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.
Well if you are poverty and you do not take those jobs you are not gonna have enough to pay for rent and you may by homeless
Congrats, for about the 20th time now you have made a valid point that neither supports your claim or disproves mine. Let's run through the standard exercise again shall we?
Does the possibility of some min wage workers becoming homeless without their job prove Storm Eagle's claim that min wage workers must take those jobs or they will be homeless? NO.
Does the possibility of some min wage workers becoming homeless without their job prove disprove LieQiang's claim that most min wage workers aren't in households below the poverty line? NO.
Remember, the position you took (and have been trying to dance around for about 20 pages of this thread) is the absolute statement that minimum wage workers must take those jobs or they will become homeless, which the fact that most aren't even in poverty households easily disproves.
I know business owners that most definitely CAN pay more to their workers. They just don't want to.
Case in point, where I work, the operating budget is around $100 million. The salaries of the staff add up to far, far less than that. Around 8 or 9 million I think. We've gotten inadequate raises for several years. We demonstrated that to catch us all up to a "competitive rate" as we define it (what similar staff gets paid in the region), would cost about $1 million.
This doesn't prove they can pay more to their workers.
I mean they might be able to (I have no idea) but simply stating what labor costs are as percentage of an operating budget isn't sufficient to prove one way or another. What are their margins? What other part of the company would raising labor costs come out of, and would that million elsewhere hurt profitability/competitiveness.
And finally, good luck on the raise thing dude I hope they catch up and fatten your wallet. Not getting a sufficient raise can be quite frustrating.
For a while, I thought that you might be acting deliberately obtuse in this discussion. However, it has become quite clear that you just don't understand these issues on a level that will allow you to engage in a meaningful discussion.
Hah I've already reached that conclusion, I'm only continuing on with Storm Eagle hoping to see if he can reach 100 related points without actually supporting his initial argument. I think he's done about 21 so far.
This doesn't prove they can pay more to their workers.
I mean they might be able to (I have no idea) but simply stating what labor costs are as percentage of an operating budget isn't sufficient to prove one way or another. What are their margins? What other part of the company would raising labor costs come out of, and would that million elsewhere hurt profitability/competitiveness.
And finally, good luck on the raise thing dude I hope they catch up and fatten your wallet. Not getting a sufficient raise can be quite frustrating.
The problem is that the upper level, long-term folks don't realize or don't want to acknowledge how cost of living skyrocketed in the last 15 years. What they pay now no longer comes close to enabling us to live within 20 miles. My own house - a little more than 25 miles out - has increased in value 60% in just the last 3 years. It shows no sign of stopping. During the recession it went down for about 2.5 years, then in late 2011, early 2012 it started skyrocketing again and did not stop. A freakin' 2/1 falling down shack across from me sold for almost double what I paid for my house a few years ago.
For new hires they have almost no hope of ever owning a home in the area unless the housing market crashes like in 2008.
The pay is perfectly appropriate for the older values - 1980s and 1990s - when many of the leadership bought their houses. What we've been trying to argue is that an extra $4 or 500 across the board is HUGE in getting a mortgage. We're already seeing a problem in recruiting, for mid to high level positions we can't attract people to come here or in some cases they actually pulled themselves out of the running once they actually investigated the housing issue.
The problem is that the upper level, long-term folks don't realize or don't want to acknowledge how cost of living skyrocketed in the last 15 years. What they pay now no longer comes close to enabling us to live within 20 miles. My own house - a little more than 25 miles out - has increased in value 60% in just the last 3 years. It shows no sign of stopping. During the recession it went down for about 2.5 years, then in late 2011, early 2012 it started skyrocketing again and did not stop. A freakin' 2/1 falling down shack across from me sold for almost double what I paid for my house a few years ago.
For new hires they have almost no hope of ever owning a home in the area unless the housing market crashes like in 2008.
The pay is perfectly appropriate for the older values - 1980s and 1990s - when many of the leadership bought their houses. What we've been trying to argue is that an extra $4 or 500 across the board is HUGE in getting a mortgage. We're already seeing a problem in recruiting, for mid to high level positions we can't attract people to come here or in some cases they actually pulled themselves out of the running once they actually investigated the housing issue.
If conditions are truly as you indicate, the company will have no choice to increase pay and/or incentives--the market will require the adjustment. Otherwise they won't be able to hire or retain quality people. Many years ago I was in middle management with ITT Telecom. Northern Telecom came to town. I was not happy with my current compensation so I checked them out. They offered me a position at 40% more than I was making at ITT. When I left I recruited several others to come with me. Within a few weeks of losing several key people they increased their compensation package. Why? It was a necessary response to market forces.
The information you provided in the earlier post about the companies operating budget would not be sufficient to determine if they can actually afford to increase compensation. There is a lot more to an operating budget than wages!
You made a comment that you know owners that can definately pay more but don't want to. Unless you know the "ins and outs" of EVERYTHING that occurs in their business, the statement really holds no weight. It may appear so to the untrained eye but there are many factors the average employee or outsider just do not see. For example: Is cash needed for an expansion or anticipation of a decrease in sales or lower profits? Machinery or purchase of assets? What is the projection for future business---keep in mind that increases consume cash? Are their projected increases in costs of goods, etc.
Fact is, even if they could afford to pay more, why would anyone pay more than what the market dictates? Would you pay more than market rate for an automobile? I'm guessing the answer to that is no.
Congrats, for about the 20th time now you have made a valid point that neither supports your claim or disproves mine. Let's run through the standard exercise again shall we?
