Minimum Wage: Part II

countingbeans · March 10, 2014, 3:12pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
:)[/quote]

This is drivel. Therefore lazy thinkers will eat it up. Congrats[/quote]

yeah we all know what a great mind you have
[/quote]

I know it makes you feel better to convince yourself I don’t know what I’m talking about, and that is all well and good.

I’ll just continue to be firmly within the 10% of people that pay the majority of the salaries you posted an ignorant infographic about, because I make money understanding and doing what it is I’m talking about in this thread.

pittbulll · March 10, 2014, 3:15pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
:)[/quote]

This is drivel. Therefore lazy thinkers will eat it up. Congrats[/quote]

yeah we all know what a great mind you have
[/quote]

I know it makes you feel better to convince yourself I don’t know what I’m talking about, and that is all well and good.

I’ll just continue to be firmly within the 10% of people that pay the majority of the salaries you posted an ignorant infographic about, because I make money understanding and doing what it is I’m talking about in this thread.

[/quote]

you make vague statements with no meaning and act as though it is over every body’s head pseudo intellect

countingbeans · March 10, 2014, 3:23pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

you make vague statements with no meaning and act as though it is over every body’s head pseudo intellect
[/quote]

You are the only one that is having trouble following what I’m saying.

Aragon knew what I was talking about in the last thread, and you’re the only one, so far, that thinks that picture has any merit.

But go on convincing yourself of whatever is you want so desperately to belive.

anon50325502 · March 10, 2014, 3:32pm

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
When all is said and done there is no evidence that raising the minimum wage to the levels being discussed will cause a net loss of jobs. Australia has a minimum wage equivalent to $12 an hour U.S. and was one of the only countries to escape the global recession.[/quote]

I feel like there was whole thread about this…

anon50325502 · March 10, 2014, 3:35pm

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I can’t find who mentioned Australia…
[/quote]

There was an entire thread about Australia’s minimum wage. In short, it’s apples to NY Strip. IE a terrible comparison.

pittbulll · March 10, 2014, 3:49pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

you make vague statements with no meaning and act as though it is over every body’s head pseudo intellect
[/quote]

You are the only one that is having trouble following what I’m saying.

Aragon knew what I was talking about in the last thread, and you’re the only one, so far, that thinks that picture has any merit.

But go on convincing yourself of whatever is you want so desperately to belive. [/quote]

You will have to explain to me how I or Google is going to make a jump from Frankfurt Occupation to the the School of Frankfurt

Just curious why did you not mention until this point the word school ?

SkyzykS · March 10, 2014, 3:50pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

As for the minimum, I’ve never heard of any small business owner (except Zeb) who didn’t cry poor mouth on the way to the bank. I don’t think I’ve ever made minimum wage but I think it’s just rude. Nothing says “I’d pay you less, but it’s illegal.” like minimum wage. Companies like Wal-Mart should be embarrassed. They’ve done great things with streamlining supply chain and economy of scale, so I have a hard time believing that they can’t develop some innovative solution to paying people a little better.

[/quote]

You want to know how I know you’ve never ran a business or been in a significant management position in any of the places you’ve been employed?

[/quote]

Yeah. This should be interesting. I can tell you that this assumption is wrong already, but I’d like to see how you got there.

countingbeans · March 10, 2014, 4:03pm

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

As for the minimum, I’ve never heard of any small business owner (except Zeb) who didn’t cry poor mouth on the way to the bank. I don’t think I’ve ever made minimum wage but I think it’s just rude. Nothing says “I’d pay you less, but it’s illegal.” like minimum wage. Companies like Wal-Mart should be embarrassed. They’ve done great things with streamlining supply chain and economy of scale, so I have a hard time believing that they can’t develop some innovative solution to paying people a little better.

[/quote]

You want to know how I know you’ve never ran a business or been in a significant management position in any of the places you’ve been employed?

[/quote]

Yeah. This should be interesting. I can tell you that this assumption is wrong already, but I’d like to see how you got there.
[/quote]

Because:

This is either because of a utter lack of experience, or complete misperception.

Yes, there are people who do well, and for each one of those there are more people struggling to get by and live their dream.

Actually this isn’t the case, and this viewpoint leads anyone who has been in a management position for any significant amount of time to believe you haven’t been.

