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.
That's a pretty common definition of it, by my lights. And I think someone who does that deserves a wage that actually makes it worth the time and effort to do this. For an 18-year-old kid on his or her first job, that might well be minimum wage. But for someone who's older, has been in the workforce for an appreciable length of time and has more work experience overall, paying minimum basically just sends the message that the employer really doesn't care about anything except paying as little as he or she can legally get away with paying, and doesn't actually value the employee's efforts.
Paying more for more experience counts when they are more efficient at the job, require less training, or something else that cuts costs somewhere or is a significant benefit. Otherwise, that's great that they have the experience, but it doesn't make a difference in the end. And I don't think anyone should pay for that. The employee should be in a job that's a better fit. And they are free to find that opportunity. That's the beauty of this country!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalisiin
...and employees do NOT see the side we see at all - and they view us ALL as the mean greedy Scroogey executive, which we aren't.
We, as owners...who have everything at risk...we SHOULD earn more.
And I think that's the crux of the problematic nature of this thread. While 99% of companies out there, many of them small businesses like ourselves, try to do what is right day-in and day-out, it's only the 1% that people in this thread are focusing on, and coming at that topic with a gross entitlement attitude. No employer wants that in their workplace. Go work somewhere else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalisiin
If I had to pay an employee, there would be nothing left to pay ME. And I do not run a business in order to make no money for myself.
The problem is...employees do not see things from our side at all...they think we have an endless, inexhaustible supply of money, and that we don;t pay them more just because we are greedy, mean Scrooges.
But I'm also happier than I have ever been in my life...
The point is...there's two sides to this, and it seems to me like each side only sees their own and not the other side. I'm still in a position where I can see both.
I think these are the points most employees really don't understand--and it's okay. Only business people truly understand business. Business ownership isn't for everyone, so you can't expect everyone to understand.
It's interesting how happiness plays a part even when money doesn't. And I think that's a serious flaw in a lot of the ranting going on here about increased wages. Employees are most productive when they are happy (you're a perfect example). Money alone doesn't keep employees happy. If their home life is horrible, then no amount of money will fix that.
I agree that there's definitely a disconnect. And it's no cooincidence that it happens when companies and employees are not on a first name basis--it's easier to look at faceless numbers and make decisions, from either perspective.
So let me get this straight, we should pay employees rather than ourselves? Get a reality check. You go work like a dog for free. We have to have some sort of return for the 100s of hours we put in each week.
Show me where I posted THAT!
No need to get dramatic.
I'm just saying if you cannot afford the best employees that's too bad on you, don't expect the best to work for substandard pay when better employers can afford to pay them more.
Not all small businesses are poor mouthing beggars either. My sister works for a small family owned business and they are doing fantastic and have been for decades (passed down from a former generation) and the employees are compensated well. That does not interfere with the owners having mansions with amenities like movie theaters and bowling alleys inside them and chauffeured Rolls Royces and their wives having pieces of jewelry that each (not collectively) cost in the 6 and 7 figures. Imagine that!
Last edited by I_Love_LI_but; 12-15-2013 at 11:27 AM..
Paying more for more experience counts when they are more efficient at the job, require less training, or something else that cuts costs somewhere or is a significant benefit. Otherwise, that's great that they have the experience, but it doesn't make a difference in the end. And I don't think anyone should pay for that. The employee should be in a job that's a better fit. And they are free to find that opportunity. That's the beauty of this country!
If you truly understood business and how people fit into it, then you'd know that being more experienced generally DOES translate to being more efficient and requiring less training, or possible needing no training at all. THAT is precisely what I am talking about, but the more you post, the more I suspect you'd still try to pay minimum wage even to someone who could walk in on Day One and do the job spectacularly well with zero input required from their supervisor beyond showing them where to clock in and hang up their coat in those first 30 seconds.
Quote:
And I think that's the crux of the problematic nature of this thread. While 99% of companies out there, many of them small businesses like ourselves, try to do what is right day-in and day-out, it's only the 1% that people in this thread are focusing on, and coming at that topic with a gross entitlement attitude. No employer wants that in their workplace. Go work somewhere else.
