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 understand why people want & need a respectable wage, but paying wages that should be traditional start jobs for HS Kids or College People.
The real answers will always be a strong economy in which we do not have.
Most big brands like Target and Wal-Mart and even some Grocery outlets pay 12.00 per hour topping out 15.00 for a seasoned employee.
To have a salary that is at 15.00 per the employee must add value to the business and everything is driven on sales.
Low sales , low pay.
High end retail like Maceys and Dillard's Pay floor associates commission to convince a house wife to buy that 300 dollar dress @ Dillard's instead of going to Kmart.
Simple economics.
But its not like they are getting a substantial percentable of the sales. I understand paying low wages for someone just learning but the problem is even after you are adding substantial value you are not getting back the equivalent value that you are adding. So most of the time its not really an equitable exchange.
When you have govt protections that limit competition then the workers have more leverage and can prevent companies from making gross profits at the expense of the people making you money.
Lets say Joe is responsible for 10% of the sales in a company, do you really think Joe is getting 10% of the corporate profits, I don't think so otherwise Joe could retire in a few years.
But its not like they are getting a substantial percentable of the sales. I understand paying low wages for someone just learning but the problem is even after you are adding substantial value you are not getting back the equivalent value that you are adding. So most of the time its not really an equitable exchange.
When you have govt protections that limit competition then the workers have more leverage and can prevent companies from making gross profits at the expense of the people making you money.
Lets say Joe is responsible for 10% of the sales in a company, do you really think Joe is getting 10% of the corporate profits, I don't think so otherwise Joe could retire in a few years.
You can't be serious. Where did you get your business education? Do you really think Joe should get 10% of the corporate profits? And where would that leave the stock holders (who invested in the company, and are part owners).
Sales are not profits.
Besides, Joe's benefits are also part of his pay, which includes one half of Joe's Social Security, his health insurance, vacation, sick pay, etc., etc.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,713 posts, read 81,596,197 times
Reputation: 58054
Just under a year ago the new D.C. Walmart had 23,000 applicants for 600 jobs. s long as they get that kind of turnout, why would they consider paying $15-20/hour? It just doesn't make sense. Here there are some fast food places paying $15 or more because they are in suburban "bedroom communities" and none of the locals want to work there so the employees come 20+ miles on the bus from other cities like Seattle.
Here in WA state the average Walmart employee makes $12.93, pulled up by the more affluent areas such as Bellevue (median family income $105k) which has 2 Walmarts but again the locals already have good jobs so they have to pay more to attract people to commute from Seattle or other nearby cities.
The mom and pop grocer is not getting rich, they likely have a 30 year note on their over priced real estate [assumption] and they are a few bad months away from getting nasty phone calls [another assumption] and another month after that forclosure procedings. If they rent then they are a month or 2 away from being evicted from their over priced venue.
You make a lot of assumptions, not the least of which is that "mom and Pop" don't know anything about business, and aren't going to succeed and be profitable. There are a lot of successful "mom and pop" businesses that are very profitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highlife2
I noticed you failed to address the rest of my post also.
The big box stores come in and offer lower prices because they are sourcing products from slave labor nations [assumption - not proven and no examples] and our govt is not protecting us with import taxes to make up the difference in cost of living between here and there [Are you sure about that? I think we do have import duties]. Also these big companies can afford to sell at a loss for a period of time to get rid of their competition then jack prices back up.
You have a very low opinion of other people. What makes you think that business do that? Can you provide us with some proven examples? I'll bet you are an avid fan of "Think Progress" and "Daily Kos," and how many other left-wing propaganda sites? This is exactly the kind of propaganda put out by anti-capitalists for the chattel who worship at their feet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highlife2
I think you have some good information but don't start getting snarky because I was not born yesterday.
One would never guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highlife2
The companies who get big have skeletons in their closests that is for sure. [Another assumption] If the little guy wants to make it he has to be ALOT smarter than wall street and those that would seek to fleece him through "market priced" commercial property that will put you in the poor house or building materials that are out of sight. If you pay retail for either your real estate or your building your odds of success are slim.