Your opinion is one of someone who has cashed paychecks, not signed very many. Because the truth of the matter is that min wages doesn’t say that at all. Min wages says “the skill set you bring to the table is able to be duplicated by such a vast number of people, the value put on it is low. You, like everyone is paid what you are worth, and if you feel you are worth more, I’ll get someone else to pour my coffee for me, and you can work for a different company.”

We’ll ignore overhead for now, and that portion of the conversation.

[quote]Companies like Wal-Mart should be embarrassed. They’ve done great things with streamlining supply chain and economy of scale, so I have a hard time believing that they can’t develop some innovative solution to paying people a little better.
[/quote]

Why should they pay anyone more than their skill is worth?

countingbeans · March 10, 2014, 4:06pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

you make vague statements with no meaning and act as though it is over every body’s head pseudo intellect
[/quote]

You are the only one that is having trouble following what I’m saying.

Aragon knew what I was talking about in the last thread, and you’re the only one, so far, that thinks that picture has any merit.

But go on convincing yourself of whatever is you want so desperately to belive. [/quote]

You will have to explain to me how I or Google is going to make a jump from Frankfurt Occupation to the the School of Frankfurt

Just curious why did you not mention until this point the word school ?
[/quote]

If you can’t even regurgitate the entirety of the post you are trying to deride, why should I bother trying to explain something you obviously choose to not understand?

Just a moment ago another person posted that understood what I was saying. You’re still the only one.

pittbulll · March 10, 2014, 4:35pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I will do you a favor beans I will start your post

LOL[/quote]

Not even a lol.

It is pathetic that people lack the critical thinking skills to not see what is wrong with that garbage, and lack the basic historical knowledge of what amounts to Franfurt’s occupation of the American opinion. [/quote]

I am sorry Google does not know about Frankforts or Franfort’s occupation ???
[/quote]

It’s a typo, should be Frankfurt.

But again, not surprised you haven’t the slightest idea what I’m talking about.

Question: if I were to refer to you as a Useful Idiot, would you know what I meant or just think I was calling you a dumb person?
[/quote]

I thought I would refresh your memory

I am supposed to translate “Franfurt’s occupation of the American opinion.” into a school

Just curious why wouldn’t you say the word school , it would have been the intellectual thing to do

SkyzykS · March 10, 2014, 4:47pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

As for the minimum, I’ve never heard of any small business owner (except Zeb) who didn’t cry poor mouth on the way to the bank. I don’t think I’ve ever made minimum wage but I think it’s just rude. Nothing says “I’d pay you less, but it’s illegal.” like minimum wage. Companies like Wal-Mart should be embarrassed. They’ve done great things with streamlining supply chain and economy of scale, so I have a hard time believing that they can’t develop some innovative solution to paying people a little better.

[/quote]

You want to know how I know you’ve never ran a business or been in a significant management position in any of the places you’ve been employed?

[/quote]

Yeah. This should be interesting. I can tell you that this assumption is wrong already, but I’d like to see how you got there.
[/quote]

Because:

This is either because of a utter lack of experience, or complete misperception.

Yes, there are people who do well, and for each one of those there are more people struggling to get by and live their dream.

Actually this isn’t the case, and this viewpoint leads anyone who has been in a management position for any significant amount of time to believe you haven’t been.

Your opinion is one of someone who has cashed paychecks, not signed very many. Because the truth of the matter is that min wages doesn’t say that at all. Min wages says “the skill set you bring to the table is able to be duplicated by such a vast number of people, the value put on it is low. You, like everyone is paid what you are worth, and if you feel you are worth more, I’ll get someone else to pour my coffee for me, and you can work for a different company.”

We’ll ignore overhead for now, and that portion of the conversation.

[quote]Companies like Wal-Mart should be embarrassed. They’ve done great things with streamlining supply chain and economy of scale, so I have a hard time believing that they can’t develop some innovative solution to paying people a little better.
[/quote]

Why should they pay anyone more than their skill is worth?[/quote]

Still assumption heavy and getting heavier. Maybe not as many as you, but I’ve made plenty of judgments of what people were worth based on job duties and skills, and very good ones at that. I’ve also built a company literally from a chainsaw and a piece of rope into a fully equipped tree removal service. That probably gives me a more realistic value of the the labor than someone in an office going strictly by the numbers and philosophy. Maybe you hire coffee pourers? I sure as hell never have.

