learned it is not someone else's job to ensure that I have enough to live on. That's MY job. If I want more money, I EARN it. I do that by making myself more valuable to my employer and/or gaining skills that pay more.

The whole problem here is so many of you don't seem to understand the how the relationship between employer and employee works in compensation. THE REASON YOUR EMPLOYER PAYS YOU IS NOT BASED ON WHAT YOU NEED TO LIVE ON. Get that through your head and you'll be better off. Your employer compensates you for the value you add and the skill you provide. Period.

And yet if you are dealing with employers for whom jumped on a bandwagon of lets play the new game of (how low can we go), and this no matter how good of an employee you are, while they go laughing and skipping all the way to their bank afterwards, has nothing to do with this at all I suppose ?

 

[zeke]

Seems like it shouldn't be so hard to figure out what a minimum hourly wage would have to be to keep the person with the minimum wage job from qualifying for government assistance.

Is the number 8.50? 10 bucks?

If you apply inflation to the time period minimum wage has been in effect, the number should be around 15.
That's high, but eh you can't argue inflation. Look at the wage inflation for CEOs.

And of course, a higher minimum wage will give a push to wages for more experienced and valued employees. And that's a bad thing how? Since wages and earnings have been flat or declining for years.

Why you all against the hourly wage working man or woman? Just curious on that. I have worked either on 100% commission or bid my own jobs and made what I could. But I sure know a lot of people working for an hourly wage and they haven't had it so good for a while. No unions to represent their interest. No shortage of people looking for a job. Tough job environment.

Why you all so opposed to hourly people getting a little more money in their pockets? It,s not likely they will become your neighbors with a .75 cent raise. Unless you all live in a trailer park?

You can judge the integrity of person's moral compass by examining whether their opinions on something changes based on whether or not it benefits them. I say that because I DO work for an hourly wage ($15/hr). And according to you, since I may not have as much money as I would like, to fix that I should be petitioning the government, or striking, or seeking union representation. I apparently grew with better moral fiber than you because I learned it is not someone else's job to ensure that I have enough to live on. That's MY job. If I want more money, I EARN it. I do that by making myself more valuable to my employer and/or gaining skills that pay more.

The whole problem here is so many of you don't seem to understand the how the relationship between employer and employee works in compensation. THE REASON YOUR EMPLOYER PAYS YOU IS NOT BASED ON WHAT YOU NEED TO LIVE ON. Get that through your head and you'll be better off. Your employer compensates you for the value you add and the skill you provide. Period.

Because you work for 15 whole dollars an hour YOU have better moral fiber than me?

Hey go to your employer and tell them you will work for 10 dollars an hour. Then you will be 33% closer to sainthood. Go to 5 bucks and you're almost there. Work for free and you will be canonized by your employer. Go for it with all your morality. LMAO.

And seeing as how you seem to know all, why is it that there are employers. I mean, employers aren't doing their thing so you can make a living. They are doing it so THEY can make a living. IF they need or want to pay you much less so that they can take home much more, let your employer know that you understand. They ain't in business for you. You are just out there practicing your morality. And if you wanted to make more money, you could. You would just open your own business. Right? And pay workers the very least amount of money that you could. Because you are moral. How nice.

 

[editec]

Same old arguments over and over again.

 

[Bern80]

Now when an employee wants to negotiate anything, many see that as a big bad thing in which is seen as acting out in a unionized manor, and we know how people hate any unionizing at the bottom, so negotiate how like you are suggesting ?

The way I did is one way. I don't think the way our business does things is that unique. I work as phone tech. rep. in the customer service department of about a 200 million dollar a year company. There are eight other people who have the same job description I do. Each year at review time each department gets budgeted an amount of money to give out in raises on a merit basis. Last year I was awarded the largest raise in our department because despite being their the least amount of time, I was still making entry level pay for doing the same work and then some as everyone else and I had the documented the data to prove it.

