Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-16-2016, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,541 posts, read 10,261,826 times
Reputation: 3510

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
What minimum wage workers need is a Walmart for cheap housing.
Actually, they sort of got rid of that, and housing has been a lot less available. The number of commercially run "single room occupancy" situations has definitely decreased over my lifetime.

I think the housing situation is where low wage individuals get the kick in the pants the most nowadays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-16-2016, 05:41 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,850 posts, read 26,285,621 times
Reputation: 34059
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206 View Post
Here is the hard ugly truth. Walmart employees are literally a dime a dozen. You can have them quit all day long, and replace them all day long at the same cost. .
BUT, and this is a big but. High turnover is usually more costly than giving existing employees a pay raise.

The costs of turnover adds up fast

"Let’s play a game called “Fun With Math.” A business loses 12 employees in one year, averaging one per month.
  • Six of these employees were entry level, with an average salary of $40,000. It costs, on average, $16,000 to replace each employee at 40 percent of their annual salary, for $96,000 total.
  • Four of these employees were mid-level, with an average salary of $80,000. It costs, on average, $120,000 to replace each employee at 150 percent of their annual salary, for $480,000 total.
  • Two of these employees were senior, with an average salary of $120,000. At 400 percent of their annual salary to replace them, you’re looking at almost $1 million, specifically $960,000
.
Add everything up and you’re looking at costs of over $1.5 million to replace just 12 employees. Numbers seem high? Fair enough – there are organizations that estimate replacement costs to be lower."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,850 posts, read 26,285,621 times
Reputation: 34059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
Section 8, and when you get a girl pregnant, dont put your name on the birth certificate. Then rent a room to her, and use a different address for your mail.. Keep it real and be an entrepreneur with all the government cheese and cash flowing in.
Seriously, section 8, and for a single non-disabled non-elderly adult? The priority list which is composed of disabled, elderly and families with small children is 4-6 years so by the time that guy gets a section 8 voucher the kid will probably be ready to graduate high school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 05:54 PM
 
19,844 posts, read 12,106,658 times
Reputation: 17577
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
BUT, and this is a big but. High turnover is usually more costly than giving existing employees a pay raise.

The costs of turnover adds up fast

"Let’s play a game called “Fun With Math.†A business loses 12 employees in one year, averaging one per month.
  • Six of these employees were entry level, with an average salary of $40,000. It costs, on average, $16,000 to replace each employee at 40 percent of their annual salary, for $96,000 total.
  • Four of these employees were mid-level, with an average salary of $80,000. It costs, on average, $120,000 to replace each employee at 150 percent of their annual salary, for $480,000 total.
  • Two of these employees were senior, with an average salary of $120,000. At 400 percent of their annual salary to replace them, you’re looking at almost $1 million, specifically $960,000
.
Add everything up and you’re looking at costs of over $1.5 million to replace just 12 employees. Numbers seem high? Fair enough – there are organizations that estimate replacement costs to be lower."
Wrong Think Progress article to substantiate your ridiculous "fun with math" scenario.

Isn't thus thread about how hard it is to live on $7.25/hr? Why are you giving examples of $120,000 salaries?

Thanks for the laugh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 06:10 PM
 
2,464 posts, read 1,287,180 times
Reputation: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
I give up, your just playing on words and deflecting like the left does.,
And I spelt it wrong, here is your Milwaukie, right down from where I lived in West Linn.
Home Page | City of Milwaukie Oregon Official Website
You lived in West Linn and didn't know that people here use PDX to identify the city and didn't know how to spell Milwaukie correctly? And no I am not deflecting, I just have no interest in talking about what I do for work or how much I make to some random person on the internet because that information is none of your business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 06:13 PM
 
