[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Were the late 60’s a time of big inflation?
[/quote]
The late 60’s =/= 2014.
You can’t compare the two. The economic landscape is so vastly different that it isn’t an apples to apples comparison.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If someone isn’t pulling their weight then they should not be allowed to participate OR their incentive pay is tied to THEIR productivity.
[/quote]
Well, this is in large part why wage for low skilled labor is so low.
You understand that you are both arguing against the MW in this post, and then asking why it can’t be tied to inflation correct?[/quote]
No, enlighten me.[/quote]
You want people paid more or less based on productivity. Which is saying you want people paid based on the value they provide. If they do good work, they get paid more, if they do bad work they get paid less.
Then you ask why min wage isn’t tied to inflation. Min wage isn’t based on value added, or how hard you work. It is an arbitrary figure thought up in government by a third party that pays no price for being wrong. This is the opposite of what you talk about with the productivity and GM example.
Tying MW to inflation is increasing the wage for reasons that have nothing to do with productivity.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
At some point there won’t be a benefit to the increased cost of production, which means productivity is just one of many factors. [/quote]
You know this, but this entire line of thought goes along the assumption, which is false, that the increase in production is due to human efforts.
Only happens in certain environments. Production increases are a combination of things. And if a manager tells an employee to use a new technique, it isn’t the employee that should get the production bonus, as his input is the same, the manager should get it, as it was her input that increased the production.
But examples like above give bad blood, bad blood means low moral and low moral means lower production and accuracy.
Pay rates should be negotiated between individual employee and employer, period. No other third party knows what the employee is worth, nor what the employer can (or is willing to) pay. [/quote]
Absolutely.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
At some point there won’t be a benefit to the increased cost of production, which means productivity is just one of many factors. [/quote]
You know this, but this entire line of thought goes along the assumption, which is false, that the increase in production is due to human efforts.
Only happens in certain environments. Production increases are a combination of things. And if a manager tells an employee to use a new technique, it isn’t the employee that should get the production bonus, as his input is the same, the manager should get it, as it was her input that increased the production.
But examples like above give bad blood, bad blood means low moral and low moral means lower production and accuracy.
Pay rates should be negotiated between individual employee and employer, period. No other third party knows what the employee is worth, nor what the employer can (or is willing to) pay. [/quote]
Absolutely. [/quote]
Absolutely (WRONG)
A Union is the only thing (I CAN IMAGINE) that will combat this monster that an unregulated labor market has created .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A Union is the only thing (I CAN IMAGINE) that will combat this monster that an unregulated labor market has created .
[/quote]
First off, the labor market is far from unregulated. In fact it is quite regulated. One could make the argument it is one of the most regulated aspects of business.
Secondly, the vast majority of high wages positions are high skilled positions, and a significant portion of those are not union. So if what you were saying was even remotely true, which it isn’t, lawyers, managers, accountants, consultants, and investment folks would be paid significantly less than they are, because they aren’t in a union.
In short, your assertion is stuck in 1914, too bad it is 2014.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
At some point there won’t be a benefit to the increased cost of production, which means productivity is just one of many factors. [/quote]
You know this, but this entire line of thought goes along the assumption, which is false, that the increase in production is due to human efforts.
Only happens in certain environments. Production increases are a combination of things. And if a manager tells an employee to use a new technique, it isn’t the employee that should get the production bonus, as his input is the same, the manager should get it, as it was her input that increased the production.
But examples like above give bad blood, bad blood means low moral and low moral means lower production and accuracy.
Pay rates should be negotiated between individual employee and employer, period. No other third party knows what the employee is worth, nor what the employer can (or is willing to) pay. [/quote]
Absolutely. [/quote]
Absolutely (WRONG)
A Union is the only thing (I CAN IMAGINE) that will combat this monster that an unregulated labor market has created .
[/quote]
Did you only hire union people for your businesses?
I did not hire any one , while my business was doing good . I too full advantage of a small (ME) lean mean work force . I made good money had zero problems .
In hind sight I would have hired if I knew then what I know now . But I made a shit load of money .