THAT is how you negotiate a raise. It's pretty straight forward. Your job description says we'll pay you x for doing y. If you demonstrate you're doing y+, there's your grounds for a raise and you plead your case. If they're any type of company worth working for you'll probably get it. I did. It's not at all uncommon for higher skilled positions. You may have seen job descriptions for job openings that say something like 'pay dependent on experience'. Admittedly though you don't see much of that in the low skill, low paying jobs for a couple reasons. One is a lack of leverage on the part of the employee. There are just too many other people out there that can do what the company needs done for the same price that they don't need to budge to much on their low pay positions and if you bring so much more to the table you should be trying for something else anyway. The other is to FAQ's point; at some point libs have to start holding individuals accountable. That which you don't acknowledge will not change and libs don't acknowledge that all these poor people making sub living wages are where they are because the make bad decisions. That's where the problem solving has to start. If the goal is to get these people more money, you don't start by petitioning the government, or striking, or bellyaching about greedy bosses. You engage in critical, objective introspection and first ask 'What am I doing to contribute to how much income I bring in.'?

Ok, but the whole thing goes to hades, if it is not a company worth working for, or as you spoke of greedy bosses, where as what has been a problem today is this trending that got started among companies and these bosses in this new way of thinking where companies began looking out into the deep blue sea of employee's, yet with a new greed and a lust in their eyes, but it wasn't a lust for a good employee; no but rather in the opposite, where as they wanted an employee who could be exploited and was dumbed down to a level in which could be exploited by them, and they got what they wanted because of the quickly changing landscape of major manufacturing companies taking advantage of Nafta, leaving hundreds of thousands floating out there to be taken in by others regardless of their skill sets (fish out of water), and then miss-treated sadly enough. It's all about leverage as you say, and the companies got a huge leverage over the American employee, and they showed what they could do with that leverage once they got it, and it wasn't pretty in many ways. Now the government decided that it would kick in and save these employee's once they (the employee's) became distraught and angry or confused badly over the situation, so they (the government) began trying to level the playing field, and they began giving great benefits or incentives for an employee to sit on their butts in resistance of the problems being faced by them, but what this caused was a huge dependency by the thousands on government, so the government becoming a union boss as it did, and therefore sidelining thousand's like it did wasn't the right answer either in the situation. What the government should have done, is become a mediator between worker and company but not a fix all in the situation, because that is how we got to where we are at today in all of this.

Again the lack of leverage comes from being under skilled. You simply don't see this problem with people that have acquired the more marketable, in-demand skill sets. The reason is labor is a commodity like anything else and businesses compete for it by offer incentives to attract quality candidates. The issues you present are most prevelant in the low skill, low pay jobs and not because they're evil or greedy. Simply because they have the leverage. You don't pay much more for things than you really need to I would suspect. Why is it so wrong for employers to do the same?

 

[Bern80]

Seems like it shouldn't be so hard to figure out what a minimum hourly wage would have to be to keep the person with the minimum wage job from qualifying for government assistance.

Is the number 8.50? 10 bucks?

If you apply inflation to the time period minimum wage has been in effect, the number should be around 15.
That's high, but eh you can't argue inflation. Look at the wage inflation for CEOs.

And of course, a higher minimum wage will give a push to wages for more experienced and valued employees. And that's a bad thing how? Since wages and earnings have been flat or declining for years.

Why you all against the hourly wage working man or woman? Just curious on that. I have worked either on 100% commission or bid my own jobs and made what I could. But I sure know a lot of people working for an hourly wage and they haven't had it so good for a while. No unions to represent their interest. No shortage of people looking for a job. Tough job environment.

Why you all so opposed to hourly people getting a little more money in their pockets? It,s not likely they will become your neighbors with a .75 cent raise. Unless you all live in a trailer park?

You can judge the integrity of person's moral compass by examining whether their opinions on something changes based on whether or not it benefits them. I say that because I DO work for an hourly wage ($15/hr). And according to you, since I may not have as much money as I would like, to fix that I should be petitioning the government, or striking, or seeking union representation. I apparently grew with better moral fiber than you because I learned it is not someone else's job to ensure that I have enough to live on. That's MY job. If I want more money, I EARN it. I do that by making myself more valuable to my employer and/or gaining skills that pay more.

The whole problem here is so many of you don't seem to understand the how the relationship between employer and employee works in compensation. THE REASON YOUR EMPLOYER PAYS YOU IS NOT BASED ON WHAT YOU NEED TO LIVE ON. Get that through your head and you'll be better off. Your employer compensates you for the value you add and the skill you provide. Period.

