Workers want pay boost

[slappy magoo]

Slappy used to be a much more prolific poster, not counting this thread, before the Like system was implemented. He is also one of the more well respected and liked members around here. So that's not really an accurate or fair comment.

I tend to post more as I plan the next trip. Otherwise visiting the forum is too painful, like getting a visit from your true love but not being able to consummate the relationship because the prison guard on duty is a stickler for the "no touching" rule and oh I've typed too much...

 

[WDWDad13]

@slappy magoo - I was just thinking... if someone spends 40-50 hours for a week helping build a house for habitat for humanity in their community should they be compensated so they have a livable income?

 

[slappy magoo]

@slappy magoo - I was just thinking... if someone spends 40-50 hours for a week helping build a house for habitat for humanity in their community should they be compensated so they have a livable income?

Could God make a rock so big that He Himself can't lift it?
You want to find exceptions to the rule instead of manning up to your self-imposed challenge, is that it?

 

[WDWDad13]

Hell, I could survive on nothing if I married myself a sugar mama! I could give money away were I a billionaire! I could make it rain were I a god! Let's see some numbers, Slim. You said you could do it. So prove it.

I will say this - "looking for ways to move up the ladder or find opportunities elsewhere" is not, in and of itself, a way to earn income. There's a difference twixt the means to an end and the end. Something to ponder while you put your numbers down. I already helped - there's an apartment complex in Orlando that has 4 bedroom units starting at 900. So with three roommates that only means you nee 225 a month in rent. Continue apace.

lol you just don't get it do you... I could come up with about 100 different sets of "numbers" because it's all different based on the person and their possible situations

again... maybe this didn't sink in...but there will always be low paying entry level jobs either at Disney, mcd's, etc. that's the way it has always been... those jobs aren't meant as a primary job for someone supporting themselves or others...there's a reason it's called an entry level job... entry into the workforce to move UP if they work hard and apply themselves

 

[Obi]

I don't believe slappy was thinking that a liveable wage included a smartphone with all the bells and whistles, x-box and so on.

I believe he was talking about the people that DO want to work, put in 40-50 hour weeks to make the bare minimum to survive on. That being a roof over their heads, afford basic ( not lavish) groceries, a reliable ( not fancy ) vehicle, gas, car insurance and that sort of stuff. Not giving people enough to live a luxurious lifestyle, but just being able to live period.

 

[WDWDad13]

I don't believe slappy was thinking that a liveable wage included a smartphone with all the bells and whistles, x-box and so on.

I believe he was talking about the people that DO want to work, put in 40-50 hour weeks to make the bare minimum to survive on. That being a roof over their heads, afford basic ( not lavish) groceries, a reliable ( not fancy ) vehicle, gas, car insurance and that sort of stuff. Not giving people enough to live a luxurious lifestyle, but just being able to live period.

that might be true if he didn't say that "livable" includes having a cell phone and internet access too. internet access also means you have a phone or a computer/tablet that has the access to get there

 

[flynnibus]

You should tell that to your new bestie WDWDad13...i

I wouldn't know.. he's been on ignore forever. Fact holds true still.

I'm riding my emmotions? That's precious, truly. I'm sorry your fee-fees were hurt. But as I've said, I believe once or twice, I'm talking about people who are working full-time, yet have to rely on public assistance because their pay is so inadequate, and if someone is working hard at a job 40-50 hours a week, they deserve a livable wage

So your Utopian society only embraces people who can work full time... and you have no answers for people who work part time?

What about employers who don't need 40-50hrs worth of work? Are we just to flush that type of work down the drain and never do it? Because why would we hire people and pay them things they can't live on...

Discussion of part-time work is a red herring as far as I'm concerned, and if one of your part-time employees gave you that red herring thinking it was a good zinger to use, you should reprimand them. But don't fire them. They probably need the gruel and loincloth you're providing as pay.

It's not a red herring - it's part of the system you need to address to make your Utopian ideal real and feasible. Yet, you have no answers for it. So you chose to put the blinders on and say 'nah nah nah nah' and you don't want to face realities. So instead of a plan, you have an ideal... an ideal you have no idea how to execute in practice. So really no point in continuing this.

 

[TubaGeek]

that might be true if he didn't say that "livable" includes having a cell phone and internet access too. internet access also means you have a phone or a computer/tablet that has the access to get there

Yeah! And who needs indoor plumbing anyways! And lightbulbs and anything other than army rations and water!
That's progress, bub. The lowest quality of life in America (and everywhere else) should always be climbing (like minimum wage and the cost of living), not stuck in the 1800's like some people theorize.