How would you explain that some companies are in some ways proud of the fact that they offer well above the minimum that can be gotten away with in pay and other comps? Like, not even above average, but some of the best in a given industry?

I mean sure, they Could pay less, they simply don’t though. Do you suppose they have different values assigned to a skill set, or that they value different things?

Aragorn · March 10, 2014, 4:59pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I thought I would refresh your memory

I am supposed to translate “Franfurt’s occupation of the American opinion.” into a school

Just curious why wouldn’t you say the word school , it would have been the intellectual thing to do
[/quote]

No, the intellectual thing to do was to give you the benefit of the doubt that you had the intellectual flexibility to connect the very obvious dots when the subject is economics and economists’ opinions.

There are only 3 or 4 major schools of thought on economics, and everyone who has a basic knowledge of economic thought can immediately see what somebody means when they say “London school of thought” or “London opinion/Frankfurt opinion/Chicago opinion”. Or even “XX is a London guy”. This is similar to categorizing opinions by saying “XX is a Keynesian/Austrian guy”.

It is ridiculous to somehow equate a conversation on economics to a military occupation by a foreign city, which is what you tried somehow to do. Don’t blame him because you intentionally tried to mistake him.

ZJStrope · March 10, 2014, 5:00pm

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

Still assumption heavy and getting heavier. Maybe not as many as you, but I’ve made plenty of judgments of what people were worth based on job duties and skills, and very good ones at that. I’ve also built a company literally from a chainsaw and a piece of rope into a fully equipped tree removal service. That probably gives me a more realistic value of the the labor than someone in an office going strictly by the numbers and philosophy. Maybe you hire coffee pourers? I sure as hell never have.

How would you explain that some companies are in some ways proud of the fact that they offer well above the minimum that can be gotten away with in pay and other comps? Like, not even above average, but some of the best in a given industry?

I mean sure, they Could pay less, they simply don’t though. Do you suppose they have different values assigned to a skill set, or that they value different things?
[/quote]

Typically companies that pay the most are also the best in the industry and they are the best in the industry for a reason.

You don’t pay out the nose for people if your business doesn’t require that.

Using your tree removal service as an example. You value the employee a bit more. Maybe you want more consistency? Maybe you want to worry less about your business? Maybe you want to be the “elite” tree removal service?

So you can charge a little more or maybe you take a little less in the hopes that this gives you a competitive advantage.

The other tree removal service companies however, only value the almighty dollar. So there competitive advantage is to be able to charge significantly less than you and still survive. They pay minimum wage b/c they know there is a ton of labor out there looking for a job. Most of it probably has no direct skills in tree removal. Your competition’s product may not be as good as yours and they may have more problems, but they have such a high volume since it’s a very price sensitive industry that it doesn’t matter to them.

countingbeans · March 10, 2014, 5:03pm

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Still assumption heavy and getting heavier.[/quote]

LOL, because your statement about the wellbeing of small business owners wasn’t a blatant and egregiously incorrect one?

Okay, so people flipping burgers, pour coffee, and ringing at a checkout are putting forth skills that deserve what kind of pay then?

You are failing to remember we are talking about min wage here. You’re not keeping in mind the people who, even after time invested, still make min wage, and what kind of value they add to a product.

What was that about assumptions now?

Secondly, how many people make min wage as an arborist?

SO you have zero experience in dealing with the low skilled employees that make min wage then, nor the management there of, and choices that need to be made due to?

[quote]How would you explain that some companies are in some ways proud of the fact that they offer well above the minimum that can be gotten away with in pay and other comps? Like, not even above average, but some of the best in a given industry?

I mean sure, they Could pay less, they simply don’t though. Do you suppose they have different values assigned to a skill set, or that they value different things?
[/quote]

I would imagine:

They hire and retain based off of higher qualifications than the other companies
They attract better worker because of the higher pay, who in turn go over and above for the company, adding value, therefore making the higher pay a worthwhile expense.
They posses a superior cost savings in other areas, though various means, than those that pay their workers less.
They employ less people overall

I could go on…

Don’t make the assumption I’m against people making money, or being paid more, because I’m against government mandating a wage scale.