And yet if you are dealing with employers for whom jumped on a bandwagon of lets play the new game of (how low can we go), and this no matter how good of an employee you are, while they go laughing and skipping all the way to their bank afterwards, has nothing to do with this at all I suppose ?

This isn't a new concept. A business pays as little as it needs to on what it needs to run the business, including labor. They can't be faulted for that. They will pay as little as they can and individuals obviously try to negotionate for as much as they can. They would probably like to pay a little less and you would probably like to make a little more. So what makes their perspective (the employers) wrong and yours right (the worker)?

 

[Bern80]

Seems like it shouldn't be so hard to figure out what a minimum hourly wage would have to be to keep the person with the minimum wage job from qualifying for government assistance.

Is the number 8.50? 10 bucks?

If you apply inflation to the time period minimum wage has been in effect, the number should be around 15.
That's high, but eh you can't argue inflation. Look at the wage inflation for CEOs.

And of course, a higher minimum wage will give a push to wages for more experienced and valued employees. And that's a bad thing how? Since wages and earnings have been flat or declining for years.

Why you all against the hourly wage working man or woman? Just curious on that. I have worked either on 100% commission or bid my own jobs and made what I could. But I sure know a lot of people working for an hourly wage and they haven't had it so good for a while. No unions to represent their interest. No shortage of people looking for a job. Tough job environment.

Why you all so opposed to hourly people getting a little more money in their pockets? It,s not likely they will become your neighbors with a .75 cent raise. Unless you all live in a trailer park?

You can judge the integrity of person's moral compass by examining whether their opinions on something changes based on whether or not it benefits them. I say that because I DO work for an hourly wage ($15/hr). And according to you, since I may not have as much money as I would like, to fix that I should be petitioning the government, or striking, or seeking union representation. I apparently grew with better moral fiber than you because I learned it is not someone else's job to ensure that I have enough to live on. That's MY job. If I want more money, I EARN it. I do that by making myself more valuable to my employer and/or gaining skills that pay more.

The whole problem here is so many of you don't seem to understand the how the relationship between employer and employee works in compensation. THE REASON YOUR EMPLOYER PAYS YOU IS NOT BASED ON WHAT YOU NEED TO LIVE ON. Get that through your head and you'll be better off. Your employer compensates you for the value you add and the skill you provide. Period.

Because you work for 15 whole dollars an hour YOU have better moral fiber than me?

Hey go to your employer and tell them you will work for 10 dollars an hour. Then you will be 33% closer to sainthood. Go to 5 bucks and you're almost there. Work for free and you will be canonized by your employer. Go for it with all your morality. LMAO.

And seeing as how you seem to know all, why is it that there are employers. I mean, employers aren't doing their thing so you can make a living. They are doing it so THEY can make a living. IF they need or want to pay you much less so that they can take home much more, let your employer know that you understand. They ain't in business for you. You are just out there practicing your morality. And if you wanted to make more money, you could. You would just open your own business. Right? And pay workers the very least amount of money that you could. Because you are moral. How nice.

Way to completely miss the point. I didn't say making low wages constitutes an individual of high morality, or that a person should offer to work for less because it is the right thing to do. What I said was I am a moral enough person to know that despite the benefit that may come from me petitioning the government, or going on strike or unionizing to achieve more pay, I am a moral enough person to know that's extorting money as opposed to earning it. If I did that I would be passing the responsibility of increasing my income on to someone else when it really isn't anyone else's responsibility to provide for my needs. I have the knowledge and capability to take the necessary steps to make more money if/when I choose to. Passing on the responsibility of doing something that you have the ability to do yourself is what is immoral.

 

[jwoodie]

Has anyone considered an employee's monetary value in relation to the wage being paid? If an employee's work doesn't generate revenue at least twice the wage he/she is being paid, there is no reason to hire him/her. For example, an employee should generate at least $20/hr in revenue to justify $10/hr in wages + taxes + benefits + reasonable return on investment. Otherwise, it is not worth the risk to the employer, who assumes all kinds of potential liability stemming from this hiring decision.

