Workers want pay boost

[ford91exploder]

Another reason is the iron law of supply and demand.

If there is a endless supply of labor wages will be low, unfortunately the immigration advocates on both sides of the party line are making it harder to achieve a living wage at entry levels by artificially inflating the labor supply with low skill immigrants who compete for the bottom tier jobs thereby depressing wages even further.

China has the same problem immigration problem internally where rural farm workers want the factory jobs in the cities and where you have a population in the billions and a few hundred million manufacturing jobs wages are going to be depressed to the lowest possible levels.

China is taking increasingly draconian measures to stop internal immigration. Another fact is China has recently lost millions of manufacturing jobs due to automation which is increasing the downward wage pressure.

Even the noodle stands are being automated - a robotic 'noodle chef' is only 2000 US and it's always working never sick or absent. Yearly salary for a noodle chef in China is about $4700 so in 6 months or so robot is paid for and the remainder is pure profit. You could buy a NEW robot every year and still come out ahead of having human employees.

Chef Cui

 

[slappy magoo]

Here is your first flaw. The Business model is not predicated on the notion he can pay as low as legally possible.. It's predicated on "This role returns this much value, can I afford to hire someone to do that work". The constraining factor is not the employer's moral compass, it is the value or revenue that position will generate. That is what defines the bottom for a business. If that number is not high enough, it won't support hiring a person at any wage. The lower the wage, the lower the barrier to creating that position.

That's not true for all jobs and certainly not all employers. All that talk I wrote before about how some employers see the value in your input and choose to reward it? Well, some employers are selfish little me-monkeys and will get away with paying someone as little as possible all the way up the chain. Which doesn't mean that an upper exec will get paid minimum wage, but if the CEO wants to slash that guy's salary, or thinks the he can rule by fear by eliminating that job entirely and giving the responsibility to three other people's workload without paying them extra money, even if the company is running fine and generating beyond-tidy profits that he won't? "This role returns this much value...HOW CAN I SQUEEZE MORE VALUE OUT OF IT?"

Second flaw... the notion that because I take a low paying job today, I am stuck in that low paying job in the future, so you better pay more more for the same job. Instead of, moving up the ladder through seeking better employment or improving your own value.

So before you argued that most companies want happy workers, now you argue that rewarding loyalty with a raise, which is the sort of thing a company does to make workers happy, is asinine. And you accuse me of dancing around a line (Yeah, I already saw your subsequent retort).

So your answer is its all lies. Every business owner falls into your greedy exploiter labels.

The reason people aren't falling in behind you in your campaign is because statements like the above are complete BS. You ignore the reality that the bulk of employers in the country are small businesses. They are your neighbors, they are every day people working to make a living just like you.

I didn't say "it's all lies." But you can't say "it's never lies," either, especially after you contradicted yourself with the happy workers crapola.

And before you say "people aren't falling in behind you in [my] campaign," I'll have you know that nearly 25% of ALL the likes I've ever received come from this thread, and "likes" are very very important, making a respected elder of this internet community. My God, if we keep this thread going another 75 pages, I will ****ING OWN THE INTERNET MARK MY WORDS!!!!

You're right though, many of my neighbors are small business owners, and many of them choose to pay better than the minimum wage because they see value in happy workers and good pay helps achieve that. I know, shocking.

If you want to preach for something - you need to qualify it. lazyboy97o qualified a number based on what you advocated the wage needed to support. If you don't agree with the number, come up with a better one. But by avoiding the specifics, it just reenforces that you are preaching an unobtainable ideal, not a reality. You argue what we people doing wrong, but can't tell people how to fix it.

That's why when I rule the internet 75 pages and kajillions of likes from now, I'll hire economists to do the hard thinkin' for me, leaving me free to enjoy sleeping cat videos and wardrobe malfunctions of CW drama stars.

You must be one hell of a dancer... because you can talk an deflect and make japes... yet never answer the question.