 

[WDWDad13]

Yeah! And who needs indoor plumbing anyways! And lightbulbs and anything other than army rations and water!
That's progress, bub. The lowest quality of life in America (and everywhere else) should always be climbing (like minimum wage and the cost of living), not stuck in the 1800's like some people theorize.

I said many posts ago that maybe it would make more sense for the minimum wage to gradually move up slightly every couple of years rather than a big bang move all at once which is what it usually seems to do... that would make it easier on everyone... employees and business it would seem

 

[flynnibus]

I believe he was talking about the people that DO want to work, put in 40-50 hour weeks to make the bare minimum to survive on. That being a roof over their heads, afford basic ( not lavish) groceries, a reliable ( not fancy ) vehicle, gas, car insurance and that sort of stuff. Not giving people enough to live a luxurious lifestyle, but just being able to live period.

Put it in practice tho... stop talking idealology and try to put it in practice. What is acceptable?
Think simple housing... everyone knows housing varies greatly by location. So, who gets to dictate what a 'livable' commuting range is so they can rent a place they can afford?

In my county, its not uncommon for teachers to have to commute about 45mins from West Virginia because the localized housing is too expensive where their school is. Most of the people in the area commute for 30-60mins because even upper middle class can't afford to live where their job is because the work is concentrated in the city where it's not physically possible to put everyone. How do you decide it's ok for the federal employee to have to drive 60mins to get to his office because your livable wage only affords him a house 45miles away... while somewhere else you say they should be able to live within 20mins of their work place.

People here have argued its essential to have internet and cell phones... so does my livable wage include being able to buy cell phones for my kids? They want to work too...

It's a hopeless battle to say "pay people to live within XYZ means" - because XYZ is so variable and all you end up doing is creating some government entity to decide what is 'essential' - and then everyone complains about that definition, and the markets adapt to create separation between that level and everything else. It's the projects all over again...

 

[Obi]

wdwdad13,

that is why there is a huge problem now. minimum wage has not gone up slightly every couple of years. what has gone up is the cost of living. if minimum wage went up every couple of years there wouldn't have been a need for a big jump now.

as far as cm's wanting a boost in pay, i think they deserve it. not talking a HUGE jump. if disney recorded big financial gains, then i don't see why a little bump in the cm's pay is a huge deal.

 

[slappy magoo]

I wouldn't know.. he's been on ignore forever. Fact holds true still.



So your Utopian society only embraces people who can work full time... and you have no answers for people who work part time?

What about employers who don't need 40-50hrs worth of work? Are we just to flush that type of work down the drain and never do it? Because why would we hire people and pay them things they can't live on...



It's not a red herring - it's part of the system you need to address to make your Utopian ideal real and feasible. Yet, you have no answers for it. So you chose to put the blinders on and say 'nah nah nah nah' and you don't want to face realities. So instead of a plan, you have an ideal... an ideal you have no idea how to execute in practice. So really no point in continuing this.

Uh...no. Because I'm talking about full-time work. I've got nothing against part-time work or part-time workers. Why some of my best friends are only my best friends 2-5pm, off when it rains. I'm talking about the dignity of not needing federal assistance when you are working full-time. I can understand your desire to change the subject, poor thing, must want to be right about something. One day, sweetness, one day...

But I will say (or, rather, write) this - if someone is working 2 or 3 part time jobs because they can't find a full-time job, I think the cumulative salary from all those part time jobs should be enough to live on without aid as well. I find that just as appalling in the richest country on earth as working a single full time job and needing aid, that you could be working 3 20-25 hour a week jobs and still need to take precious time away from your family or taking a much-needed nap to apply for aid

 

[slappy magoo]

I don't believe slappy was thinking that a liveable wage included a smartphone with all the bells and whistles, x-box and so on.

I believe he was talking about the people that DO want to work, put in 40-50 hour weeks to make the bare minimum to survive on. That being a roof over their heads, afford basic ( not lavish) groceries, a reliable ( not fancy ) vehicle, gas, car insurance and that sort of stuff. Not giving people enough to live a luxurious lifestyle, but just being able to live period.

Thanks, obi, but I do believe, however in the importance of a cell phone and internet as tools to help you find work. If a job opens up and can be filled quickly, having instant access is important. If it's a choice between internet or food, I think food is more important. But it was WDWDad13 who, along with flynnibus, relish in the thought of poor people having even fewer tools at their disposa to break their cycles of poverty.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Needy much? And what happened to your itemized list of how you'd survive on a grand a month? I mean, you're the one who said you could do it, I'm merely asking you to accept your own challenge. Unless you've already tried and realized you can't and you're just hoping ignoring it is cute.