 

[zeke]

You can judge the integrity of person's moral compass by examining whether their opinions on something changes based on whether or not it benefits them. I say that because I DO work for an hourly wage ($15/hr). And according to you, since I may not have as much money as I would like, to fix that I should be petitioning the government, or striking, or seeking union representation. I apparently grew with better moral fiber than you because I learned it is not someone else's job to ensure that I have enough to live on. That's MY job. If I want more money, I EARN it. I do that by making myself more valuable to my employer and/or gaining skills that pay more.

The whole problem here is so many of you don't seem to understand the how the relationship between employer and employee works in compensation. THE REASON YOUR EMPLOYER PAYS YOU IS NOT BASED ON WHAT YOU NEED TO LIVE ON. Get that through your head and you'll be better off. Your employer compensates you for the value you add and the skill you provide. Period.

Because you work for 15 whole dollars an hour YOU have better moral fiber than me?

Hey go to your employer and tell them you will work for 10 dollars an hour. Then you will be 33% closer to sainthood. Go to 5 bucks and you're almost there. Work for free and you will be canonized by your employer. Go for it with all your morality. LMAO.

And seeing as how you seem to know all, why is it that there are employers. I mean, employers aren't doing their thing so you can make a living. They are doing it so THEY can make a living. IF they need or want to pay you much less so that they can take home much more, let your employer know that you understand. They ain't in business for you. You are just out there practicing your morality. And if you wanted to make more money, you could. You would just open your own business. Right? And pay workers the very least amount of money that you could. Because you are moral. How nice.

Way to completely miss the point. I didn't say making low wages constitutes an individual of high morality, or that a person should offer to work for less because it is the right thing to do. What I said was I am a moral enough person to know that despite the benefit that may come from me petitioning the government, or going on strike or unionizing to achieve more pay, I am a moral enough person to know that's extorting money as opposed to earning it. If I did that I would be passing the responsibility of increasing my income on to someone else when it really isn't anyone else's responsibility to provide for my needs. I have the knowledge and capability to take the necessary steps to make more money if/when I choose to. Passing on the responsibility of doing something that you have the ability to do yourself is what is immoral.

I do want to make sure that I understand what you are saying before I make any more of my smart ass comments.

Do you think that going on strike or belonging to a union is immoral?

And, if YOU ran a business, would you pay your workers the least amount of money that you possibly could. Regardless of how successful your business was?

 

[beagle9]

The way I did is one way. I don't think the way our business does things is that unique. I work as phone tech. rep. in the customer service department of about a 200 million dollar a year company. There are eight other people who have the same job description I do. Each year at review time each department gets budgeted an amount of money to give out in raises on a merit basis. Last year I was awarded the largest raise in our department because despite being their the least amount of time, I was still making entry level pay for doing the same work and then some as everyone else and I had the documented the data to prove it.

THAT is how you negotiate a raise. It's pretty straight forward. Your job description says we'll pay you x for doing y. If you demonstrate you're doing y+, there's your grounds for a raise and you plead your case. If they're any type of company worth working for you'll probably get it. I did. It's not at all uncommon for higher skilled positions. You may have seen job descriptions for job openings that say something like 'pay dependent on experience'. Admittedly though you don't see much of that in the low skill, low paying jobs for a couple reasons. One is a lack of leverage on the part of the employee. There are just too many other people out there that can do what the company needs done for the same price that they don't need to budge to much on their low pay positions and if you bring so much more to the table you should be trying for something else anyway. The other is to FAQ's point; at some point libs have to start holding individuals accountable. That which you don't acknowledge will not change and libs don't acknowledge that all these poor people making sub living wages are where they are because the make bad decisions. That's where the problem solving has to start. If the goal is to get these people more money, you don't start by petitioning the government, or striking, or bellyaching about greedy bosses. You engage in critical, objective introspection and first ask 'What am I doing to contribute to how much income I bring in.'?