Unless your answer is as you started with.. you really believe all business owners are greedy exploiters who only pay low wages because the government allows them to. And if you really believe that... we should just shut this down by saying your simply oblivious to who business owners are,what their realities are and you are unfit to judge their actions.

You seem to have a "thing" for absolutes. Some business owners are greedy exploiters. Not all, some. That's why labor laws were enacted, because of those bad apples spoiling the bunch. You want the gubmint off your back? Lash out at them, the wage-deniers, the masses-exploiters, the milkshake-drinkers, the ones whose practices really hurt the legitimate small businessmen, not the guys trying to figure out how they're going to pay to replace the transmission on their car so they can keep getting to work AND their kid's braces.
(By the way I say "legitimate small businessmen" because it's such a vague term, many people who make crazy money are still considered small businessmen because their businesses don't employ many people. You and I both know we mean store owners and main street businessfolk when we talk "small businessmen.")

 

[lazyboy97o]

So...I...DIDN'T ever specifically use a $25/hr figure, is what you're now saying.

I never said you put forth that number. In a previous post I explained how I derived that figure from your explanation of what you believe a living wage should support. It is rather fascinating that you take such umbrage at the figure. For all you're lecturing of how out of touch others are, it seems this number has caught you quite off guard.

I'll make you a deal, if someone wants to work full-time but not get paid a living wage, they should feel free to go for it. I believe those are known as "volunteers."

Why does it have to be an absolute?

I'm merely pointing out the circular nature of Fail. Someone who doesn't work is a loser. But someone who works at a minimum wage job is a Loser for not going for a job that makes more money. But if someone doesn't work that job for that wage, the employer has to raise the wage or apparently go out of business. Because his business model is predicated on the notion that he should be allowed to pay people as little as legally possible, indeed he'll fail if he doesn't. At don't call him an exploiter, because no one is being forced to work that job at that wage...but if they refuse to work that job at that wage it better be cause they found another job at a better wage, those lazy moochers. Damned poor if you do, damned poor if you don't.

You did use the term exploitation in a post that appears to have been since removed, saying that just because a wage is legal does not mean it is not exploitation. You also keep harping on a business model being dependent on the low wage. That is an absolute that does not apply to the many reasons why a person would be hired, many of which coincide with what you consider to be acceptable reasons to only hire part time.

That's why when I rule the internet 75 pages and kajillions of likes from now, I'll hire economists to do the hard thinkin' for me, leaving me free to enjoy sleeping cat videos and wardrobe malfunctions of CW drama stars.

The work has already been done and it shows that my $25/hour figure is probably still too low. For the third time now, MIT Living Wage Calculator.

 

[slappy magoo]

I never said you put forth that number. In a previous post I explained how I derived that figure from your explanation of what you believe a living wage should support. It is rather fascinating that you take such umbrage at the figure. For all you're lecturing of how out of touch others are, it seems this number has caught you quite off guard.

Not at all, merely replying i never used that number. If the number fits, use it. But clearly, some people learn to get by on less.

You did use the term exploitation in a post that appears to have been since removed, saying that just because a wage is legal does not mean it is not exploitation.

Doesn't mean it is, either. It means it could be. A wise man once asked "Why does it have to be an absolute?"

You also keep harping on a business model being dependent on the low wage. That is an absolute that does not apply to the many reasons why a person would be hired, many of which coincide with what you consider to be acceptable reasons to only hire part time.

Fine, for YOUR business, hire only bored dilettantes who will sign a waiver agreeing to work for less than the minimum wage, if it'll help you sleep at night.

The work has already been done and it shows that my $25/hour figure is probably still too low. For the third time now, MIT Living Wage Calculator.

So why keep asking me for it?

 

[devoy1701]

So before you argued that most companies want happy workers, now you argue that rewarding loyalty with a raise, which is the sort of thing a company does to make workers happy, is asinine. And you accuse me of dancing around a line (Yeah, I already saw your subsequent retort).