I am not sure I am done , I have a couple more business plans I am kicking around in my head
FYI , I would have paid union dues at any time , because it meant my competition would have had to charge more and I could have done likewise 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
FYI , I would have paid union dues at any time , because it meant my competition would have had to charge more and I could have done likewise :)[/quote]
So you would artificially inflate your prices to make more money? How are you any better than the corporation you constantly rip on?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
FYI , I would have paid union dues at any time , because it meant my competition would have had to charge more and I could have done likewise :)[/quote]
So you would artificially inflate your prices to make more money? How are you any better than the corporation you constantly rip on?[/quote]
He’s not. He likes the idea of unions because he is uncomfortable with the thought that each man is responsible for his own success or failure.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
FYI , I would have paid union dues at any time , because it meant my competition would have had to charge more and I could have done likewise :)[/quote]
So you would artificially inflate your prices to make more money? How are you any better than the corporation you constantly rip on?[/quote]
He’s not. He likes the idea of unions because he is uncomfortable with the thought that each man is responsible for his own success or failure.
[/quote]
The hypocrisy cracks me up, is all.
The lack of understanding cracks me up , I am no better than any one or thing. I understand what it is like to compete and I understand how the tax code discriminates between large and small business
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I understand what it is like to compete[/quote]
Driving prices up so you can charge more is just competition, huh? Sounds like price gouging or collusion.
[quote]
I understand how the tax code discriminates between large and small business [/quote]
How does the tax code discriminate based on the size of the company?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I understand what it is like to compete[/quote]
Driving prices up so you can charge more is just competition, huh? Sounds like price gouging or collusion.
[quote]
I understand how the tax code discriminates between large and small business [/quote]
How does the tax code discriminate based on the size of the company?[/quote]
Corporation income is taxed twice
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I understand what it is like to compete[/quote]
Driving prices up so you can charge more is just competition, huh? Sounds like price gouging or collusion.
Lol… I suppose that’s true (although that’s not necessarily size related). It’s obviously not what Pitt mean’t though.
Oh well, what do I know, I’m just an honorary member of the cjs anyway.
I got really bored trying to read this whole thread so I will throw in my $.02 for my very first T-Nation post:
The minimum wage is designed as a way to create an entry level wage for the workforce, it is not meant to be the pay scale you aspire to, so the argument against raising it is sort of valid (in the sense that people should be able to advance beyond it).
However, somewhere around 3.6 million workers earned the federal minimum wage or below ( Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012 ) and a large # of these workers also received federal benefits for being truly fucking poor, which in essence means that we are actually subsidizing the workforce of exceptionally profitable companies like McDonalds, this seems to me to be a bit nonsensical.
An article in “Business Insider” stated that McDonalds could double wages for their employees WITHOUT raising the price of one single Big Mac, they would just have less profit at the end of the year . This would allow employees to get off the public dole and allow them to put money back into the economy, which we all agree is a good thing.
Now not all minimum wage employers are McDonalds, most are mom and pop operations where an increased minimum wage could very well spell doom for their business, so perhaps a compromise is in order, maybe you base wages on the size of the business or some other factor that allows for a successful business AND fair compensation for employees.
I am sure of two things:
-
I do not want to subsidize Donald Thompsons lifestyle.
-
I do not want to see “Fry Engineer’s” getting gold watches for 20 years of service.
There has to be a better way.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The hypocrisy cracks me up, is all.
[/quote]
Agreed.
Hilarious really.
[quote]NotABadGuy wrote:
An article in “Business Insider” stated that McDonalds could double wages for their employees WITHOUT raising the price of one single Big Mac, they would just have less profit at the end of the year . This would allow employees to get off the public dole and allow them to put money back into the economy, which we all agree is a good thing.
.[/quote]
Two problems jump out at me with that statement by “business insider”.
One being, I hope your 401k isn’t invested in McDonalds, because those shares would free fall if they suddenly just tanked EPS, which is at $5-$5.50 2011 thru 2013. http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mcd/revenue-eps
So assume they lose 5% because of this. Well, McDonalds isn’t the only company that will lose 5%, subway, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, lowes… on and on and on so on and so forth… Across the board lets say, market wide, we’re talking about a 3% free fall in share price accounting for all the companies who are public that would feel this crunch, when it is all said and done.
