Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I agree with what someone said earlier: a person who cannot pay his employees a decent wage should not be in business, or at the very least should be a sole proprietorship with no employees other than himself. Period. I'm sure that if we had no minimum wage laws, there would be a massive proliferation of jobs paying $1 - $2/hour. Absolutely not worth it.
I do not agree w/your first sentence, or maybe I don't understand. I don't know of any employer who makes their help stay w/their business. If a business owner can afford to pay someone $8/hr and nobody wants to do that job for $8, he will be doing it himself. Lets say that in that area it takes $10/hr for the avg. person. Am I wrong if I hire someone for $8, if that is all I can pay? Is it wrong for that person to work for $8 if he needs a job? Min. wage is just a base as I see most employers and employees comming to an agreement for that given job. As far as getting rid of min. wage and people start pay'n $1-$2/hr would not happen...unless someone gets paid to sleep at night. Employers want a happy employee, and they want them to do well. You sound as if you think that employers are just out to get the employee and do not care about them, which is not true for the majority, imho.
"I have yet to be convinced that precarious, super-low-wage employment with no benefits is all that much better than unemployment and social assistance, where at least we can make demands that workers improve their skills."
What is a "super-low-wage"? Min. wage? A person feels much better about themselves if they have a job, rather than look for an unemployment check. They also need something comming in while they improve their skills. They could work during the day and improve at night. I've seen people that get their unemployment check, are depressed as they don't have a job, and spend their money on beer/whiskey. Give them a job of any kind and it really improves their attitude.
"I think it's a much better investment for workers to focus on retooling their skills as opposed to working for some small business owner who can't pay a decent wage"
I believe they should still work and improve at night. It may not be much pay, but it's better than nothing or look'n for a handout. It's also the small business owners income, and he also must put food on the table. He also needs to save up for bad times, much the same as an employee.
"I agree with what someone said earlier: a person who cannot pay his employees a decent wage should not be in business, or at the very least should be a sole proprietorship with no employees other than himself. Period. I'm sure that if we had no minimum wage laws, there would be a massive proliferation of jobs paying $1 - $2/hour. Absolutely not worth it.
I do not agree w/your first sentence, or maybe I don't understand. I don't know of any employer who makes their help stay w/their business. If a business owner can afford to pay someone $8/hr and nobody wants to do that job for $8, he will be doing it himself. Lets say that in that area it takes $10/hr for the avg. person. Am I wrong if I hire someone for $8, if that is all I can pay? Is it wrong for that person to work for $8 if he needs a job? Min. wage is just a base as I see most employers and employees comming to an agreement for that given job. As far as getting rid of min. wage and people start pay'n $1-$2/hr would not happen...unless someone gets paid to sleep at night. Employers want a happy employee, and they want them to do well. You sound as if you think that employers are just out to get the employee and do not care about them, which is not true for the majority, imho.
The business owner needsthat employee though if hired the employee. If that is all you can pay is $8 then fine but most business owners can pay more.
"I have yet to be convinced that precarious, super-low-wage employment with no benefits is all that much better than unemployment and social assistance, where at least we can make demands that workers improve their skills."
What is a "super-low-wage"? Min. wage? A person feels much better about themselves if they have a job, rather than look for an unemployment check. They also need something comming in while they improve their skills. They could work during the day and improve at night. I've seen people that get their unemployment check, are depressed as they don't have a job, and spend their money on beer/whiskey. Give them a job of any kind and it really improves their attitude.
Improve at night? You mean go to school. You do know it takes money to go school and someone who gets payed minimum wage would not make enough to pay for school and live on it.
"I think it's a much better investment for workers to focus on retooling their skills as opposed to working for some small business owner who can't pay a decent wage"
I believe they should still work and improve at night. It may not be much pay, but it's better than nothing or look'n for a handout. It's also the small business owners income, and he also must put food on the table. He also needs to save up for bad times, much the same as an employee.
A work'n man is a proud man.