Something tells me you're only skimming people's posts rather than actually reading them, if that's what you're getting from this thread.
Quote:
I think these are the points most employees really don't understand--and it's okay. Only business people truly understand business. Business ownership isn't for everyone, so you can't expect everyone to understand.
Not true at all, in your first point. Some people opt not to go into business for themselves because they DO understand business and they don't want the headaches of trying to run a startup -- they'd rather work for a company that's established.
And plenty of people working in established companies are there precisely because their employer makes use of the employee's business sense. Good grief, if you're running a business and you're the only person there who understands business, then clearly you don't understand it well enough to know that you need to hire savvy people rather than the ignorant. Then again, if you're only paying the bare minimum, most savvy people aren't going to be willing to take that level of pay for long if at all, so it's no wonder you're getting crap employees. Once again, if you're only paying peanuts, don't be surprised if all you get are monkeys.
Quote:
It's interesting how happiness plays a part even when money doesn't. And I think that's a serious flaw in a lot of the ranting going on here about increased wages. Employees are most productive when they are happy (you're a perfect example). Money alone doesn't keep employees happy. If their home life is horrible, then no amount of money will fix that.
Much of the time, an employee's financial situation will have a direct bearing on their home life. Half the divorces in this country have roots in financial difficulty, given that couples fight about money more than almost anything else. Lack of adequate income is a major stressor. People are generally happier when they're being paid enough that they don't have to spend all their waking hours worrying about whether or not they can pay their bills. Every second worrying about paying one's bills is a second NOT spent focusing on one's job.
Quote:
I agree that there's definitely a disconnect. And it's no cooincidence that it happens when companies and employees are not on a first name basis--it's easier to look at faceless numbers and make decisions, from either perspective.
Finally you've said something we can essentially agree on.
It's interesting how happiness plays a part even when money doesn't. And I think that's a serious flaw in a lot of the ranting going on here about increased wages. Employees are most productive when they are happy (you're a perfect example). Money alone doesn't keep employees happy. If their home life is horrible, then no amount of money will fix that.
Unless, of course, their home life is horrible BECAUSE they make crap wages... (note, I said this even BEFORE I even read Kineticity's post above...he ninja'd me)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamirD
I agree that there's definitely a disconnect. And it's no cooincidence that it happens when companies and employees are not on a first name basis--it's easier to look at faceless numbers and make decisions, from either perspective.
Very true. When you lose the personal connection, it because much easier to make a decision solely on the basis of the black ink at the bottom of the ledger.
Unless, of course, their home life is horrible BECAUSE they make crap wages... (note, I said this even BEFORE I even read Kineticity's post above...he ninja'd me)
You know what they say about great minds. (And I see we even use "ninja" the same way.)
By the way, I'm a woman. It's okay that you didn't realize that, though.
I'm just saying if you cannot afford the best employees that's too bad on you, don't expect the best to work for substandard pay when better employers can afford to pay them more.
Not all small businesses are poor mouthing beggars either. My sister works for a small family owned business and they are doing fantastic and have been for decades (passed down from a former generation) and the employees are compensated well. That does not interfere with the owners having mansions with amenities like movie theaters and bowling alleys inside them and chauffeured Rolls Royces and their wives having pieces of jewelry that each (not collectively) cost in the 6 and 7 figures. Imagine that!
You made an attacking comment following that point. Hence that's what you got in return. No need to get dramatic.
Nice. Lots of empathy there. And you expect an employer to care two hoots about you when you're like this? I know I wouldn't want my guests to be greeted by someone who has a 'too bad for you' attitude.
If someone has that type of money, that's the bigger side of 'small business'. Gross sales in the double digit millions for sure, at least 100+ employees, and a solid structure that's been built by someone else's sweat (the previous generation).
There's an interesting saying about wealth--the first generation builds it, the second grows it, the third blows it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kineticity
If you truly understood business and how people fit into it, then you'd know that being more experienced generally DOES translate to being more efficient and requiring less training, or possible needing no training at all. THAT is precisely what I am talking about, but the more you post, the more I suspect you'd still try to pay minimum wage even to someone who could walk in on Day One and do the job spectacularly well with zero input required from their supervisor beyond showing them where to clock in and hang up their coat in those first 30 seconds.