2,464 posts, read 1,287,180 times
Reputation: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
You may think it the better question to ask, but we do have to deal with reality. The wages are what they are. That's why I don't understand everyone getting all worked up about fast food workers and how they should make $15/hr. There are many workers making far less than $15/hr who are more skilled than the FF workePayScale - Salary Search: Child Care / Day Care Workers,and/orhavemoreresponsibility.Childcareworkersmakeanave rageof~$9/hr.r
A number of jobs that are on the low end of pay would see an improvement with the minimum wage going up. If nothing else, just getting a bump up to $15/hr would be a huge improvement for a CNA who are clearly underpaid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
Can you name one time since 1938 that raising the minimum wage resulted in minimum wage earners being financially better off over the long term? Long term meaning more than 2-3 years. I'm willing to bet that you can't, because it has never happened. What happens is that the minimum wage goes up, those making minimum wage are granted a temporary increase in spending power, and then the market corrects itself. After that, minimum wage goes right back to being minimum wage, and minimum wage earners are once again unable to afford the same things they were unable to afford prior to the increase.

If you were really interested in helping to increase the middle class, you would be advocating for programs which provide incentives for onshore manufacturing and disincentives for companies that move offshore. You would be pushing for tariffs on products that can be produced in the United States, and 100% import fees on anything made in third world countries. But that isn't your goal. Your goal is to "equalize" the playing field. Out of curiosity, are you a Sanders supporter? I only ask because you seem to have the same level of economic intelligence that he has - which isn't much.
True, we should get away from a Free Trade system because it does nothing to benefit the middle class. Though that doesn't mean we can't also increase the minimum wage. In about 1968, minimum wage was about $10 when you include inflation, which they were doing much better than those making minimum wage today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,850 posts, read 26,285,621 times
Reputation: 34059
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowne View Post
Wrong Think Progress article to substantiate your ridiculous "fun with math" scenario. Isn't thus thread about how hard it is to live on $7.25/hr? Why are you giving examples of $120,000 salaries? Thanks for the laugh.
It gave an example of the cost involved in replacing employees of several different wages, that somehow is laughable to you? Are you arguing that recruiting, hiring and training employees can be done without cost?

Here is another source for you. Why Retailers Are Suddenly Desperate to Keep Their Least-Valuable*Workers - Bloomberg

And here is a nice, easy to read chart on the turnover costs for Walmart (Walmart turnover is 5% per month, or 60% per year)

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/ilr7OwfDGLEw/v2/-1x-1.png

Last edited by Ibginnie; 04-19-2016 at 08:06 AM.. Reason: copyright/hotlinking
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 06:19 PM
 
2,464 posts, read 1,287,180 times
Reputation: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I don't know its history, but I'm guessing Milwaukie might have been named and spelled that to trick immigrants or newcomers looking for Milwaukee. Michigan has a Zilwaukee which supposedly was named that deceptively.
Actually a little bit of history for you, Milwaukie, Oregon use to be spelled Milwaukee, named after the city in Wisconsin, but due to postal mail issues, Milwaukie changed their name to the current name to make it less confusing for USPS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,142 posts, read 10,713,172 times
Reputation: 9799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliftonpdx View Post
A number of jobs that are on the low end of pay would see an improvement with the minimum wage going up. If nothing else, just getting a bump up to $15/hr would be a huge improvement for a CNA who are clearly underpaid.



True, we should get away from a Free Trade system because it does nothing to benefit the middle class. Though that doesn't mean we can't also increase the minimum wage. In about 1968, minimum wage was about $10 when you include inflation, which they were doing much better than those making minimum wage today.
If you're going to look at historical minimum wage numbers, why not go back to 1938 rather than comparing to the blip that was 1968?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 06:51 PM
 
19,844 posts, read 12,106,658 times
Reputation: 17577
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
It gave an example of the cost involved in replacing employees of several different wages,that somehow is laughable to you? Are you arguing that recruiting, hiring and training employees can be done without cost?

No, dear, it was a link to "What About White Voters?" Again, wrong propaganda article.

Here is another source for you. Why Retailers Are Suddenly Desperate to Keep Their Least-Valuable*Workers - Bloomberg

And here is a nice, easy to read chart on the turnover costs for Walmart (Walmart turnover is 5% per month, or 60% per year)
"The cost of replacing an employee earning less than $30,000 per year is about 16 percent of that person's annual wage, according to the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank."

Even better, *Source: Author's analysis of 30 case studies on the cost of turnover from 1992 through 2007.

Absolutely worthless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:51 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top