So because he is the business owner he can have enough to live on but his employee can not? So who does the work when this employee improves himself and other employees getting paid minimum wage all improve? There will be no one to do these jobs.
So because he is the business owner he can have enough to live on but his employee can not? Yes, it is HIS business, HIS risk/a$$ on the line....probably even his home. His employee can refuse to work for the pay and find another job. Most likely the employer advertised for help, told them what they would be required to do and how much compensation. If they say "yes", then who are we to turn them down?
So who does the work when this employee improves himself and other employees getting paid minimum wage all improve? Someone else or he does it himself. All depends on how the business is doing and how much he can afford to pay someone else to help.
There will be no one to do these jobs. May not be anyone, then he must figure out another way to get the work done. Chances are there is someone who needs a job and is tired of "hand-outs". Everyones living wage is different.
The more business owners we loose, the less jobs there are to fill.
Nothing wrong w/ improving your skills or picking up another trade, you've got to "sell" yourself. If you have nothing to sell or have a trade/product that is not needed, then you must adapt/change. Applies to business owners and employees.
I do not agree w/your first sentence, or maybe I don't understand. I don't know of any employer who makes their help stay w/their business. If a business owner can afford to pay someone $8/hr and nobody wants to do that job for $8, he will be doing it himself. Lets say that in that area it takes $10/hr for the avg. person. Am I wrong if I hire someone for $8, if that is all I can pay? Is it wrong for that person to work for $8 if he needs a job? Min. wage is just a base as I see most employers and employees comming to an agreement for that given job. As far as getting rid of min. wage and people start pay'n $1-$2/hr would not happen...unless someone gets paid to sleep at night. Employers want a happy employee, and they want them to do well. You sound as if you think that employers are just out to get the employee and do not care about them, which is not true for the majority, imho.
You and I just have a different way of looking at things - and disagreements are good (and the purpose of this forum!)
If $10/hour is what is needed to exist at even a bare bones, basic, subsistence level in a given area, an $8/hour job is not a path to the middle-class and self-fulfillment, it is a road to perpetual poverty and, more than likely, some type of taxpayer-subsidized public assistance. That isn't even taking into account things like paid vacations, paid time off to take care of sick children/family members, and health insurance that are not accessible to a large percentage of the employees on America's working class margins. I fully agree that most employers want happy, productive employees, and not demoralized workers who gripe about the company and its low pay. Many employers - particularly small business owners, who don't have the same types of recruiting tentacles as large multinationals - recognize that offering very low salaries and poor benefits is not an intelligent way to go about attracting the most talented and hard-working candidates. And in your example, those businesses would have absolutely no problem providing their workers with the $10/hr salary - and the intelligent, long-term oriented ones would provide even more. Some of the companies with the happiest, most productive, and most loyal employees - i.e., Costco - pay a living wage. The last time that I checked, Costco still manages to return a profit to its shareholders, even though the average worker there makes $17/hr.
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of others who do, in fact, see labor as nothing more than a disposable product, whose cost is to be minimized so as to not subtract from the bottom line - running the gamut from some small-business owners to some large multinationals (Wal-Mart immediately comes to mind in the latter category.) They will often pay the lowest wage possible, offer no benefits, and show no concern at all regarding whether or not the worker can subsist on that wage. That's the rather large group of businesses that I have problems with. Those are the ones who would offer $1 - $2/hour jobs if they were allowed to do so legally. You posed a very interesting question: "Is it wrong for that person to work for $8 if he needs a job?" Again, this is just one of those areas where you and I see things differently, and we'll have a respectable disagreement. My view is that, if the $8/hour wage rate is going to put that person into structural poverty because it is below a bare minimum subsistence wage, the government's wage floor in that given area should be higher than $8/hour. If that's all the employer can afford (and quite often this is not the case - it simply means that the employer will either have to accept a lower personal profit or perhaps only create one job instead of two), he should not be in the labor market. Society, through the form of government assistance, should focus on investing in retraining that worker so that he has skills that will command a higher wage rate. Regarding the "work versus welfare question"...