Not true at all, in your first point. Some people opt not to go into business for themselves because they DO understand business and they don't want the headaches of trying to run a startup -- they'd rather work for a company that's established.
And plenty of people working in established companies are there precisely because their employer makes use of the employee's business sense. Good grief, if you're running a business and you're the only person there who understands business, then clearly you don't understand it well enough to know that you need to hire savvy people rather than the ignorant. Then again, if you're only paying the bare minimum, most savvy people aren't going to be willing to take that level of pay for long if at all, so it's no wonder you're getting crap employees. Once again, if you're only paying peanuts, don't be surprised if all you get are monkeys.
Much of the time, an employee's financial situation will have a direct bearing on their home life. Half the divorces in this country have roots in financial difficulty, given that couples fight about money more than almost anything else. Lack of adequate income is a major stressor. People are generally happier when they're being paid enough that they don't have to spend all their waking hours worrying about whether or not they can pay their bills. Every second worrying about paying one's bills is a second NOT spent focusing on one's job.
Even if someone has that type of stellar experience to walk on the job with literally zero training, what about their reliability? Will they stay for more than a month? Will they make a good fit into the existing team? All of this needs some time to 'shake out'. During that time, there's a probationary wage that is minimum. If they leave or they're not a good fit, what's the point in paying more for experience which never translated to a real long-term relationship?
You're right. There are some truly bright people who do understand business and choose to not create one. Fair enough. They understand a good part of it, but it's still not like standing in an owner's shoes. There's a lot more to be seen of the road from the driver's seat.
Yes, but you're ignoring an important part of business in terms of hiring saavy vs ignorant people--you have to make a profit. Hiring the best and making no money isn't the answer here.
In my opinion, the reason many people have money problems is because they are spending too much money on junk that's actually not a need. You need healthy food, shelter, water, transportation, and telecommunications for sure. That doesn't mean Mcdonalds every day, a house they can afford because 'the bank said so', a car they can afford because they can 'make the payments', and ieverything because that's what everyone else has. When you add up the difference between people's frivolous spending versus their needs, and then it matches their their financial problems each month, I have absolutely no sympathy. I was once so poor I hate once every two days. I spent every moment searching for jobs, many I was more than qualified for, and kept at it through the runarounds and the lot of it. At one point, I told myself if I didn't have a job in two days, I'm joining the day labor companies to at least have money to eat. Luckily, it was that day that I was almost instantly hired. But I had not gotten hired, I had no qualms about cleaning construction sites beside ex-cons and druggies to make ends meet even though my qualifications far exceed the work I would have done. My experience is completely irrelevant if I need the money.
I know all about the problems that couples face due to finances. My wife and I have some serious problems with that now because she doesn't understand how to curb desires. I could save twice as much as we do right now, but we don't. And the crux of it is the difference in my and my wife's ability to focus on goals and differientiate between wants and needs. I'm sure this happens to more than just us. And more money isn't the real solution here--it's just more water in a leaky bucket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalisiin
Unless, of course, their home life is horrible BECAUSE they make crap wages... (note, I said this even BEFORE I even read Kineticity's post above...he ninja'd me)
There's a certain level where this can happen, but that's what the public assistance programs were set up to do--help support people in these times, and help train and rehabilitate them to be more desireable in the workplace.
The problem is that the reality of these programs are filled with deadbeats who live off of them. The people that use these systems as they're intended never stay in them longer than they have to--they pull themselves out of the gutter and make something of themselves.
Even if someone has that type of stellar experience to walk on the job with literally zero training, what about their reliability? Will they stay for more than a month? Will they make a good fit into the existing team?
If you do a proper job of interviewing candidates before you hire them, most of the time you will have a fairly good idea of the answers to those questions before you bring someone on. If you don't, then you need to take a good hard look at your interviewing technique.