It's on both sides though. I'm going to reward the team members on my team with a raise if they are going above and beyond in their current role. But if they have expressed to me that they like their role just fine and have no interest in eventually moving up to a more important/challenging/higher exposure role, there's going to be a point when I am going to stop giving them raises because I've reached the maximum amount of money that I am willing to pay a person in that particular role or job class. If they want to continue to make more money, they need to advance to a new role. I have other people in some positions on my team that I already know that when I promote them or they leave and I need to backfill that position, that I'm going to backfill it with a lower cost headcount because for whatever reasons I have decided that the work done by that role is not worth what I was paying that employee to do.

 

[GoofGoof]

It's on both sides though. I'm going to reward the team members on my team with a raise if they are going above and beyond in their current role. But if they have expressed to me that they like their role just fine and have no interest in eventually moving up to a more important/challenging/higher exposure role, there's going to be a point when I am going to stop giving them raises because I've reached the maximum amount of money that I am willing to pay a person in that particular role or job class. If they want to continue to make more money, they need to advance to a new role. I have other people in some positions on my team that I already know that when I promote them or they leave and I need to backfill that position, that I'm going to backfill it with a lower cost headcount because for whatever reasons I have decided that the work done by that role is not worth what I was paying that employee to do.

I would operate the same way in my job. The difference for me is I'm not hiring minimum wage employees. I posted a graph before, but a large chunk of min wage workers clean hotel rooms or work in fast food. There isn't a whole lot of opportunity for a hotel maid to advance. They could move into management, but its still a steep pyramid. They could leave and try to get a better job with opportunity for advancement.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Not at all, merely replying i never used that number. If the number fits, use it. But clearly, some people learn to get by on less.

Yes, people do get by on less but they do not exceed eligibility for assistance, one of your measures.

Doesn't mean it is, either. It means it could be. A wise man once asked "Why does it have to be an absolute?"

I am not entirely sure what you are saying.

Fine, for YOUR business, hire only bored dilettantes who will sign a waiver agreeing to work for less than the minimum wage, if it'll help you sleep at night.

Again, still not sure what you are saying.

So why keep asking me for it?

The primary reason is that the website only came to my knowledge while reading through my RSS subscriptions. Second, you're requirement of supporting a family of four is an incredibly important metric that approximately doubles the wage needed for an individual to surpass 200% of the federal poverty guideline. These numbers are still rather basic and likely fall short of your description of a supported lifestyle.

 

[ford91exploder]

What I think is needed is more along the lines if more than X of your workforce is eligible for public assistance then you get hit with a surtax designed to reclaim the public benefits, Let's face it some companies business models ARE based on having the government subsidize their operations indirectly. This removes the incentive to do so.

Will it raise costs for these businesses - yes absolutely but they were artificially reduced by their business practices.

I've always felt that corporate welfare is far more corrosive to a society because it allows companies to compete unfairly A grocery chain which pays benefits to its workers is always going to be at a disadvantage to a WalMart Supercenter where the majority of medical benefits for staff are being paid by state and local welfare systems.

Let WalMart compete with it's purchasing and distribution systems, Not with having Gov't subsidize it's operations.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Another reason is the iron law of supply and demand.

If there is a endless supply of labor wages will be low, unfortunately the immigration advocates on both sides of the party line are making it harder to achieve a living wage at entry levels by artificially inflating the labor supply with low skill immigrants who compete for the bottom tier jobs thereby depressing wages even further.

China has the same problem immigration problem internally where rural farm workers want the factory jobs in the cities and where you have a population in the billions and a few hundred million manufacturing jobs wages are going to be depressed to the lowest possible levels.

China is taking increasingly draconian measures to stop internal immigration. Another fact is China has recently lost millions of manufacturing jobs due to automation which is increasing the downward wage pressure.

Even the noodle stands are being automated - a robotic 'noodle chef' is only 2000 US and it's always working never sick or absent. Yearly salary for a noodle chef in China is about $4700 so in 6 months or so robot is paid for and the remainder is pure profit. You could buy a NEW robot every year and still come out ahead of having human employees.