Quote:
What is a "super-low-wage"? Min. wage? A person feels much better about themselves if they have a job, rather than look for an unemployment check. They also need something comming in while they improve their skills. They could work during the day and improve at night. I've seen people that get their unemployment check, are depressed as they don't have a job, and spend their money on beer/whiskey. Give them a job of any kind and it really improves their attitude.
...there are many things to consider, and absolute judgments should be avoided. A single parent with school-aged children, commanding only the minimum wage, is not always in a position to realistically go to school and "beef up their skills." For one thing, many of these people are already working multiple jobs, struggling to deal with child care, and barely able to pay their bills, let alone afford community college tuition. Many of these types of people were themselves raised in impoverished households and are victims of their environment, not the types of slothful drunkards that they are often portrayed as in the media. It's a desperate trap: these people must often work for the lowest wage that the market will offer them, can never save enough money or free up enough time to invest in themselves, consequently their child suffer, and the cycle perpetuates generation after generation. Many of them, or at least many of their children, do manage to break out of the vicious cycle, but for each one that does, there are probably another 15 who do not.
To me, a "super-low-wage" job is one that not only pays the bare minimum that is legally permissible, but goes even further by offering workers no benefits, no opportunity for growth, and no job security. Workers who will be fired if they as much as take a day off to care for a sick parent. Workers who can work 80 hours in a pay cycle and still not have enough to pay the bare minimum bills even in the cheapest part of a city. Workers who can't get regular checkups at a doctor's office because they have no health insurance. Those are the victims of low wage employment - and that's precisely why I'm not convinced that that social assistance is not a better route, especially when the time commitment of these jobs, coupled with childcare needs, often inhibits them for improving their skills and seeing a way out. I know workers on the fringes of society for whom their paychecks aren't a source of pride; they're more like a continually self-renewing prison sentence to the lowest rungs of the capitalist ladder. And in most of these cases, these workers work for enterprises that are profitable, with chief executives easily commanding six figure salaries and handsome bonuses. I will admit that I'm not too concerned with the size of a CEO's bonus, or the ROI earned by a business owner; my concern is with the people on society's margins, who all too often work as hard as they possibly can but find no way out of the environment that they were born into.
To be clear, government has as much guilt for low-wage employment as greedy, negligent employers. We need universal, single-payer healthcare. We need a Federally-subsidized vocational training program that is absolutely free for low-income workers, to allow them to fully benefit from the "new economy." We need a Family Medical Leave Act that mandates paid time off to allow workers to care for sick family members or sick children without losing income or their jobs. We need stronger forms of social assistance - more funding for programs such as TANF, SNAP, and WIC. And we need living wage legislation that ensures that nobody working full-time can't provide for their basic, essential needs.
Quote:
A work'n man is a proud man.
Having worked my way through high-school, undergraduate college, and graduate school, I couldn't agree more. But that work should do more than enrich business owners, shareholders, and C-level management, while leaving workers going further and further into poverty. And paying employees enough to allow them to provide a bare bones standard of living should not just be common sense to businesses, it should be common human decency.
As I see here in my private office at work, looking at my last paycheck stub I feel lucky. It is sure nice to have my own office and the ability to do interesting work for a very good paycheck. I am extremely intelligent and talented (according to all my employers), so getting my great job and training for it was really easy. In the world of work, I have been really lucky.
On the other hand, I have some old friends from High School who are not as talented and intelligent. Or did they go for additional training or college after they graduated from High School. They are all making less than $10.00 an hour to do some of the dirtiest nastiest jobs in our society. If they were looking for ideas for the television show "Dirty Jobs" my friends would be great candidates. Dirty Jobs : Discovery Channel
All of them are quite bitter with how poorly they are paid and their lot in life. All of them are Fathers and do not have the time to go back to school to learn a new trade, so they will be doing their dirty ugly boring jobs until they retire. Many work two jobs to survive.
Should society put more attention on these people and pay them more just because their work is so dirty ugly and nasty?