Quote:
All of this needs some time to 'shake out'. During that time, there's a probationary wage that is minimum. If they leave or they're not a good fit, what's the point in paying more for experience which never translated to a real long-term relationship?
You can't pay experienced people minimum wage -- which in most cases is far below whatever they earned at their recent previous job and therefore less than what they need in order to live AND less than what they know they are worth (and they have this backed up BY having been paid more in the past)... you can't pay someone like that minimum wage even for a probationary period and expect them to 1) really give a damn about working for you and 2) stick around any longer than it takes them to find a better-paying job.
Honestly, if you've been getting crap employees, it's most likely because you're trying to pay minimum wage to people who are accustomed to making more money than that and who are only taking a job with you because they're desperate to get some kind of paycheck while they continue looking for something better. Minimum wage was never intended to be a 'probationary' wage paid to qualified and experienced employees until you decide whether to keep them. So you're using the wrong tool for the task, and you're blaming the employees when you're the one making the mistake.
You should try paying the employees what you would pay them after this 'probationary' period, except pay them that from day one. My guess is that you'll probably have far better employees, because they won't feel undervalued. What you're doing right now is taking advantage of people. Trust has to go both ways, and you're making it clear that you do not trust your employees. Nobody wants to work for someone who does not trust them or who has no faith in them.
Quote:
Yes, but you're ignoring an important part of business in terms of hiring saavy vs ignorant people--you have to make a profit. Hiring the best and making no money isn't the answer here.
Neither is hiring the best but paying them a McWage. You'll probably make more money if you just hire people and pay them something reasonable from Day One based on their experience. That's what most successful, profitable companies do... at least the ones that want to wind up with a motivated workforce that actually cares about the company. Right now, it sounds like you're just wasting time and money on workforce turnover, what with having to constantly hire and train new people. You could save those training costs if you just hired people who are experienced and paid them what they're worth. If everyone you hire is just working for you temporarily in their own mind because they're looking for something better, you're probably not even getting the best candidates in the first place, and if you've already created a reputation for your company in the local job market as a crappy place to work, with crappy pay and an owner who has a bad attitude toward his employees, it's almost a given that only desperate people are even bothering to apply. Is that really the kind of employee you want to attract?
Quote:
In my opinion, the reason many people have money problems is because they are spending too much money on junk that's actually not a need. You need healthy food, shelter, water, transportation, and telecommunications for sure. That doesn't mean Mcdonalds every day, a house they can afford because 'the bank said so', a car they can afford because they can 'make the payments', and everything because that's what everyone else has.
I doubt very much that everyone is trying to "keep up with the Joneses" these days. On the other hand, if you already bought the car or the house before you got downsized from that good-paying job you used to have, you're kind of stuck with the car payment and the mortgage payment, and you need to be making enough money to pay those expenses. If you've recently gone from earning $45k per year to earning $25k per year and you already had the car loan and the mortgage, money is going to be a problem.
Quote:
When you add up the difference between people's frivolous spending versus their needs, and then it matches their their financial problems each month, I have absolutely no sympathy.
You might want to define "frivolous" here. Is a cellphone frivolous? No, not really. Especially not if it's a person's only phone. How about a car? No, a car isn't frivolous in and of itself. People need to be able to get to and from work, or to look for work. Most people with money problems, especially if they're making low wages, don't have those problems due to "frivolous" expenses; they have them due to a wage they couldn't live on even if they had almost NO expenses.
Quote:
I was once so poor I hate once every two days.
I'll assume you mean "ate" rather than "hate". Should I also assume you think it's okay to expect everyone to only eat every other day?
Quote:
I spent every moment searching for jobs, many I was more than qualified for, and kept at it through the runarounds and the lot of it. At one point, I told myself if I didn't have a job in two days, I'm joining the day labor companies to at least have money to eat.
See, if you were smart you would've signed up for day labor as soon as you realized you didn't have enough money to eat every day, rather than going on for however long on so little. I've done day labor a couple of times when I've needed to. It's back-breaking, grueling, dirty work and it only pays minimum wage, but it beats the hell out of not eating.