Ok, but the whole thing goes to hades, if it is not a company worth working for, or as you spoke of greedy bosses, where as what has been a problem today is this trending that got started among companies and these bosses in this new way of thinking where companies began looking out into the deep blue sea of employee's, yet with a new greed and a lust in their eyes, but it wasn't a lust for a good employee; no but rather in the opposite, where as they wanted an employee who could be exploited and was dumbed down to a level in which could be exploited by them, and they got what they wanted because of the quickly changing landscape of major manufacturing companies taking advantage of Nafta, leaving hundreds of thousands floating out there to be taken in by others regardless of their skill sets (fish out of water), and then miss-treated sadly enough. It's all about leverage as you say, and the companies got a huge leverage over the American employee, and they showed what they could do with that leverage once they got it, and it wasn't pretty in many ways. Now the government decided that it would kick in and save these employee's once they (the employee's) became distraught and angry or confused badly over the situation, so they (the government) began trying to level the playing field, and they began giving great benefits or incentives for an employee to sit on their butts in resistance of the problems being faced by them, but what this caused was a huge dependency by the thousands on government, so the government becoming a union boss as it did, and therefore sidelining thousand's like it did wasn't the right answer either in the situation. What the government should have done, is become a mediator between worker and company but not a fix all in the situation, because that is how we got to where we are at today in all of this.

Again the lack of leverage comes from being under skilled. You simply don't see this problem with people that have acquired the more marketable, in-demand skill sets. The reason is labor is a commodity like anything else and businesses compete for it by offer incentives to attract quality candidates. The issues you present are most prevelant in the low skill, low pay jobs and not because they're evil or greedy. Simply because they have the leverage. You don't pay much more for things than you really need to I would suspect. Why is it so wrong for employers to do the same?

So human beings are just commodity, so is that what you are saying here ? How about talk about human beings as being humans, then re-read your words with the word commodity and labor changed to human beings, and then see how it sounds. All companies don't require high skilled workers or even moderately skilled workers to work for them, and still yet they operate in a field that makes them huge profits even with the lower to moderate skilled workers, but does their being lower or moderately skilled in a situation like this, warrant the company to treat them as low skilled workers with little pay or benefits, when these very workers are helping them in their industry to make boo-coo big time money ? The only thing needed is a structured pay scale set up within any company, that has an entrance rate, a percentage rate for raises yearly in each category with some benefits, and an exit or top out rate for each individual job title that is within the company or companies for which could be listed if a list is compiled on them. This would solve a lot, and hopefully we will get there again, but it is doubtful the way things have been going for so long now.

 

[Bern80]

I do want to make sure that I understand what you are saying before I make any more of my smart ass comments.

Do you think that going on strike or belonging to a union is immoral?

It depends on why you're doing it. If it's because you have a truly abusive employer, that's one thing. If it's because you want or need more pay, benefits, whatever for no more effort on your part, then yes, I believe that's wrong because providing what you need or want simply isn't your employer's responsibility

And, if YOU ran a business, would you pay your workers the least amount of money that you possibly could. Regardless of how successful your business was?

Of course I would. I just don't think that would be the peanuts you think it would. What I would need to pay to actually get someone to work for me would be dependent on similar, in demand skill sets are going for. If choose to pay less when there are reasonable opportunities for more close by, then I'm not going to have many employees. Not good ones any way. And wouldn't you, as a job seeker, try to get paid as much as you could? Why is the job seeker in the moral right for getting as much as they can out of an employer while the employer is morally wrong for trying to pay as little as they can? The more you get out of your employer the less there is left for them to take home for themselves, just like the less they try to pay the less there is for you to take home. Both sides are doing the exact same thing.

 

[Bern80]

So human beings are just commodity, so is that what you are saying here ? How about talk about human beings as being humans, then re-read your words with the word commodity and labor changed to human beings, and then see how it sounds. All companies don't require high skilled workers or even moderately skilled workers to work for them, and still yet they operate in a field that makes them huge profits even with the lower to moderate skilled workers, but does their being lower or moderately skilled in a situation like this, warrant the company to treat them as low skilled workers with little pay or benefits, when these very workers are helping them in their industry to make boo-coo big time money ? The only thing needed is a structured pay scale set up within any company, that has an entrance rate, a percentage rate for raises yearly in each category with some benefits, and an exit or top out rate for each individual job title that is within the company or companies for which could be listed if a list is compiled on them. This would solve a lot, and hopefully we will get there again, but it is doubtful the way things have been going for so long now.

Most major companies already do that. Mine does. You just don't like the fact that some pay scales for positions are really low. Pay is not determined by what you need. It is not determined by your companies profits. It is determined by the value of the skill you provide in your area as established by the market which essentially is a sample of what like skilled workers are being paid in your region.