A person that would let themselves be fleeced by con artists has no business starting a business in the first place. He doesn't have brains enough to run it successfully.
The woman who went to college, medical school, advanced training, who works sixty hours a week and repaired the heart of my loved one? She's of great value to the rest of society. The fine person who is richly deserving of the current minimum wage? They are WORTH LESS. Not worthless, just WORTH LESS. A new Corvette is WORTH LESS than a new Ferrari.
No one would pay a Ferrari price for a Corvette. In fact, every car gets sold at a price that is mutually agreed to by a willing buyer and a willing seller. Just like the value of every hour of labor should be set.
I'm not telling anyone they are not bringing enough value to live on. If the very best opportunity available to them is not enough to live on, they better figure out a way to be more valuable to the rest of us. Life is telling them that, not me.
Of course, it might be less trouble to pretend that jobs are some twisted form of charity, and politicians can wave a magic wand to cure everyone's lack of talent or ambition.
And by the way, I do not think anyone should starve or freeze. That's why we have government housing and food stamps and other welfare. But please do not act like employers ought to be in the welfare business--you'll wreck the economy.
I was going to make an argument then I read your last paragraph then I think that is fine if you do not want employers to pay enough if you acknowledge then they need to have government help. You can not say you do not want min to go up then say there should be no government help you can not have it both ways.
You make a lot of assumptions, not the least of which is that "mom and Pop" don't know anything about business, and aren't going to succeed and be profitable. There are a lot of successful "mom and pop" businesses that are very profitable.
You have a very low opinion of other people. What makes you think that business do that? Can you provide us with some proven examples? I'll bet you are an avid fan of "Think Progress" and "Daily Kos," and how many other left-wing propaganda sites? This is exactly the kind of propaganda put out by anti-capitalists for the chattel who worship at their feet.
One would never guess.
A person that would let themselves be fleeced by con artists has no business starting a business in the first place. He doesn't have brains enough to run it successfully.
Nonsense, I see it happen all around me. I periodically check the prices of commercial and residential properties in my area and they are outrageous. A would be business owner needs to be VERY clever, patient and smart and look for market corrections.
I had a buddy that owns a lawn mowing and snow removal business and he needed a yard to put his stuff because he was out growing his garage and lawn area. That commercial real estate set him back pretty far in his business growth and if anything happens (bad year, people cutting back on lawn care, etc) the note on that property could sink him.
When you have property on the books that you have 60-80% of your assets tied up into it gives you little wiggle room. some people get lucky and don't have crap hit the fan during that vulnerable time when they first purchase that property.
But to say that everything I am saying is nonsense is intellectually dishonest. I am not left wing, I personally believe strongly in private business and entrepenuership but when you look around at the start up costs and see the artificially inflated cost of a building you cant help but wonder that the deck is being stacked against you.
I doubt Rockefeller was under a 30 year note for his holdings by a bankers noose. Yea he had to borrow some money but nothing like what you see now days.
I was looking at starting a commercial hangar and the costs they wanted for a metal pull barn was staggering. I am looking to do it myself and I am waiting on some quotes for structural steel and metal siding as well as concrete and im guessing its going to be crazy. I have to be able to get my money back out in rent and own the building outright before im a 100 year old man, I mean that's the whole point of owning a business is to make money, not have so much sunk in start up costs that your on your death bed before it pays for itself.
The only way to do it and be successful is by waiting for market corrections in the real estate, materials or both. I wont start a business until I own the real estate, once you own the property then your material costs for your do dads or your gas bill or whatever is almost trivial, you can afford to have a bad month and just go to Europe instead of eating spam and being stressed. You can afford to shut down to retool or add equipment because your not under the thumb with your commercial real estate or outrageous costs for a building. Sure some equipment is expensive but again nothing compared to the costs of commercial real estate.
Last edited by highlife2; 10-12-2014 at 05:08 PM..