Does the possibility of some min wage workers becoming homeless without their job prove Storm Eagle's claim that min wage workers must take those jobs or they will be homeless? NO.
Does the possibility of some min wage workers becoming homeless without their job prove disprove LieQiang's claim that most min wage workers aren't in households below the poverty line? NO.
Remember, the position you took (and have been trying to dance around for about 20 pages of this thread) is the absolute statement that minimum wage workers must take those jobs or they will become homeless, which the fact that most aren't even in poverty households easily disproves.
The forum awaits your next logic failure.
I said they would be on government assistance or homeless I never said they would just be homeless why are you trying to twist what I say? You posted a link to a website that did not show any sources where they got there information I could have made that stuff up if I wanted to posting one website does not prove your point. Do you think that there are no homeless people who lost their job and became homeless because of that?
If conditions are truly as you indicate, the company will have no choice to increase pay and/or incentives--the market will require the adjustment. Otherwise they won't be able to hire or retain quality people. Many years ago I was in middle management with ITT Telecom. Northern Telecom came to town. I was not happy with my current compensation so I checked them out. They offered me a position at 40% more than I was making at ITT. When I left I recruited several others to come with me. Within a few weeks of losing several key people they increased their compensation package. Why? It was a necessary response to market forces.
The information you provided in the earlier post about the companies operating budget would not be sufficient to determine if they can actually afford to increase compensation. There is a lot more to an operating budget than wages!
You made a comment that you know owners that can definately pay more but don't want to. Unless you know the "ins and outs" of EVERYTHING that occurs in their business, the statement really holds no weight. It may appear so to the untrained eye but there are many factors the average employee or outsider just do not see. For example: Is cash needed for an expansion or anticipation of a decrease in sales or lower profits? Machinery or purchase of assets? What is the projection for future business---keep in mind that increases consume cash? Are their projected increases in costs of goods, etc.
Fact is, even if they could afford to pay more, why would anyone pay more than what the market dictates? Would you pay more than market rate for an automobile? I'm guessing the answer to that is no.
Many business do not care about hiring or retraining people because that cost to much money they would rather pay as little as possible and if that person does not work out there is always someone else out there to replace them. The more businesses pay the more goes into the pockets of people who will spend money back into businesses simple economics not sure why people do not understand it. Big corporations like Walmart, McDonalds can certainly afford to pay more they just do not want to. You pay more because it puts money in hands of people who will spend it, it reduces cost of rehiring people who quit for a better job, it increase morale of workers make them want to do a good job and work harder, it means they are not government assistance which we all have to pay for.
Many business do not care about hiring or retraining people because that cost to much money they would rather pay as little as possible and if that person does not work out there is always someone else out there to replace them. The more businesses pay the more goes into the pockets of people who will spend money back into businesses simple economics not sure why people do not understand it. Big corporations like Walmart, McDonalds can certainly afford to pay more they just do not want to. You pay more because it puts money in hands of people who will spend it, it reduces cost of rehiring people who quit for a better job, it increase morale of workers make them want to do a good job and work harder, it means they are not government assistance which we all have to pay for.
I can assure you that when you actually own a business you are VERY cognizant of the cost of hiring, training and retention. Depending on the business, state of the economy and location there are not always replacements readily available.
In terms of putting money into the hands of people that will spend it, there is a grain of truth to that, however many businesses would never benefit from it and can in fact could be financially harmed. Not all businesses make products that would be purchased by consumers (none of mine ever did)!
By the way, most McDonalds are franchise operations owned by individuals-not the giant evil corporation.
The problem is that the upper level, long-term folks don't realize or don't want to acknowledge how cost of living skyrocketed in the last 15 years. What they pay now no longer comes close to enabling us to live within 20 miles.
and what people at lower end don't realize is how much technology has improved.... they can't keep staying low skilled either.
What's the difference between paying more and just buying automation? If you are going to spend the same $X on either an employee or a robot... at least the robot won't leave you until the investment is made back. That's the risk to training people, companies lose money when they train people past a certain extent. So they put up with a high turn over by keeping costs low...
Later on, once the tasks are complicated enough that they can't spend as much on constant training, they want to keep the turn over rate down on their skill workers so they pay more. And the automation isn't at the price point yet to do these tasks... so they have one less thing to compete against... One way they deal with this is to just hired already skilled people from the recession. But that skill pool is dwindling as well. It's going to be spend money to train people, hire and groom new grads (this next generation will have a good jobs market because of this), or invest in automation.
and what people at lower end don't realize is how much technology has improved.... they can't keep staying low skilled either.
What's the difference between paying more and just buying automation? If you are going to spend the same $X on either an employee or a robot... at least the robot won't leave you until the investment is made back. That's the risk to training people, companies lose money when they train people past a certain extent. So they put up with a high turn over by keeping costs low...
Later on, once the tasks are complicated enough that they can't spend as much on constant training, they want to keep the turn over rate down on their skill workers so they pay more. And the automation isn't at the price point yet to do these tasks... so they have one less thing to compete against... One way they deal with this is to just hired already skilled people from the recession. But that skill pool is dwindling as well. It's going to be spend money to train people, hire and groom new grads (this next generation will have a good jobs market because of this), or invest in automation.
In one of the businesses I owned this was precisely the issue we had to deal with. We had to compete on a global basis and obviously our labor costs were much higher than other areas of the world. In order to compete we had to automate most of our production processes. The cost savings to the business were tremendous. While this displaced some of the lower level workers it provided higher paying jobs to those that had an apptitude for programming and maintaining the equipment. Had we not automated-all would have been out of work within a few years.
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.