Quote:
Luckily, it was that day that I was almost instantly hired. But I had not gotten hired, I had no qualms about cleaning construction sites beside ex-cons and druggies to make ends meet even though my qualifications far exceed the work I would have done. My experience is completely irrelevant if I need the money.
In the short term, yes. In the long term, no one should be expected to work below their capacity forever.
Quote:
I know all about the problems that couples face due to finances. My wife and I have some serious problems with that now because she doesn't understand how to curb desires. I could save twice as much as we do right now, but we don't. And the crux of it is the difference in my and my wife's ability to focus on goals and differientiate between wants and needs.
Given your statements regarding what you consider needful vs. frivolous, I'm reluctant to blame your wife for this. Just sayin'.
Quote:
I'm sure this happens to more than just us. And more money isn't the real solution here--it's just more water in a leaky bucket.
There's a certain level where this can happen, but that's what the public assistance programs were set up to do--help support people in these times, and help train and rehabilitate them to be more desireable in the workplace.
The problem is that the reality of these programs are filled with deadbeats who live off of them. The people that use these systems as they're intended never stay in them longer than they have to--they pull themselves out of the gutter and make something of themselves.
That's where you're wrong. I know there's this whole mythology of the deadbeat welfare queen... but that's all it is: A myth. The vast majority of people on public assistance are only on it for a short period of time, and 99% of them don't actually want to be on them at all. Most of them are trying to pull themselves up to the next level in life, but it isn't something that happens overnight, and it's often harder than many of us NOT in that situation might think. I've known, and know now, some people in exactly that boat, and I see how they struggle. Every day I have to remember that there but for the grace of God go I.
You made an attacking comment following that point. Hence that's what you got in return. No need to get dramatic.
Nice. Lots of empathy there. And you expect an employer to care two hoots about you when you're like this? I know I wouldn't want my guests to be greeted by someone who has a 'too bad for you' attitude.
If someone has that type of money, that's the bigger side of 'small business'. Gross sales in the double digit millions for sure, at least 100+ employees, and a solid structure that's been built by someone else's sweat (the previous generation).
There's an interesting saying about wealth--the first generation builds it, the second grows it, the third blows it.
Her "attacking" point was that there are even small businesses out there who perform well enough to compensate their employees better with higher pay and/or employee development and they attract the better workers.
The restaurant business is a good example. The better restaurants will go through great lengths to keep good servers and hosts who can cross sell signature dishes. They spend more, but they also make more. Mediocre restaurants will only get those who take down orders while those further down can only hire the ones whose mix up the orders and are oblivious to customer needs. Same concept applies to many other retail-service businesses.
Where do you suppose the more capable and ambitious people will work for?
If you cannot find as many good enough employees then it has more to do with your business, and not employees. The good employees that you say you cannot find are mostly working elsewhere.
At one point, I told myself if I didn't have a job in two days, I'm joining the day labor companies to at least have money to eat. Luckily, it was that day that I was almost instantly hired. But I had not gotten hired, I had no qualms about cleaning construction sites beside ex-cons and druggies to make ends meet even though my qualifications far exceed the work I would have done. My experience is completely irrelevant if I need the money.
Still, nobody should be economically forced into that situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamirD
There's a certain level where this can happen, but that's what the public assistance programs were set up to do--help support people in these times, and help train and rehabilitate them to be more desireable in the workplace.
And yet, people like you want to completely cut off these vital lifelines, because of the few, and I mean few...who abuse them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamirD
The problem is that the reality of these programs are filled with deadbeats who live off of them. The people that use these systems as they're intended never stay in them longer than they have to--they pull themselves out of the gutter and make something of themselves.
You mean like me? On disability for a little over five years. Incidentally, I still have my disabling condition. But I no longer draw disability.
I used my time on disability to learn new skills which would enable me to become self-sufficient IN SPITE of my disabling conditions. And I launched my business in January of this year and haven't looked back. I am off disability. I still get Medicare for now, but when my eligibility for that runs out, I will have to get Obamacare health insurance like everyone else.
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.
(And I see we even use "ninja" the same way.)