I think what is far more important is a strong, concise definition of the life a living wage is intended to support. Phrases like "enough to pay the rent" are weighed down with far too many variables. What is the size and age of the place being rented? What amenities are included? Does this wage include cable television? High speed internet? DSL, cable or fiber? Feature phone or smartphone? A working or non-working partner? Kids? How many? College tuition for those kids? Vacations? How many at what cost? There has to be a base definition and based on what you are saying, the federal poverty level you have also invoked is not a sufficient baseline.

 

[flynnibus]

I find it charming that you assume someone who enjoys his/her job and would prefer to remain in it is a "slacker."

That's not what I said - but feel free to keep dancing to avoid the examples. You've advocated giving pay raises purely for longevity. That creates the situation where people are paid disproportionate. You've yet to address that... instead try to spin the examples into showing how I'm some slave driver.

No, they have an incentive to continue doing their job well or risk getting fired for not doing their job well

So if the person's job hangs on the employer finding value in the employee.. then you must acknowledge that value is weighed against it's cost. If I can pay a 20yr old a 'living wage' and get the same value or more.. than an 35yr old employee who costs me a higher 'living wage'.... don't you see how this creates incentives to get rid of the 35yr old? By forcing people's pay scales... all you do is make those more expensive people more vulnerable.

Not if the employer finds a value - tangible or not - in keeping long term employees around. Clearly you wouldn't which must make your holiday parties oh-so-cheery.

Unfortunately a business does not keep the lights on and make payroll with intangible values. There are realities that come into play that must be faced.

If you're bored, by all means, you're free to stop posting. I'm not pointing a gun at your head. After all, if you have a bad work day because you were sleepy posting on a Disney board, you might get replaced by some young whippersnapper with dandy ideas to increase productivity while decreasing overhead.

Yes, another attack. It's hysterical actually... because your view of my position is so god awful wrong when you think people should be slaves or paid menial wages. In fact the environment I was referring to was one where people were paid quite handsomely, employees loved their job and their work environment, there was basically no turnover (In interviews I told people 'if you are here after 6m.. you'll be here forever'), employees had great benefits, mutual respect was higher than any other work environment I've seen, and both the company and employees in turn were wildly successful. And you know what... people's compensation varied greatly... because people were paid and rewarded on their contributions, not pre-determined charts from governments. People were motivated to contibute and grow.. and in turn their quality of life outside of work was quite high as well. An environment that thrived because people were personally vested in success - and growing if their needs grew. Not sitting around pouting how the boss owed them more for doing less.

 

[slappy magoo]

lol you just don't get it do you... I could come up with about 100 different sets of "numbers" because it's all different based on the person and their possible situations

I "get" that you can't successfully complete your own challenge. How sad.

again... maybe this didn't sink in...but there will always be low paying entry level jobs either at Disney, mcd's, etc. that's the way it has always been... those jobs aren't meant as a primary job for someone supporting themselves or others...there's a reason it's called an entry level job... entry into the workforce to move UP if they work hard and apply themselves

Oh,it sunk in that that's how you feel. And clearly you're not alone.

I know your avatar is a primate... but quit slinging poo

I actually have no desire to reply to this because honestly, after that comment about my comment-to-like ratio, I really pity you. That came across as such a high school thing, such a Shannen-Doherty-in-Heathers thing, such an Amanda-Bynes-at-the-height-of-her-mental-illness-replying-to-all-comments-about-her-with-"shut-up-you're-ugly"-tweets thing, that I have nothing but sadness for you. And to think someone that petty is someone's dad. Shame, really.

 

[slappy magoo]

That's not what I said - but feel free to keep dancing to avoid the examples. You've advocated giving pay raises purely for longevity. That creates the situation where people are paid disproportionate. You've yet to address that... instead try to spin the examples into showing how I'm some slave driver.

Not purely longevity. By all means, fire someone who isn't delivering the goods. But if someone continues to do it, pay them a decent wage, Ebeneezer.

So if the person's job hangs on the employer finding value in the employee.. then you must acknowledge that value is weighed against it's cost. If I can pay a 20yr old a 'living wage' and get the same value or more.. than an 35yr old employee who costs me a higher 'living wage'.... don't you see how this creates incentives to get rid of the 35yr old? By forcing people's pay scales... all you do is make those more expensive people more vulnerable.