Chef Cui




Explorer you hit the nail on the head in the red! This is really the bottom line of the problem and won't balance out until they solve the illegal workers issue

AKK

 

[slappy magoo]

Yes, people do get by on less but they do not exceed eligibility for assistance, one of your measures.

I know it's incredibly rare for a thread like this to go off-topic but I just had to point this out because I find it hilarious. Currently I can't open your link or any link to the MIT Living Wage Calculator. I'm not even pretending it's your fault, it's either a problem on their end or on mine. Apparently on March 14, 3/14, aka "Pi Day," hacking MIT websites is a sort of sport so that may be it. But by trying to get to the calculator I found this delightful article on the alum website - https://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofm...e-calculator-why-higher-wages-help-everybody/

Enjoy!

I am not entirely sure what you are saying.

You referred to an earlier deleted post of mine: "You did use the term exploitation in a post that appears to have been since removed, saying that just because a wage is legal does not mean it is not exploitation." I responded:
"Doesn't mean it is (exploitation), either. It means it could be. A wise man once asked "Why does it have to be an absolute?"" (That "wise man" BTW, was you in Post 683. You're not big on the extended olive branches).

[QUOTE[ Again, still not sure what you are saying. [/QUOTE] That was partially because of a device I like to refer to as a "mistake," I meant to write "debutante" instead of "dilettante," regarding people who would be willing to work a part-time job that paid a low wage for reasons other than need.

The primary reason is that the website only came to my knowledge while reading through my RSS subscriptions. Second, you're requirement of supporting a family of four is an incredibly important metric that approximately doubles the wage needed for an individual to surpass 200% of the federal poverty guideline. These numbers are still rather basic and likely fall short of your description of a supported lifestyle.

Well, in my crazy-long rant, my "The Way Things Ought To Be" as it were, I opined what a single person ought to be able to make to support a family of four without necessarily generating any savings, which you calculated to be $25/hr. I won't dispute your numbers at the moment because it's the internet, who cares. But I will point out that while I think it ought to be considered to pay people a livable wage (lucky for you no one will ever try it in America, so I can never be proven right!), if we're talking about a family of four, a nuclear family or other scenario where at least two people are of working age, then it's not impossible to see both people being income earners whose jobs' incomes total the equivalent of my "barebones ideal" of a single person making $25 an hour, thus not necessarily needing assistance...until something catastrophic happens, which tends to happen to all people eventually, we're not made of steel, only to find that their previous income makes them ineligible for assistance so they're screwed until they go through all their meager savings, lose their home and their cars, being called lazy takers all the way. Ain't That America? Little Pink houses for you...AND me!

I'm not a big "agree to disagree" kinda guy, but at this point, let's face it, you're not going to change the way I think, nor do I think I'll sway your head either. If you feel like sooner or later you'll come to a point feel free to continue, but at this point without some new info we're probably just repeating ourselves ad nauseum. If not our ad nauseum, then the nauseum of those who abandoned the thread 10 pages ago.

 

[ford91exploder]

I think we have forgotten what FDR's idea of the minimum wage was it was to support a SINGLE person in modest comfort - NOT support a family.

 

[flynnibus]

That's not true for all jobs and certainly not all employers.

It is true for everyone that has to pay people in hard currency. I can't afford to hire and pay people if doing so doesn't generate income (unless I'm funded through donations.. or the govt ). What defines what I can pay people is how much money my company has, not how much I wish I could pay them.

You say if someone can't afford to pay a worker more their business is flawed. No, the decision to have a worker they can't afford is flawed. 'Afford' is generally seen as someone returning as much as you put out. A business can not just magically make more income appear. But they can control if a position exists or not.

All that talk I wrote before about how some employers see the value in your input and choose to reward it? Well, some employers are selfish little me-monkeys and will get away with paying someone as little as possible all the way up the chain

Ok, you say 'some' employers are like this. What about the rest of employers? Why doesn't your model exist for them?

