[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
It’s not my fault that certain companies choose to abide by the bare minimum forced by law. If they choose to go that route than unfortunately yes, more law will be required to change it.[/quote]
A company will pay necessary labor what it is worth in the market. It isn’t that they choose to pay low wage, it is that the skills required to do it are low or not there at all, and that labor, in terms of market are low.
If I have a job, lets call it “A”. Job A is very demanding, stressful and you need a certain level of skill to do it that requires a college degree. I offer that job to 100 candidates at a job fair. I offer it to them at 30k a year.
Will, let’s say Push offers the same job. But he offers candidates 50k to do the job.
Who do you think is going to attack the better employees?
There is a relative mountain of evidence that shows hiring the right employee and taking care of them makes you more money than temp labor. So if sustained quality employees are my goal, what should I pay my employee?
Let’s say I have job B. Job B is pouring coffee into a cup and handing it to people that drive thru. Should they make as much as people working job A? If not, what do I do with person A’s salary if I’m forced to pay people doing Job B suddenly get a $2 raise? (A 27% raise, which is insane high).
There is more here, but I’ll stop for now.
Okay. There is overhead to take into account. Typical figures are between 20-30%. So for every dollar in wages a company pays, it typically costs $1.30 to the company after it is all said and done.
So, you 1,560 is actually closer to 2,000. Now that is per year. Well if I have 50 employees, 15 of which are part time, that is 30,000. So now here are my choices:
-
I have a 30k increase in costs. So in order for my company to grow even one dollar I need a 30,001 increase in revenue, assuming all other costs are the same. ouch
-
I can trim 30k of other costs. Anyone who understands margin, and most successful people do, know cutting 30k of costs, just to break even, is a bitch. And if I cut costs, guess what costs are elastic enough to cut? Payroll costs. So I’m firing people.
-
I can take a 30k pay cut… No one else is willing to live on less, why should I eat a shit sandwich the size of 30k?
Because the government is forcing their employer to pay them more than market dictates. So rather than increase everyone’s taxes 3% and hand it to them, they force us to pay for it through the effects of MW, and the employer to hand it to them.
There is zero increase in value added, they didn’t earn the raise. Their skills are still low, still only worth X. So giving them X+2 simply is socializing the cost burden of their low skill. Which is welfare, except the government isn’t the middle man in the way that it cuts the check. But rather the middleman in that it regulates the amount of your check.
Why can’t they find their own ability?
I out earned my parents, and it isn’t like I grew up drinking Dom. [/quote]
Brilliantly articulated.[/quote]
OK, well…You got me.
I understand the situation better now. I quess I got lost empathizing with those individuals because of my past experiences. Shoulda left my emotions out and looked at it black and white.
It still sucks for said individual.
What if we just ask people to take less of a profit?
I kid I kid