I've worked in retail and food service and honestly it's not an easy peasy job. It might not require a lot of complex skills or an abundance of brain cells, but it's strenuous on the body, plus it involves working with customers, who can be really a pain in the a$$ a lot of times. On top of that you are usually required to work nights, weekends, holidays etc.
The argument I keep seeing is that these jobs are a step up to something better. However, my counter argument is (1) not everyone is management or trade school material what have you. And (2), looking at the job reports and trends, we are creating a lot of service/retail jobs and not too many skilled jobs. Imagine every retail/service employee went to trade school, will there be jobs for them all?
What is wrong with these people that ring up your coffee to be paid a wage that can afford them a place to live not in the ghetto, food on the table, utilities, a decent vehicle, entertainment and some money to put away. Why do these people have to work 2 or 3 part-time min-wage jobs, just to scrape by. Yes it's not rocket science, but it's still work. Honest work at that. I can tell you that I don't work as hard in my "cushy" office job as I did when I was serving tables in college. At least in the office I don't deal with customers, I can take a break when I want, go online etc.
Here's my math. Average McD's employee makes $7.62/hr (I saw on the news this morning). Lets say this person works 40 hours and then makes $304.80/week or $15,240/year (50 weeks). Taxes would be roughly $400 on this income, single. Expenses might look like this (I'm in Florida):
Rent/bills: $500/mos -$6000 for the year
Cell phone: $50/mos - $600 year
Health Insurance: $200/mos - $2400/yr
Car insurance: $50/mos - $600/yr
Clothes: $300/yr
Food: $100/mos - $300/yr
Gas: $80/mos - $960/yr
Car maintenance: $500/yr
Total: $11,660
This leaves roughly $280/mos for savings/entertainment. Maybe I'm missing some expenses, but these are mine. There is no way to raise a child on this income. Even if it's two earners, most of the expenses double and rent goes up for a bigger place. What if there is an emergency or you need to pay your insurance deductible, there is no thing left. Even upping this person's wage to just $12/hr would give them some room for emergencies/savings etc.
What I'm getting at is, are these peoples not deserving of vacations, children, savings, not having to scrape by. I mean they are putting in 40 hours of labor as well. And to the argument that they can't even get your order right - my argument is there is probably not a lot of motivation. I know I would put in more effort not to get the order wrong and not to get fired if I was making $12/hr vs. $7. Maybe not start out at $12/hr, but after a year or so employment and having proved yourself, why not make $12/hr? There are companies out there that pay these wages and still turn decent profits.
Every time I read something like the above, I have to ask, does the person who writes these things, have any idea what the word "economics" means.
Let's raise you pay.
1. If EVERYONE else doesn't get an equivalent raise, you have just deflated their wages.
2. As soon as you pay goes up, it means the prices for the goods and/or services you provide will raise by a proportionate amount, meaning everyone else will will need to make more money to cover the expense and still have money for everything else.
3. After their wages go up, so will the cost of their goods and services.
4, When all is said and done, you will be right back where you were, excpet paying higher taxes.
5. lastly, that's if you still have a job, Maybe people have a short term memory issue, the LAST time congress forced a 3 part pay raise to the minimum wage, it took us into a recession, and HOW many people lost their jobs, homes, cars, etc etc?
Oh, and only 2-3 % of the population even makes minimum wage. You don't need a cell phone, a car, gas, or car insurance, that saves you $2660.00 a year. use public transportation, out of the 2660, and save what wasn't spent.
Every time I read something like the above, I have to ask, does the person who writes these things, have any idea what the word "economics" means.
Let's raise you pay.
1. If EVERYONE else doesn't get an equivalent raise, you have just deflated their wages.
2. As soon as you pay goes up, it means the prices for the goods and/or services you provide will raise by a proportionate amount, meaning everyone else will will need to make more money to cover the expense and still have money for everything else.
3. After their wages go up, so will the cost of their goods and services.
4, When all is said and done, you will be right back where you were, excpet paying higher taxes.