So before you argued that most companies want happy workers, now you argue that rewarding loyalty with a raise, which is the sort of thing a company does to make workers happy, is asinine. And you accuse me of dancing around a line (Yeah, I already saw your subsequent retort).

Not at all... the difference is you require they get paid a certain amount based on simply existing and mandating pay increases irrespective of the actual employee/employer relationship. Where what I describe is something that actually exists today in practice and the idea of employee satisification doesn't hinge only on your goal.

I didn't say "it's all lies." But you can't say "it's never lies," either, especially after you contradicted yourself with the happy workers crapola.

It's not contradictory at all - there are things such as happy employees and employers that strive for that today.. without any living wage mandate, and including within organizations that by your standards do not pay enough.

So I ask again... why doesn't your model out there in use today? There must be some employers that fall outside of your 'some' greedy bucket, and 'some' lying right? Why isn't your model in use by the remaining good spirited folks like yourself?

You're right though, many of my neighbors are small business owners, and many of them choose to pay better than the minimum wage because they see value in happy workers and good pay helps achieve that. I know, shocking.

But do they pay your 'living wage' for all employees? Come on.. uphold your own standards you preach.

You seem to have a "thing" for absolutes

The only absolutes here are an absolute lack of demonstrating your theory in practice in volume. You are the one stereotyping people and employers in bulk. But when challenged to put your claims in practice.. or weigh your claims against conflicting facts, all you can do is dance and deflect and try to crack a joke to cover up the absence of a actual answer.

 

[slappy magoo]

It is true for everyone that has to pay people in hard currency. I can't afford to hire and pay people if doing so doesn't generate income (unless I'm funded through donations.. or the govt ). What defines what I can pay people is how much money my company has, not how much I wish I could pay them.
You say if someone can't afford to pay a worker more their business is flawed. No, the decision to have a worker they can't afford is flawed. 'Afford' is generally seen as someone returning as much as you put out. A business can not just magically make more income appear. But they can control if a position exists or not.

Your examples always seem to be small business owners barely scraping by, under threat of the big bad gubmint to pay their employees more. Turn it around, what of a business that's doing well, turning profits and the owner has the potential to pay his employees a better wage than minimum, dare I say it's perhaps livable, and while he eats into his personal income or profits as a result, it does not obliterate his personal income or profits either, he still does well, just not AS WELL. By your above argument, the company could and should pay employees more...

But of course you've also argued that the wage an employee earns is contingent on the job and what value it has to the employer. So someone making minimum wage for a small business that has record net profits doesn't get a raise because they can hire anyone off the streets to do that job. Right? Don't get me wrong, I think it's great if you've come round to the position that employees in successful companies deserve to share in the profits, it just negates other positions you've previously taken."The constraining factor is not the employer's moral compass, it is the value or revenue that position will generate," remember?

Ok, you say 'some' employers are like this. What about the rest of employers? Why doesn't your model exist for them?

Because those employers aren't paying their employees as little as possible, maybe?

Not at all... the difference is you require they get paid a certain amount based on simply existing and mandating pay increases irrespective of the actual employee/employer relationship. Where what I describe is something that actually exists today in practice and the idea of employee satisification doesn't hinge only on your goal.

I thought they were getting paid to do a job and do a job well, and getting raises based on their loyalty to the company, perhaps by an employer who might see potential for that person to move ahead in the company when the opportunity presents itself and wants to keep that employee happy. Or...just existing. Yeah, that...that makes sense. To some people, I suppose.

It's not contradictory at all - there are things such as happy employees and employers that strive for that today.. without any living wage mandate, and including within organizations that by your standards do not pay enough.

So I ask again... why doesn't your model out there in use today? There must be some employers that fall outside of your 'some' greedy bucket, and 'some' lying right? Why isn't your model in use by the remaining good spirited folks like yourself?