I write this from the comfort of my air conditioned office making three times what they do for playing with the Internet.
(I also make my employer lots of money through my talent as a Management Consutant and Trainer. )
I did a thread about something like this a long time ago, dont know where it went
one thing many people overlook, is that our entire economy is based on having a "lower class" to do certain lower class jobs.
this is a basic truth.
since we have to have these people do these jobs AND not get paid very much to do them, i think we do owe them something, at the very least in the way of health benefits.
Adam you had a great post there. It is good to know I am not the only one who cares about people in bad situations. Costco pays a good wage and does fine so there is no excues that other companies can not.
Adam you had a great post there. It is good to know I am not the only one who cares about people in bad situations. Costco pays a good wage and does fine so there is no excues that other companies can not.
will they keep it up though?
One of the reasons they pay their employees so well is their CEO thinks its the right thing to do. The board doesnt necessarily agree.
will the next ceo think the same? will the board bribe him with larger bonuses to cut employee pay? time will tell, but i have ultimate faith in human greed.
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies I thought this was just interesting. You wouldn't think a sermon would change for class of people. I guess I can see the point.
To original post:
I've seen several shows based on studies that say "blue collar workers" are generally happier in life and live longer. They also tend to be better fathers and husbands and enjoy more friends. I think it is a bonding they do at the bars, or through work. White collar workers tend to be stressed with no physical release and commit suicide more. They say there is more pressure on them to keep their jobs, because they are considered "good jobs", and a lot of competition instead of bonding with their fellow workers. I'm sure it's not true for all, but I can see the point in some of them.
I know a lot of happy plumbers, electricians, contruction workers, that have big get togethers and do a lot of family stuff. They seem to be more physical with there kids to, playing more ball, etc.
I know a lot of them that make more money that a lot of white collared workers as well. The office is free of weather, exercise, and interaction with other people. I'm not so sure it would be something your friends would really prefer. It sounds like they might be bonding without you because of your "high paying" white collar position. Who you bonding with? Us? lol
Then again, there are plenty of white collared workers who go to the gym, and try and make more time for their kids. I guess it all depends on who you are but when researched the lower middle class of blue collar workers were the happiest with what they had, their families and their lives. They had a great show about it on PBS, I'll try and find a link for ya. Made me wonder why I spent all that time in college. lol
I know alot of blue collar workers who are in very bad shape after they retire.It is the abuse they often pt their bodies thru at woprk. many end up in accidents by ignoring safety many times.I have also noticed that many blue collar workers tend to be much more over weight than they use to be fromn poor eating habits ;I guess. Whaite collar work tho seem to nhave more heart probl;ems but less prblems from disbaling things from the job. They also tend to enjoy workign more than blue collar work IMO;so that many are loose when they retire.No0w top management are just married to the job and really never retire until forced to do so. 12 hrs days are just normal at the top.
Well, I hope there as happy now a days. A lot of white collar workers are getting the pink slip due to the recession and outsourcing. It must be a stressful time for them. You can't outsource a clogged toilet or a bad electrical wire. Its a hard time to be on wall street as well. I hope things settle down soon.
Believe me, I was just as surprised at the study. I never thought lower middle class would be happier and more content with their lifes than upper middle class. I guess it wears on ones nerves to "keep up with the Joneses". I think when you don't expect more it relieves some of the pressure and you can foccus on the things that aren't material. When you have money you often just buy more stuff. When your not "well off" you tend to spend more time with friends and family as well, it doesn't cost anything.
They said the worst place to be was right above "upper middle class" but not "rich". Those people tended to suffer extreme stress in relation to their jobs. They were always trying to get move forward or feared loosing their job more than others. They had enough money to indulge but not to get out of the "need for more atmosphere". They were the unhappiest in the study.
Last edited by twiggy; 12-14-2008 at 03:54 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Employers want a happy employee, and they want them to do well. You sound as if you think that employers are just out to get the employee and do not care about them, which is not true for the majority, imho. 
(and the purpose of this forum!)