Yes labor is a commodity. Get over your 'but they're human beings who need compassion' bull shit. That skills are a commodity, and by extension, the people that possess them is not some evil plot. It's simple reality. No one takes the risk of going into business for themselves for the sole purpose I've providing a standard of living for others. They do it for the freedom of attaining their own desired outcomes. Don't talk to me like I should be feeling bad because I think labor is a commodity subject to the market forces of any other commodity. Shame on YOU for thinking it's the risk takers responsibility to provide for you.

 

[beagle9]

I do want to make sure that I understand what you are saying before I make any more of my smart ass comments.

Do you think that going on strike or belonging to a union is immoral?

It depends on why you're doing it. If it's because you have a truly abusive employer, that's one thing. If it's because you want or need more pay, benefits, whatever for no more effort on your part, then yes, I believe that's wrong because providing what you need or want simply isn't your employer's responsibility

And, if YOU ran a business, would you pay your workers the least amount of money that you possibly could. Regardless of how successful your business was?

Of course I would. I just don't think that would be the peanuts you think it would. What I would need to pay to actually get someone to work for me would be dependent on similar, in demand skill sets are going for. If choose to pay less when there are reasonable opportunities for more close by, then I'm not going to have many employees. Not good ones any way. And wouldn't you, as a job seeker, try to get paid as much as you could? Why is the job seeker in the moral right for getting as much as they can out of an employer while the employer is morally wrong for trying to pay as little as they can? The more you get out of your employer the less there is left for them to take home for themselves, just like the less they try to pay the less there is for you to take home. Both sides are doing the exact same thing.

It's all about balancing, and about what has happened to the middle class as well as the youth in this nation, because the balance is broken, and continues to be broken until someone speaks out about it all in these ways. Hec things are so broken now, just look what is going on in the Presidency. Tell me this nation isn't screwed up right now, and I might just tell you a lie as well if you say that it isn't.

 

[zeke]

I do want to make sure that I understand what you are saying before I make any more of my smart ass comments.

Do you think that going on strike or belonging to a union is immoral?

It depends on why you're doing it. If it's because you have a truly abusive employer, that's one thing. If it's because you want or need more pay, benefits, whatever for no more effort on your part, then yes, I believe that's wrong because providing what you need or want simply isn't your employer's responsibility

And, if YOU ran a business, would you pay your workers the least amount of money that you possibly could. Regardless of how successful your business was?

Of course I would. I just don't think that would be the peanuts you think it would. What I would need to pay to actually get someone to work for me would be dependent on similar, in demand skill sets are going for. If choose to pay less when there are reasonable opportunities for more close by, then I'm not going to have many employees. Not good ones any way. And wouldn't you, as a job seeker, try to get paid as much as you could? Why is the job seeker in the moral right for getting as much as they can out of an employer while the employer is morally wrong for trying to pay as little as they can? The more you get out of your employer the less there is left for them to take home for themselves, just like the less they try to pay the less there is for you to take home. Both sides are doing the exact same thing.

Interesting replies. I think that you have an unusual take on unions and the reason working people have a need for unions and the benefits unions give employees. I've never belonged to a union, my Dad did. Plus I lived in a UAW city for many years. Till all the GM jobs went south.

Don't know what you do for a living but if you were union represented, you would probably be making more than 15 bucks an hour. If you are skilled labor. Would that be a good thing?

But I don't think you appreciate what Henry Ford understood. If you don't pay people enough money to make a decent living then you don't have the consumers that a consumer economy like our really needs.

Increased paychecks for hourly working people will stimulate the economy much faster than CEO's and other executives getting an extra few million in bonus money for slashing payroll. IMO.

 

[Bern80]

I do want to make sure that I understand what you are saying before I make any more of my smart ass comments.

Do you think that going on strike or belonging to a union is immoral?

It depends on why you're doing it. If it's because you have a truly abusive employer, that's one thing. If it's because you want or need more pay, benefits, whatever for no more effort on your part, then yes, I believe that's wrong because providing what you need or want simply isn't your employer's responsibility

And, if YOU ran a business, would you pay your workers the least amount of money that you possibly could. Regardless of how successful your business was?