So your point is what exactly? That some employers pay better than minimum wage but not what would be considered a livable wage and why don't think there's a special hate for them? Maybe because I think there's more potential in them to do even more right by their employees once shown that it's not only a good moral choice but could benefit them financially as well.

But do they pay your 'living wage' for all employees? Come on.. uphold your own standards you preach.

Yeah, when I have that kind of time I'll ask them, as I'm sure your own research on your opinions is based on your on personal research that has nothing to do with pulling things out of you own personal rabbit hole.

The only absolutes here are an absolute lack of demonstrating your theory in practice in volume. You are the one stereotyping people and employers in bulk. But when challenged to put your claims in practice.. or weigh your claims against conflicting facts, all you can do is dance and deflect and try to crack a joke to cover up the absence of a actual answer.

You use this word "stereotyping." I do not think it means what you think it means. Or else you'd stop doing it yourself.

But thanks for complimenting me on my dancing. Only one semester of ballet at college and it's nice to know I've still got the moves.

OK, anything else?

 

[flynnibus]

Your examples always seem to be small business owners barely scraping by, under threat of the big bad gubmint to pay their employees more. Turn it around, what of a business that's doing well, turning profits and the owner has the potential to pay his employees a better wage than minimum, dare I say it's perhaps livable, and while he eats into his personal income or profits as a result, it does not obliterate his personal income or profits either, he still does well, just not AS WELL. By your above argument, the company could and should pay employees more...

Why do I bring up that example? Because it illustrates the flaws in your theory. That's the thing about laws... you can't just look at who they are aimed at, but how they affect EVERYONE. Sure keep pounding the drum about the big bad evil greedy business owners exploiting their workers... but what about all the other business owners? Your plea is purely emotional and doesn't even try to face the practical. That's why I highlight the example I did - to try to show you the error in your thought.. but what is it they say about leading a horse to water? You just don't want to face those realities and instead focus on your ideology and anytime someone comes to the door with 'reality' you dance a jig to distract it.

But of course you've also argued that the wage an employee earns is contingent on the job and what value it has to the employer. So someone making minimum wage for a small business that has record net profits doesn't get a raise because they can hire anyone off the streets to do that job. Right?

Is that same employee willing to accept less pay next month when revenues are down? Who is accepting the risk in that relationship? Is that same employee willing to face his neighbor to say 'sorry dude, I know the guy said they aren't hiring.. but that's because they just gave me all the profits!'.

Your retort again relies upon these vilifications that business owners are too busy stuffing their own pockets to pay any mind to anyone else.

Because those employers aren't paying their employees as little as possible, maybe?

Oh so predictable.. nice moving the goal posts. I thought we were advocating for a living wage, not just 'more than the minimum'?

So your point is what exactly? That some employers pay better than minimum wage but not what would be considered a livable wage and why don't think there's a special hate for them? Maybe because I think there's more potential in them to do even more right by their employees once shown that it's not only a good moral choice but could benefit them financially as well.

The point is your theory is flawed and not sustainable in practice. If it worked so cleanly as you suggest, why does it not exist out in the open market? You keep making all these generalizations, then making exceptions, and yet they still don't appear in the wild. Why?

Yeah, when I have that kind of time I'll ask them, as I'm sure your own research on your opinions is based on your on personal research that has nothing to do with pulling things out of you own personal rabbit hole.

So the answer would be 'no'. So again, where are these ideals of yours shown to be viable and sustainable?

 

[slappy magoo]

Why do I bring up that example? Because it illustrates the flaws in your theory. That's the thing about laws... you can't just look at who they are aimed at, but how they affect EVERYONE. Sure keep pounding the drum about the big bad evil greedy business owners exploiting their workers... but what about all the other business owners? Your plea is purely emotional and doesn't even try to face the practical. That's why I highlight the example I did - to try to show you the error in your thought.. but what is it they say about leading a horse to water? You just don't want to face those realities and instead focus on your ideology and anytime someone comes to the door with 'reality' you dance a jig to distract it.

