[Retiredcoach]

Originally Posted by annerk

People were able to live on a single salary (and still can) because they lived a simpler lifestyle. No expensive cars, no McMansions, home cooked meals, homemade clothes, and a garden in the yard.

There are plenty of jobs that treat employees well here in Florida. If people are unhappy, let them find a new job. If they can't it's probably because they think they are worth more than they are, have bad attitudes, or don't have the skills needed.

Whoa, you are so out of touch with the reality of today's economy. I rented an apartment to a single mom who makes a salary of about $26000 per year. The rental is for lower income tenants (only $465 per month plus utilities). Finances were always tight for her, but she paid her rent on time, until she got sick. She drives a car that is 17 years old. She can barely afford life's basic necessities, and health insurance was not one of them. There are constables and debt collectors hounding her 24/7.

I cannot imagine some of the real challenges that are being faced by the working poor. I have been lucky, I have had a union that has helped me and protected me from facing the attributes of a "trickle down" (I'll save my breadcrumbs for you... if you are good) mentality.

[linc]

I have several family members and friends in 3 different unions (railroad, power & light and phone). They ALL constantly brag about how little work they do, for the wages they receive. I'm glad they have good jobs, but the union mentality I've seen is a lazy worker who gets paid well. I have no problem with a guy making $28 hour plus if he actually works and takes pride in what he is doing. It seems to me that unions "protect" a lot of people, who really need to be fired. I wish the unions would crack down more on employee work ethic. I think it would really help their cause.

[Retiredcoach]

Originally Posted by linc

I have several family members and friends in 3 different unions (railroad, power & light and phone). They ALL constantly brag about how little work they do, for the wages they receive. I'm glad they have good jobs, but the union mentality I've seen is a lazy worker who gets paid well. I have no problem with a guy making $28 hour plus if he actually works and takes pride in what he is doing. It seems to me that unions "protect" a lot of people, who really need to be fired. I wish the unions would crack down more on employee work ethic. I think it would really help their cause.

Generally, a union can only be as strong as its leadership, as well as, the leadership of management. If a union demands too much, the company can/will close its doors (often receiving special governmental aid/incentives to do so). If management destroys a corporation, they are awarded bonuses with taxpayer subsidies. Is it no wonder that so many Fortune 500 companies are on the brink of bankruptcy and still awarding their executives with bonuses for their prolonged incompetence? How many employees could be paid a livable wage with just a fraction of the millions in bonuses awarded the "management aristocracy" of many banks? You and I protect the incompetence of poor management, but unions offer us some voice that will affect change. You mention the union mentality and correlate this with laziness. I can name thousands of union members that are the best of their crafts, work on the premise of a real days work for a real days pay, and are some of the strongest pillars of their communities. A company's work ethic is a reflection of both the employees and those who lead them.

[annerk]

Originally Posted by Retiredcoach

Whoa, you are so out of touch with the reality of today's economy. I rented an apartment to a single mom who makes a salary of about $26000 per year. The rental is for lower income tenants (only $465 per month plus utilities). Finances were always tight for her, but she paid her rent on time, until she got sick. She drives a car that is 17 years old. She can barely afford life's basic necessities, and health insurance was not one of them. There are constables and debt collectors hounding her 24/7.

I cannot imagine some of the real challenges that are being faced by the working poor. I have been lucky, I have had a union that has helped me and protected me from facing the attributes of a "trickle down" (I'll save my breadcrumbs for you... if you are good) mentality.

And where is her child support? If she was getting support from the kids father, she wouldn't have these issues. I'm not out of touch with reality--not at all. Again, it's called personal responsibility--some deadbeat dad is allowing his child to live in poverty instead of taking care of him financially.

[TNRyan23]

Originally Posted by annerk

And where is her child support? If she was getting support from the kids father, she wouldn't have these issues. I'm not out of touch with reality--not at all. Again, it's called personal responsibility--some deadbeat dad is allowing his child to live in poverty instead of taking care of him financially.

How is a deadbeat dad HER fault ?

She can't control that and BTW, Child Support payments aren't even enough to pay for a weeks worth of daycare.

You're out of touch man.

[annerk]

Originally Posted by TNRyan23

How is a deadbeat dad HER fault ?