Of course I would. I just don't think that would be the peanuts you think it would. What I would need to pay to actually get someone to work for me would be dependent on similar, in demand skill sets are going for. If choose to pay less when there are reasonable opportunities for more close by, then I'm not going to have many employees. Not good ones any way. And wouldn't you, as a job seeker, try to get paid as much as you could? Why is the job seeker in the moral right for getting as much as they can out of an employer while the employer is morally wrong for trying to pay as little as they can? The more you get out of your employer the less there is left for them to take home for themselves, just like the less they try to pay the less there is for you to take home. Both sides are doing the exact same thing.

It's all about balancing, and about what has happened to the middle class as well as the youth in this nation, because the balance is broken, and continues to be broken until someone speaks out about it all in these ways. Hec things are so broken now, just look what is going on in the Presidency. Tell me this nation isn't screwed up right now, and I might just tell you a lie as well if you say that it isn't.

I agree, but you have to step back and quit blaming just one side. This is not the fault of evil corporations. A lot of it falls on the shoulders of the middle class and poor themselves. They aren't adapting to the changing economy. We're still sending kids to expensive colleges telling them to 'follow their dreams' as if getting a degree, any degree, is enough to insure financial stability after college. As I said before if your bemoaning the pay of an individual or poor person the very first thing you should be advising those people is to determine first what they are doing to contribute to the problem. What choices contributed to the sitation? How do they handle money? What are they doing to improve the situation? If you don't address those things first nothing you do externally to fix the problem is going to help them.

Of course persepctive is based on experience. I have always worked for large companies that treat their employees fairly and in fact pretty well. And the reason I believe a lot of the blame falls on the individuals in the poor and middle class is because it is observable every single day. From a temp that's gonna make about $10/hr came in to work for us, baby on the way (not married to the mother), and decides a wise expenditure at this juncture would be to finance and Jaguar and a couple flat screen TVs (already had a perfectly good working one by the way). To another friend of mine who has no job at all, a kid to support, getting a degree with few job prospects, but somehow how has enough money for a pack a week of cigarettes and a smart phone. That's just the tip of the ice berg and if you really start observing the people you know I think you would see the same types of bad decisions.

 

[Bern80]

Interesting replies. I think that you have an unusual take on unions and the reason working people have a need for unions and the benefits unions give employees. I've never belonged to a union, my Dad did. Plus I lived in a UAW city for many years. Till all the GM jobs went south.

Don't know what you do for a living but if you were union represented, you would probably be making more than 15 bucks an hour. If you are skilled labor. Would that be a good thing?

As I said to beagle, if you determine whether something is moral by whether it benefits you, your moral compass may require some adjustment. Just because that might be beneficial to me doesn't make it right. There are all kinds of way to make more money. I could find another job. I could get promoted within the company. I could do extra work on the side. The last option on my list would be to extort more money from my employer (who treats me pretty well) by threatening to unionize.

Look at the people who are in unions. Almost universally they are low skill jobs. Those with more skills that are in demand have no real need for them. I think you made a slight mistatement in saying working people have a need for unions. They don't so much have a need for unions as they have a need for more money. Instead of improving themselves they hire union reps to bully employers into giving them more money for no more effort on the part of the employee. The problem I have with unions is it's a never ending cycle. The job of a union rep is protect and improve the pay and benefits of its members. To continue to get paid they have to continue to deliver to their members. Otherwise why pay dues to be in one? So they keep extorting the employer for more and more to keep their job and show their members they're doing something for them while the members don't have to do much of anything to better themselves in the free market ways that would MERIT more pay and benefits. They protect the lowest common denominators and actually keep people from bettering themselves. Look how hard it is to fire a bad teacher sometime. Instead of getting fired and doing what they need to do to keep a job, they drag their employer through years of red tape and hearings and money.

But I don't think you appreciate what Henry Ford understood. If you don't pay people enough money to make a decent living then you don't have the consumers that a consumer economy like our really needs.

That's interesting. There was actually just a documetary on about him. He really was no friend of the common worker. He only came around to it after being bullied by unions, which of course at the time was the mafia.

Increased paychecks for hourly working people will stimulate the economy much faster than CEO's and other executives getting an extra few million in bonus money for slashing payroll. IMO.