No, you keep bringing up the small business owner because that's all YOU'RE thinking about. You're just as guilty of tunnel vision as you claim I am, you're just in a different tunnel.

Is that same employee willing to accept less pay next month when revenues are down? Who is accepting the risk in that relationship? Is that same employee willing to face his neighbor to say 'sorry dude, I know the guy said they aren't hiring.. but that's because they just gave me all the profits!'.

Once businesses are into the idea of profit sharing to that degree, I guess we'll find out.

Your retort again relies upon these vilifications that business owners are too busy stuffing their own pockets to pay any mind to anyone else.

And your attack is based on the poor innocent business owners trapped in a web of over-regulation and greedy workers stealing their profits. I know you want me to give to validate your position but you just have to keep waiting "Slappy Shrugged."

Oh so predictable.. nice moving the goal posts. I thought we were advocating for a living wage, not just 'more than the minimum'?

What's this "we," Hoss? You seem to want people to pay for the privilege of working.

The point is your theory is flawed and not sustainable in practice. If it worked so cleanly as you suggest, why does it not exist out in the open market? You keep making all these generalizations, then making exceptions, and yet they still don't appear in the wild. Why?

Report after report indicates that boosting minimum wage (yeah, I know, not livable, minimum) benefits the economies where it happens, be it federal state or city level, especially when done incrementally so as to not create a sudden influx of inflation, yet Chicken Littles like you always swear the sky will fall and businesses will collapse if people get paid better. We'll never know if the "livable wage increase" is valid until I'm elected King of America. So if you want to see my theory in practice, start campaigning, make sure you make me look regal for my posters.

So the answer would be 'no'. So again, where are these ideals of yours shown to be viable and sustainable?

Because the eras of non-regulation were historically such a boon to the workers? Again, you can't fault me for not being in control of an economy to test my theories, all you can do is insist no one would try it because of course it would fail. Workers should take a chance on going from crap job to crap job until they find "the one" that makes them shine as a worker and a human and opens up allll the doors to success, and if they never find the job, then they're failures. But Heaven forbid, we take a chance on paying livable wages, that's bound to fail based on...it never having been tried before.[

Stop being such a whiner and admit you like seeing people suffer. That you don't perceive yourself as a success unless you can point to someone else (or preferably A LOT of someone elses) as a failure. Your barometer of your worth is based on others being worthless. It's OK, you've admitted as much page after page after page, may as well make it explicit. It's freeing. Go for it.

 

[twebber55]

its amazing anybody has a job as much time is spent on this thread
ZING!

 

[flynnibus]

No, you keep bringing up the small business owner because that's all YOU'RE thinking about. You're just as guilty of tunnel vision as you claim I am, you're just in a different tunnel.

It's explicitly NOT tunnel vision - and entirely the point. You can't pass the laws you want without impacting everyone. Dance all you want, but it's the hole in your dike you can't ignore.. and why it doesn't actually happen in practice.

Once businesses are into the idea of profit sharing to that degree, I guess we'll find out.

Once? The idea of performance based pay is alive and well and has been for ages. Yet, most people opt for the security and consistency of fixed wages because... they aren't willing to take the risk. So if not willing to put skin the game, you don't get to reap the short term rewards. You can't have your cake and eat it to. It would be yet another unsustainable model that you'd just ignore the reality of.

And your attack is based on the poor innocent business owners trapped in a web of over-regulation and greedy workers stealing their profits. I know you want me to give to validate your position but you just have to keep waiting "Slappy Shrugged."

Yet again exageration and dance to avoid the reality. Slappy doesn't need to acknowledge.. the informed reader can see the answer in your reply.