I guess no one ever taught you about intangibles sometimes being able to pay dividends. If I have a 35 year old sales rep and a 22 year old sales rep, and the 35 sales rep gets paid more but I know he brings in repeat business and makes my business more popular, and getting rid of him might result in losing business, he's worth it.

Unfortunately a business does not keep the lights on and make payroll with intangible values. There are realities that come into play that must be faced.

Tell me more about the Depression, Grandpa? Did it make you mad? Did it make you mean-mad?

Yes, another attack. It's hysterical actually... because your view of my position is so god awful wrong when you think people should be slaves or paid menial wages. In fact the environment I was referring to was one where people were paid quite handsomely, employees loved their job and their work environment, there was basically no turnover (In interviews I told people 'if you are here after 6m.. you'll be here forever'), employees had great benefits, mutual respect was higher than any other work environment I've seen, and both the company and employees in turn were wildly successful. And you know what... people's compensation varied greatly... because people were paid and rewarded on their contributions, not pre-determined charts from governments. People were motivated to contibute and grow.. and in turn their quality of life outside of work was quite high as well. An environment that thrived because people were personally vested in success - and growing if their needs grew. Not sitting around pouting how the boss owed them more for doing less.

Awww. don't think of them as "attacks." Think of them as "you bore me and I'm trying to amuse myself." There. Better?

 

[flynnibus]

Uh...no. Because I'm talking about full-time work. I've got nothing against part-time work or part-time workers

sure you do... by excluding them you've advocated that their plight is not worthy of a livable wage, while those that can clear their slate for 40hr weeks should be. You've yet to acknowledge how dependents play into your view of 'livable wage' (or any worker variables for that matter). Unless we are all single your theory falls flat. You keep taking this individual slice and say 'we should pay these people a living wage because its the moral thing to do' - all while turning your back on everyone else.

You can't just take a subset of people and say "these people deserve our moral support" and put blinders on for everyone else. Well you can... but you'd be a hypocrite when you argue morality is your justification.

 

[flynnibus]

I guess no one ever taught you about intangibles sometimes being able to pay dividends. If I have a 35 year old sales rep and a 22 year old sales rep, and the 35 sales rep gets paid more but I know he brings in repeat business and makes my business more popular, and getting rid of him might result in losing business, he's worth it.

And for every example where the two differentiate themselves in value.. there are examples where the two deliver the same value. It's real... talk about how your theory addresses it. You can't just selectively decide which realities to face (except here in the discussion forum).

Tell me more about the Depression, Grandpa? Did it make you mad? Did it make you mean-mad?

Awww. don't think of them as "attacks." Think of them as "you bore me and I'm trying to amuse myself." There. Better?

Awww.... the monkey is so cute when he makes jokes in front of the lemmings while someone else does the actual heavy lifting.

 

[CDavid]

there are lots of ways to "survive" on $1,000 a month... what you're assuming is that person has to have an apartment on their own with things like HD cable tv with dvr, smartphone with unlimited plan, high speed internet, ipad, xbox, playstation, nice car, etc.

Nobody is saying that. My (unanswered) question to you was how to live for $1,000 per month at a very basic level of existence. Essentially just rent, electric, water, food, and transportation. We may each interpret "basic" slightly differently and certainly it varies from one region of the nation to another, but the point remains that to survive on $1,000 is very, very difficult if not impossible. Nobody has to have "HD cable tv with dvr, smartphone with unlimited plan, high speed internet, ipad, xbox, playstation, nice car, etc." (though many people think they do). You probably will need some kind of simple house or cell phone, and outside of larger cities where there is public transportation you have to have a car, which means a car payment. I'd argue you need to plan on affording a 1-bedroom apartment on your own if necessary - but that means the smallest, cheapest one available, rather than the one you really want. And again, don't figure a food budget of noodles or macaroni every day, because its not realistic.

I'm going to argue that even an entry-level full-time (40+ hrs) job should allow an individual to survive at a very basic level (without SNAP (food stamps) or other assistance). It probably won't be the life you want, but that will come as you advance in a job, get raises (hey - the thread topic!), and generally better yourself.

I could survive on $1,000 a month if I lived with my parents, or with roommates, had a second job, or better yet, worked hard and looked for ways to move up the ladder or find better opportunities elsewhere.

You could survive on $0 if you live with your parents, and if you have a second job, you aren't making $1,000 a month anymore! What i want to know is how you expect low wage earners to do so when they have only themselves to depend on - and take sole responsibility for themselves - rather than expecting (or worse - actually needing) someone else to help them. Working hard and moving up is what people should do, and will better themselves for it, but there will always be people in entry level positions.