Aragorn · March 10, 2014, 5:03pm

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

I mean sure, they Could pay less, they simply don’t though. Do you suppose they have different values assigned to a skill set, or that they value different things?
[/quote]

My considerably unbusinessman opinion is that they probably value different things, or they hire with a different/more rigorous selection process. A business doesn’t make good profit if their overhead is too high, so that leaves either a) they measure their metrics differently (value a different set) or b) they take only the very best people and expect a very high level of efficiency out of them in order to make up for the extra overhead and remain competitive. c) says they don’t make as much profit as the other companies who pay less. or d) they have less overhead elsewhere in the company structure, are leaner, and therefore able to pay more to employees.

Aragorn · March 10, 2014, 5:06pm

I see beans beat me to the post lol

ZJStrope · March 10, 2014, 5:07pm

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

I mean sure, they Could pay less, they simply don’t though. Do you suppose they have different values assigned to a skill set, or that they value different things?
[/quote]

My considerably unbusinessman opinion is that they probably value different things, or they hire with a different/more rigorous selection process. A business doesn’t make good profit if their overhead is too high, so that leaves either a) they measure their metrics differently (value a different set) or b) they take only the very best people and expect a very high level of efficiency out of them in order to make up for the extra overhead and remain competitive. c) says they don’t make as much profit as the other companies who pay less. or d) they have less overhead elsewhere in the company structure, are leaner, and therefore able to pay more to employees.[/quote]

Pretty good list here

countingbeans · March 10, 2014, 5:11pm

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

I mean sure, they Could pay less, they simply don’t though. Do you suppose they have different values assigned to a skill set, or that they value different things?
[/quote]

My considerably unbusinessman opinion is that they probably value different things, or they hire with a different/more rigorous selection process. A business doesn’t make good profit if their overhead is too high, so that leaves either a) they measure their metrics differently (value a different set) or b) they take only the very best people and expect a very high level of efficiency out of them in order to make up for the extra overhead and remain competitive. c) says they don’t make as much profit as the other companies who pay less. or d) they have less overhead elsewhere in the company structure, are leaner, and therefore able to pay more to employees.[/quote]

Tis a very good opinion for a non-business man.

Look, you see examples like this, I think Costco is one. I see examples like this all over the place.

You pay for what you want. And you only pay people if they can bring what you want and need to the table.

You hire a 16 year old to pour your customer’s coffee with 2 expectations:

If this kid turns out to be awful (lets face it, if I paid anyone $10 an hour and he fucked up one coffee, I would fire him) I can replace him cheaply.
If this kid turns out to be good and an asset to the company, he won’t be making this wage for long.

And no, and this is the folly of those who have never actually been in a position to know this, the attitude of management isn’t “HAHAHAHAHAH I pay you dirt because you are scum”.

pittbulll · March 10, 2014, 5:22pm

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I thought I would refresh your memory

I am supposed to translate “Franfurt’s occupation of the American opinion.” into a school

Just curious why wouldn’t you say the word school , it would have been the intellectual thing to do
[/quote]

No, the intellectual thing to do was to give you the benefit of the doubt that you had the intellectual flexibility to connect the very obvious dots when the subject is economics and economists’ opinions.

There are only 3 or 4 major schools of thought on economics, and everyone who has a basic knowledge of economic thought can immediately see what somebody means when they say “London school of thought” or “London opinion/Frankfurt opinion/Chicago opinion”. Or even “XX is a London guy”. This is similar to categorizing opinions by saying “XX is a Keynesian/Austrian guy”.

It is ridiculous to somehow equate a conversation on economics to a military occupation by a foreign city, which is what you tried somehow to do. Don’t blame him because you intentionally tried to mistake him.
[/quote]

Why would I connect the City of Frankfurt with economics ? If he would have said Frankfurt School , when I googled it I would have connected the dots .

IMO to be an intellectual you have to understand not every one has your life experiences .There are many things in the city of Frankfurt and when you talk occupation the first leap not only I made but Google as well was the Nazi Occupation .

pittbulll · March 10, 2014, 5:16pm