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.
To be fair, we can't go head to head using hours though. Germans only work about 1200-1500 hours/year compared to the 2000-2500 we work here. But even at the fewer hours, they are full time; they just get more holidays, vacation and other paid leave. Then they have to pay for that socialist medical system, costing them about $4400 a year (instead of over $8000 here). I think the reason things are so different there versus here is due to one simple little transposition in a percentage; eligible voters who voted in the last election - US 37%, Germany 73%. The actual majority actually rules over there. BTW, I want to see the US lead the world; I don't want to go somewhere else (the common suggestion from the minority when you point out how well things are done elsewhere).
Most of the German managers I work with work long hours, 50+, per week. And many cannot use all of their earned vacation due to work obligations.
That's not even close to being true. Most people are not living on a "make every penny count" budget.
There are lots of expenses that can be reduced or eliminated - alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs, eating out, name-brand groceries/toiletries/cosmetics/cleaning supplies, impulse purchases, designer clothing/shoes/accessories, hair coloring, cable TV, buying gasoline at the store with the cheapest per-gallon price, and so on.
If labor is more then the budget can sustain then employers need to only hire enough people who they can pay well. You can not have it both ways by saying you need more employees then saying they cost you to much.
That's not what I said, you conflated two different things. Let me explain it to you in a simplified hypothetical example:
I own a small shop that manufactures t-shirts. I have 6 employees, each of whom earns $10 per hour and makes 10 shirts per hour. I am spending $60 to produce 60 shirts each hour (for the sake of discussion, we will ignore all other costs and focus solely on payroll).
If the law mandates that I raise each employee's wage to $15 per hour, then I have to lay off 2 of my workers, in order to keep my labor cost at $60 per hour ($15 per hour x 4 employees). The factory still has to produce 60 shirts per hour, so now each of the 4 remaining employees has to produce 15 shirts per hour to make up for the 20 shirts that used to be produced each hour by the 2 employees who are no longer working for me. So now, each employee has to make a shirt in 4 minutes, whereas they used to have 6 minutes to make each shirt.
The 4 who still work for me are getting more per hour, but they have to do more work and they have to work at a faster pace. The other 2 got laid off, and are either looking for work or are on welfare. This is not a win-win for any of the 6 who are current or former employees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Eagle;4100254.7
Number 3 is just wrong because when people have enough to live on they do not have to be constantly worrying and stressing out about making bill payments and do better and be happier at their jobs.
Again, you misunderstood the point.
If the law guarantees a worker enough income to make ends meet, then the worker has no financial incentive to do the things that usually result in raises and/or bonuses (and eventually promotions): staying with the company long-term, becoming a highly productive leader, and acquiring new skills. In this case, the employee can get by with doing just enough that they don't get fired.
So instead of 2 workers on welfare or possibly in other jobs you think it is better to have 6 workers on SNAP, with subsidies for housing and health care? And the end result is profit for you; we can't forget the business owner's handout.
That's not what I said, you conflated two different things. Let me explain it to you in a simplified hypothetical example:
I own a small shop that manufactures t-shirts. I have 6 employees, each of whom earns $10 per hour and makes 10 shirts per hour. I am spending $60 to produce 60 shirts each hour (for the sake of discussion, we will ignore all other costs and focus solely on payroll).
If the law mandates that I raise each employee's wage to $15 per hour, then I have to lay off 2 of my workers, in order to keep my labor cost at $60 per hour ($15 per hour x 4 employees). The factory still has to produce 60 shirts per hour, so now each of the 4 remaining employees has to produce 15 shirts per hour to make up for the 20 shirts that used to be produced each hour by the 2 employees who are no longer working for me. So now, each employee has to make a shirt in 4 minutes, whereas they used to have 6 minutes to make each shirt.
The 4 who still work for me are getting more per hour, but they have to do more work and they have to work at a faster pace. The other 2 got laid off, and are either looking for work or are on welfare. This is not a win-win for any of the 6 who are current or former employees.
Again, you misunderstood the point.
If the law guarantees a worker enough income to make ends meet, then the worker has no financial incentive to do the things that usually result in raises and/or bonuses (and eventually promotions): staying with the company long-term, becoming a highly productive leader, and acquiring new skills. In this case, the employee can get by with doing just enough that they don't get fired.