Report after report indicates that boosting minimum wage (yeah, I know, not livable, minimum) benefits the economies where it happens, be it federal state or city level, especially when done incrementally so as to not create a sudden influx of inflation, yet Chicken Littles like you always swear the sky will fall and businesses will collapse if people get paid better

Not what I'm saying at all.. it's just you moving the goal posts again. I have been specifically talking about your living wage mandate, not the general idea of paying people better (something I have explictly said in this thread I support). Once again you flame up over generalizations and can't focus on finite things. You want to rage over what people should be paid.. yet can't agree on what that is. You want to rage people don't want to pay what you think they should be paid.. so you think they don't want to pay people anything. You're just a mess of generalizations, hype, evasion, and preaching. Do you happen to work in Talk Radio?

Stop being such a whiner and admit you like seeing people suffer. That you don't perceive yourself as a success unless you can point to someone else (or preferably A LOT of someone elses) as a failure. Your barometer of your worth is based on others being worthless. It's OK, you've admitted as much page after page after page, may as well make it explicit. It's freeing. Go for it.

I quote this only so it stays around for prosperity so all can see your persistent need to turn to attacks and name calling to offset your inability to actually address the points. Maybe it makes you feel better if you put down others so you don't feel like you have to respect what they say. Seems to be your MO...

 

[slappy magoo]

It's explicitly NOT tunnel vision - and entirely the point. You can't pass the laws you want without impacting everyone. Dance all you want, but it's the hole in your dike you can't ignore.. and why it doesn't actually happen in practice.

No. It's tunnel vision.

The idea of performance based pay is alive and well and has been for ages.

Usually in sales and for execs, not so much the easily replaceable rabble, except with the possibility of bonuses versus raises, which, as you put, is because it's hard to take a raise away but easy to say "nope, no bonuses this year, sorry."

Yet, most people opt for the security and consistency of fixed wages because... they aren't willing to take the risk. So if not willing to put skin the game, you don't get to reap the short term rewards. You can't have your cake and eat it to. It would be yet another unsustainable model that you'd just ignore the reality of.

KIDS? I can't afford to feed you anymore. I've no alternative but to sell you all for scientific experiments. But at least I put my skin in the game. I felt alive. Now...now it's just hungry.

Yet again exageration and dance to avoid the reality. Slappy doesn't need to acknowledge.. the informed reader can see the answer in your reply.

Why this obsession with me dancing? Were you binge-watching Footloose?

Not what I'm saying at all.. it's just you moving the goal posts again. I have been specifically talking about your living wage mandate, not the general idea of paying people better (something I have explictly said in this thread I support). Once again you flame up over generalizations and can't focus on finite things. You want to rage over what people should be paid.. yet can't agree on what that is. You want to rage people don't want to pay what you think they should be paid.. so you think they don't want to pay people anything. You're just a mess of generalizations, hype, evasion, and preaching. Do you happen to work in Talk Radio?

If this is your idea of rage, you must be a latch key kid. The reason I don't put a price on "what a livable wage is" is because I'm not an economist. But as you point out those peppy kids at MIT have done a pretty good job compiling the data, that leaves me free to continue this delightful conversation with you. It's been grand. Really.

I quote this only so it stays around for prosperity so all can see your persistent need to turn to attacks and name calling to offset your inability to actually address the points. Maybe it makes you feel better if you put down others so you don't feel like you have to respect what they say. Seems to be your MO...

Great idea. I just made it my sig. Hopefully I'll be allowed to keep it and not asked to remove it because it makes some thinner skins chilly. And I certainly hope you don't think your MO is one of mirth and frivolity, either. Though you do have more of those precious...precious "likes." Some day, Slappy...some day...

EDIT: My like ratio is now 11%! Man oh man if wishes and buts were clusters of nuts I'd have such a huge bowl a granola right now...

 

[slappy magoo]

its amazing anybody has a job as much time is spent on this thread
ZING!

I'm waiting for notes on 4 different projects. Knowing my luck I'll get them in the next 5 minutes and have to stay till 10 making the necessary revisions. But I'm contributing to society!

 

[flynnibus]

Great idea. I just made it my sig