So a couple weeks to a couple days of heavy trading resulting in a net reduction of share price, because educated investors know the EPS reductions will continue because of the second problem I see:
Wage creep.
Let’s say you work Min wage as a 16 year old at Home Depot. You’ve worked there for 3 years, are staying on through college because they work around your class schedule and have gotten raises up to $11 from the $8.
What are you going to ask for when people just hired are making $10?
And then what are the people making $14 going to ask for after you ask for it?
So on an so forth.
And I’ve given this example a couple of times, but if I have a kid pouring coffee for me (and dont’ make the mistake that people making min wage are doing high skilled labor, they aren’t, they are pour coffee FFS.) messes up a single order and I HAVE to hire him at $10+… He is fired. One strike. That is too expensive to have mistakes.
NotABadGuy,
Not a bad post.
[quote]NotABadGuy wrote:
However, somewhere around 3.6 million workers earned the federal minimum wage or below ( Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012 ) and a large # of these workers also received federal benefits for being truly fucking poor, which in essence means that we are actually subsidizing the workforce of exceptionally profitable companies like McDonalds, this seems to me to be a bit nonsensical.
An article in “Business Insider” stated that McDonalds could double wages for their employees WITHOUT raising the price of one single Big Mac, they would just have less profit at the end of the year . This would allow employees to get off the public dole and allow them to put money back into the economy, which we all agree is a good thing. [/quote]
A couple of things.
How many of the 3.6MM workers actually work a 40/hr week? I think that’s an important factor to consider.
Do you have the Business Insider article? I assume you mean double the wages of those making minimum wage, is that correct? Does the article address the wave affect this will have on all other wages?
[quote]NotABadGuy wrote:
Now not all minimum wage employers are McDonalds, most are mom and pop operations where an increased minimum wage could very well spell doom for their business, so perhaps a compromise is in order, maybe you base wages on the size of the business or some other factor that allows for a successful business AND fair compensation for employees. [/quote]
I’m not sure this is a good idea.
First, define fair?
Who determine this, Congress (the people making a considerable amount more than the average American)?
Wouldn’t this “graduated salary” system hinder growth?
This would have to be an pretty complex, and ever changing, system to work. Size is only 1 small factor.
[quote]NotABadGuy wrote:
There has to be a better way.[/quote]
I agree, I just don’t think more government interference is the way.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I’ve given this example a couple of times, but if I have a kid pouring coffee for me (and dont’ make the mistake that people making min wage are doing high skilled labor, they aren’t, they are pour coffee FFS.) messes up a single order and I HAVE to hire him at $10+… He is fired. One strike. That is too expensive to have mistakes. [/quote]
I’ve seen you use this example probably 15 times. Wouldn’t you be wasting even more money by firing this employee (for one mistake)? In your example let’s assume you have to have a coffee server and it has to be at a minimum of $10/hour. Well, you have to train anyone you hire (even for a job like this), unless they have experience (which likely means they should/will earn more) and of course this costs money. Every time you hire a person you spend money on advertising the position and training. It seems to me it is more expensive to have a 1 strike you are out policy.
Why wouldn’t you fire a coffee server for one mistake at $7.50/hr, but would at $10?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I’ve given this example a couple of times, but if I have a kid pouring coffee for me (and dont’ make the mistake that people making min wage are doing high skilled labor, they aren’t, they are pour coffee FFS.) messes up a single order and I HAVE to hire him at $10+… He is fired. One strike. That is too expensive to have mistakes. [/quote]
I’ve seen you use this example probably 15 times. Wouldn’t you be wasting even more money by firing this employee (for one mistake)? In your example let’s assume you have to have a coffee server and it has to be at a minimum of $10/hour. Well, you have to train anyone you hire (even for a job like this), unless they have experience (which likely means they should/will earn more) and of course this costs money. Every time you hire a person you spend money on advertising the position and training. It seems to me it is more expensive to have a 1 strike you are out policy.
Why wouldn’t you fire a coffee server for one mistake at $7.50/hr, but would at $10?
[/quote]
that kid pouring coffee for you is making $2.13 , I propose making him pay for the right to serve YOU