What was it, like 3% of all workers make min wage. So we raise the 3% of workers wages from min wage to say, $12/hr. That's not going to have a significant on the economy. It increases unemployment and takes jobs away from people looking for supplemental income or from young people who could really use the work experience. It's better to take responsibility yourself to do what needs to be done to make more money (and it can be done with a little effort), rather than extort it out of your employer.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Ok, but the whole thing goes to hades, if it is not a company worth working for, or as you spoke of greedy bosses, where as what has been a problem today is this trending that got started among companies and these bosses in this new way of thinking where companies began looking out into the deep blue sea of employee's, yet with a new greed and a lust in their eyes, but it wasn't a lust for a good employee; no but rather in the opposite, where as they wanted an employee who could be exploited and was dumbed down to a level in which could be exploited by them, and they got what they wanted because of the quickly changing landscape of major manufacturing companies taking advantage of Nafta, leaving hundreds of thousands floating out there to be taken in by others regardless of their skill sets (fish out of water), and then miss-treated sadly enough. It's all about leverage as you say, and the companies got a huge leverage over the American employee, and they showed what they could do with that leverage once they got it, and it wasn't pretty in many ways. Now the government decided that it would kick in and save these employee's once they (the employee's) became distraught and angry or confused badly over the situation, so they (the government) began trying to level the playing field, and they began giving great benefits or incentives for an employee to sit on their butts in resistance of the problems being faced by them, but what this caused was a huge dependency by the thousands on government, so the government becoming a union boss as it did, and therefore sidelining thousand's like it did wasn't the right answer either in the situation. What the government should have done, is become a mediator between worker and company but not a fix all in the situation, because that is how we got to where we are at today in all of this.

Again the lack of leverage comes from being under skilled. You simply don't see this problem with people that have acquired the more marketable, in-demand skill sets. The reason is labor is a commodity like anything else and businesses compete for it by offer incentives to attract quality candidates. The issues you present are most prevelant in the low skill, low pay jobs and not because they're evil or greedy. Simply because they have the leverage. You don't pay much more for things than you really need to I would suspect. Why is it so wrong for employers to do the same?

So human beings are just commodity, so is that what you are saying here ? How about talk about human beings as being humans, then re-read your words with the word commodity and labor changed to human beings, and then see how it sounds. All companies don't require high skilled workers or even moderately skilled workers to work for them, and still yet they operate in a field that makes them huge profits even with the lower to moderate skilled workers, but does their being lower or moderately skilled in a situation like this, warrant the company to treat them as low skilled workers with little pay or benefits, when these very workers are helping them in their industry to make boo-coo big time money ? The only thing needed is a structured pay scale set up within any company, that has an entrance rate, a percentage rate for raises yearly in each category with some benefits, and an exit or top out rate for each individual job title that is within the company or companies for which could be listed if a list is compiled on them. This would solve a lot, and hopefully we will get there again, but it is doubtful the way things have been going for so long now.

Lol! Human beings are absolutely a commodity. Whether you consider a human being "priceless" or not is immaterial. . . a person's efforts carry with them a finite value at any given point in time. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the number exists. Everything has a price. The sooner you make peace with that concept, the sooner you can expand your basic understanding of economics.

Do you know why McDonalds doesn't "owe" every one of its employees the wage they "deserve"? Because "deserve" isn't based in reality. You're not using logic to decide that they should pay their fry cooks more money because those fry cooks "helped them profit". What brought you to that conclusion is your own morality which, I'm sorry to say, is in no way based in fact or logic.

Fry cooks get paid 8 dollars an hour because they're worth roughly 8 dollars an hour because they're doing work that you could train a monkey to do. Difficult? Perhaps. I've heard fast food joints go at break-neck pace. Nevertheless, it's called low skilled labor for a reason. Anybody can do it, including teenagers who are still in school and not qualified to do much else. Teenagers who don't typically have to pay rent and to whom that 8 dollars an hour represents a pretty attractive entertainment fund. It's an entry level job, not a career choice.

Now, personally I existed in the job market for nearly a decade before I even got my GED. You know how many min wage jobs I worked? 1. Stuck around, became management. Applied for other management positions and some sales gigs, the management because that became a higher paying job for which I qualified, and sales to expand my overall marketability. It's not hard to lift yourself out of the Jack In The Box kitchen.

In summation, I don't feel bad at all for most people trying to raise families on min wage. Why did you create more people if you never worked enough in your life to qualify for better than Mc'y D's?