I actually agree with the first part you wrote and the reason is unless you live in a city I am not for a $15 dollar wage more around the $10-11 range. Saying that though you do realize it is not going to be raised all at once it is going to be raised slowly in increments. Your employees already $10 so they are already making close to if not a living wage. We are talking about people who make less then that. If you only have 6 employees why are you complaining you are not paying that much for labor? So you are saying that all the people who already make enough to live on never do things that result in raises or bonuses? Why do you think people would be just satisfied on making that much pretty much everyone wants to make more money. You do not seem to understand human nature at all.
So instead of 2 workers on welfare or possibly in other jobs you think it is better to have 6 workers on SNAP, with subsidies for housing and health care? And the end result is profit for you; we can't forget the business owner's handout.
What my workers do outside of work is none of my business. Maybe their spouses work?
Regardless, their wage is not determined by what they need to earn in order to make ends meet, it's determined by what I can afford to pay them and keep the doors open. If the business can't make a profit, then all 6 workers lose their jobs, and so do the receptionist, the salesman, the bookkeeper, the maintenance man, the HR specialist, and myself.
You know who else loses money? The companies I've hired to help me keep my business operational, profitable, and compliant:
the cleaning service,
the linen service,
the law firm that handles the company's legal matters,
the landscapers that keep up the grounds,
the garbage company that empties the dumpster every week,
the trucking company that delivers my product to my customers,
the suppliers from whom I purchase material and supplies,
the pest control service,
the company that inspects and maintains the fire sprinklers and fire extinguishers,
the vending company whose Coke and snack machines are in the break room,
the company that leases the copy machine and sells toner,
the phone company that provides phone and internet service,
the IT company that maintains the computer and VoIP network,
the insurance company that writes the liability and workers' comp policies,
the bank that has the company's accounts,
the mechanical contractor that keeps the HVAC & heating systems working,
the city, state, school district, and hospital district that receive tax revenue from my business,
etc.
The community also suffers loss, as the business itself can no longer make monetary or in-kind donations to local charities, sponsor little-league teams, Adopt-A-Highway, etc., nor can it incentivize its employees to volunteer for Habitat For Humanity, donate blood, or make donations to charity.
If you only have 6 employees why are you complaining you are not paying that much for labor?
In this hypothetical example, scale is irrelevant. Even if I had thousands of employees, I still could only afford to spend a certain amount on labor, that amount being determined by the budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Eagle
So you are saying that all the people who already make enough to live on never do things that result in raises or bonuses?
No, I didn't say that. What I said was that the financial incentive for such would be eliminated. Some would continue to do those things because they have other (non-financial) sources of motivation, but some people would stop doing them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Eagle
Why do you think people would be just satisfied on making that much pretty much everyone wants to make more money.
If they really wanted to earn more money they'd increase their earning power, rather than agitating for government to force employers to pay more.
What my workers do outside of work is none of my business. Maybe their spouses work?
Regardless, their wage is not determined by what they need to earn in order to make ends meet, it's determined by what I can afford to pay them and keep the doors open. If the business can't make a profit, then all 6 workers lose their jobs, and so do the receptionist, the salesman, the bookkeeper, the maintenance man, the HR specialist, and myself.... The community also suffers loss, as the business itself can no longer make monetary or in-kind donations to local charities, sponsor little-league teams, Adopt-A-Highway, etc., nor can it incentivize its employees to volunteer for Habitat For Humanity, donate blood, or make donations to charity.
Who cares? If your business model sucks you want an award for staying in business by paying employees the least you can? Sorry, just go out of business life will go on just fine without you and your t-shirts. Become competitive, outsmart your competition, work harder & don't whine (isn't that what you folks are so quick to tell poor people?)
In this hypothetical example, scale is irrelevant. Even if I had thousands of employees, I still could only afford to spend a certain amount on labor, that amount being determined by the budget.
No, I didn't say that. What I said was that the financial incentive for such would be eliminated. Some would continue to do those things because they have other (non-financial) sources of motivation, but some people would stop doing them.
If they really wanted to earn more money they'd increase their earning power, rather than agitating for government to force employers to pay more.
So why can you not either not have as many employees until you can pay better or improve your business to pay more? If you had thousands of employers you would be making a lot of profit and could afford to pay better. Seems like you want to make any excuse to not pay employees more. So what is wrong if people would be happy with just the minimum? They may not reach a level you have or think they should but as long as they are happy it is not your business.
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.