She can't control that and BTW, Child Support payments aren't even enough to pay for a weeks worth of daycare.

You're out of touch man.

I'm not blaming her, not sure how you could possibly infer I was. I'm saying that if everyone took responsibility for the situations that they have created for themselves (ie fathers paying child support and people not having kids they can't afford) we wouldn't have this type of problem. Why should her financial situation be her employers problem, and why should the employer be compelled to pay her more than she's worth?

Or should we simply revert to Communism?

[TNRyan23]

Originally Posted by annerk

I'm not blaming her, not sure how you could possibly infer I was. I'm saying that if everyone took responsibility for the situations that they have created for themselves (ie fathers paying child support and people not having kids they can't afford) we wouldn't have this type of problem. Why should her financial situation be her employers problem, and why should the employer be compelled to pay her more than she's worth?

Or should we simply revert to Communism?

I don't get your point ? Who is the leading authority on what someone is worth ? Going by your logic, It seems Florida is FULL of worthless workers because of the low wages.

This woman that Coach is talking about could probably make $36k doing the same job just by crossing the state line. Of course, That's just my estimate but I know it to be true because I've been there.

I worked at Albertsons and Publix in Florida and never made more then $6.25/hr. I moved to Tennessee and walked out of an interview with Kroger making over $14/hr. THAT helped me to move onto bigger and better things.

[annerk]

Originally Posted by TNRyan23

I don't get your point ? Who is the leading authority on what someone is worth ? Going by your logic, It seems Florida is FULL of worthless workers because of the low wages.

This woman that Coach is talking about could probably make $36k doing the same job just by crossing the state line. Of course, That's just my estimate but I know it to be true because I've been there.

I worked at Albertsons and Publix in Florida and never made more then $6.25/hr. I moved to Tennessee and walked out of an interview with Kroger making over $14/hr. THAT helped me to move onto bigger and better things.

A person is worth what the fair maket will pay. If you are a valuable asset to a company and can't be replaced for less than what you are being paid, then you are making what you should be.

If you can be replaced for less money by someone who can do the job equally well, then you are obviously not worth what you are/were making.

Labor costs are based on supply and demand just like any other commodity.

If you don't like what you are making, you always have the option of quitting your job and going into busines for yourself, going to work for another employer who feels taht you can offer value equal to your wages, or making a career change to a job that will pay more.

[TNRyan23]

Originally Posted by annerk

A person is worth what the fair maket will pay. If you are a valuable asset to a company and can't be replaced for less than what you are being paid, then you are making what you should be.

If you can be replaced for less money by someone who can do the job equally well, then you are obviously not worth what you are/were making.

Labor costs are based on supply and demand just like any other commodity.

If you don't like what you are making, you always have the option of quitting your job and going into busines for yourself, going to work for another employer who feels taht you can offer value equal to your wages, or making a career change to a job that will pay more.

This is EXACTLY what is wrong with Florida.

You could have a 4 year degree and bust your butt scrubbing floors at K-Mart and they will STILL get rid of you if they can hire someone else for less. It's not a matter of the value of the employee but how much the employer can save.

Why pay someone what they're worth when you have over 300 applications on file ? I moved back to Florida in 2002 for about 2 months and was in Ft. Myers with two roommates. I was hired at Old Time Pottery making $6.50 and was worked 38 hours a week ( because they didn't want to giveout benefits, NONE of the employees were full-time ) anyways, When I was hired they told me I was being hired because I had experience with cleaning at Kroger and that I was " lucky " to be hired because he had over 300 applications and he showed me the stack. I was amazed and after getting enough cash to go home, I did.

My point is, In Florida when you have 300 people applying for the same job, They will ALWAYS lowball people or move on to the next applicant. It has NOTHING to do with their worth.

[annerk]

Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with their worth. If they had the skills to work someplace else, they would be! If there were no employees to fill those jobs, employers would be forced to pay higher wages in order to recruit. (Disney actually ran into this about a decade ago and had to raise pay rates for several roles because they simply couldn't recruit enough people to fill them based on the wages they had been offering.)

Why on earth should an employer be strong-armed into paying higher wages to someone when there is another--possibly even a better--employee waiting in the wings?

I suppose you think that Communism should be alive and well? We all know how well that worked.