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 really was only asking if you thought I, as the employer, should decide what to pay, not how to decide what to pay.
Your arguments don't apply to a real life agreement between an employer offering a job to an employee. Each decides if it's a fair trade and worthwhile, or they move on.
Funny thing, at 18, my employee already is an avid hunter, can live off the land, and is working on a specialized trade on the side. Plus she has her own vehicle so she can work wherever and whenever she wants. We don't need a government mandate to have a positive work relationship.
This assumes that there are better options out there for the employee to choose from. That may be the only job they have gotten an interview at. The employee has to take it or hope they can find a job just as good or better out there. IF you try to haggle for more money at the interview the employer is just gonna not hire you if they do not want to pay what you suggest.
The employer should pay them enough to live within certain parameters, I am saying. Of course one of those parameters should be working full time (not part time!)
What "certain parameters"? Who decides that?
An employer pays what the employee is worth to the business. Period. It's up to the EMPLOYEE to live within their means.
You ought to seriously consider quitting, since all you're doing is harming them.
Given that my friends and I were able to find employment and affordable childcare for three of the women we worked with and a position as a live in caretaker for an elderly lady for another of the women and her two children I fail to see how I 'harmed them', but please share your brilliant theory of how helping people jobs and a stable living situation harms them.
Here's the biggest "incentive to work" - food and shelter. If you want those, then you do what it takes to get them. Why are you so bent on having the government control the workplace and everyone's lives?
One of the reasons that the government intervenes in minimum wage laws and by providing welfare programs has to do with your first statement, that people will do what it takes to get food and shelter. If employers were free to hire for as little as they want, and there was no social safety net the result would be one or more of the following:
A huge increase in the crime rate
massive demonstrations which would likely lead to riots
large scale unionization of all labor sectors
The government does not want to take a chance that any three of those scenarios come to fruition
I really was only asking if you thought I, as the employer, should decide what to pay, not how to decide what to pay. Your arguments don't apply to a real life agreement between an employer offering a job to an employee. Each decides if it's a fair trade and worthwhile, or they move on.
Funny thing, at 18, my employee already is an avid hunter, can live off the land, and is working on a specialized trade on the side. Plus she has her own vehicle so she can work wherever and whenever she wants. We don't need a government mandate to have a positive work relationship.
That's lovely, but why not negotiate a sub-minimum wage with Wonder Woman and see if that doesn't change your relationship with her just a tiny bit.
Is your observation that GNP would increase if, instead assistance programs that keep people in place, the government offered the destitute a supply of suitcases and bus tickets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
I would guess so. I think if combined with other incentives to work and maybe some job training programs, it could be very powerful...
I agree completely. One of the very real-world issues in efficiently allocating resources -- in this case human capital -- is friction. In the real world, there is a certain stickiness about where one lives (including the homeless). You get to know the resources available in the community, and you develop some form of a support system -- and the prospects of relocating geographically can be overwhelming.
It is clear some people would be better off if they relocate out of their current very-high COL location to somewhere else. I overheard one barista in a Starbucks in Silicon Valley say to the another barista "I think I should just move to XXX. I can get a job at Starbucks there and my rent would be so much cheaper." Elsewhere on City-Data is a post of someone who works at a major retailer (Costco, I think) in city X inquiring about life in city Y -- "I can move to city Y and very likely get the same job at one of the Costcos with the same wage but I can have a lower cost of living."
With more information and perhaps a few support systems, this type of voluntary move could result in everyone being better off in the long run.
In the real world, most employers absolutely care about the quality of employees they attract.
In the real world, most employers absolutely care about employee retention.
Most employers desire employees who are competent, possess positive work-place attitudes and the like. They desire employees who are responsible, punctual, presentable, etc.
At the end of the day, most hiring managers know full well what a pain it is to have excess undesired employee turnover, employees who lie/cheat/steal, employees who just don't give a rat's arse, employees who have attitude problems, employees who are lazy, employees with absenteeism, etc.
At the end of the day, most hiring managers want employees who are quality employees, and they have to pay for that. Most hiring managers know if they do not pay well enough to retain quality employees, those quality employees will make rational decisions to find higher paying jobs.
Most hiring managers know full well that if their employees are not paid enough to live in the local economy, those employees are going to eventually leave.
Here's the biggest "incentive to work" - food and shelter. If you want those, then you do what it takes to get them.
Most effective when benefits are phased out gradually and there is no "welfare cliff effect".
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
Why are you so bent on having the government control the workplace and everyone's lives?
Because unchecked, rigged, and unregulated capitalism doesn't work by itself, especially when the big corps have nearly bought out the entire government...
Or alternatively, we could go back to a system where the poor people don't even have running water or clean food, infant mortality is more than 5%, and everyone knows what cholera and dysentery are like. If you really want a free market, then why don't you advocate that? At least you'd be consistent.
Last edited by ncole1; 03-09-2016 at 11:57 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.