5. lastly, that's if you still have a job, Maybe people have a short term memory issue, the LAST time congress forced a 3 part pay raise to the minimum wage, it took us into a recession, and HOW many people lost their jobs, homes, cars, etc etc?
Oh, and only 2-3 % of the population even makes minimum wage. You don't need a cell phone, a car, gas, or car insurance, that saves you $2660.00 a year. use public transportation, out of the 2660, and save what wasn't spent.
They don't get it. They think that you can raise minimum wage, prices will stay the same and everyone keeps their job. They think the rich owner will just swallow the loss...or should swallow the loss. I remember reading that the average McDonald's franchise owner nets about $230K/year from the restaurant. If the average MdD's has 30 employees working an average of 30 hours per week that means the owner is making less than $5/hr per employee. There is no way you can raise their wages by $7/hour and NOT result in his raising prices, cutting hours and cutting jobs. People who come up with this stuff are really bad at math and have no idea how the economy runs. It's all magic.
I'm trying to figure out the $100/month - $300/year for food? Unless you're eating at a soup kitchen that is not going to happen.
I understand why people want & need a respectable wage, but paying wages that should be traditional start jobs for HS Kids or College People.
The real answers will always be a strong economy in which we do not have.
Most big brands like Target and Wal-Mart and even some Grocery outlets pay 12.00 per hour topping out 15.00 for a seasoned employee.
To have a salary that is at 15.00 per the employee must add value to the business and everything is driven on sales.
Low sales , low pay.
High end retail like Maceys and Dillard's Pay floor associates commission to convince a house wife to buy that 300 dollar dress @ Dillard's instead of going to Kmart.
Simple economics.
Macy's is not that high end and I have no idea what Dillard's is. Women are not that naive so please give women more credit for not being convinced to buy some item. Women are actually pretty smart lol And they do so much more than being a "house wife".
But its not like they are getting a substantial percentable of the sales. I understand paying low wages for someone just learning but the problem is even after you are adding substantial value you are not getting back the equivalent value that you are adding. So most of the time its not really an equitable exchange.
If they don't feel it's an equitable exchange then they are free to resign and seek other employment. If they want to keep all the profits from their labor then they are free to start their own business. The people who take the risks are the ones who get the profit. The CEO makes more money than the janitor, but the CEO is responsible for the entire company and the janitor is just responsible for emptying the wastebaskets.
Quote:
When you have govt protections that limit competition then the workers have more leverage and can prevent companies from making gross profits at the expense of the people making you money.
They aren't making profits at the expense of the people. An expense means you lose something. Employees do not lose anything regardless of whether their employer makes $1 profit or $1 billion dollar profits. Nobody is being exploited. They are being paid agreed upon wages.
When you have government protections that limit competition then you see increases in prices, decreases in service, and a lack of innovation. It is competition that drives companies to develop new and better products and to provide the best possible prices and customer service.
Quote:
Lets say Joe is responsible for 10% of the sales in a company, do you really think Joe is getting 10% of the corporate profits, I don't think so otherwise Joe could retire in a few years.
Let's say the company loses 10% that year. Does Joe get his pay cut by 10%? No. Joe isn't the one taking the risks. Joe gets paid what Joe agreed to be paid when he signed the employment contract. If Joe wants a % of the profits, then Joe needs to accept responsibilities that go along with it. That's the deal with employment contracts. You get a certain wage in exchange for your labor. You are responsible for nothing but your specific job duties. If Joe was responsible for 10% of the sales and got 10% of the profits, then there would be no reason whatsoever to have Joe as an employee. He creates no value for the company in exchange for the company assuming all the risks and all the operations. Does Joe do 10% of the manufacturing? Does Joe answer 10% of the incoming phone calls? Does Joe do 10% of the janitorial and maintenance duties? Does Joe stock 10% of the shelves? Does Joe do 10% of the security shifts guarding the building at night? If not, then why in the world should Joe get 10% of the profits?
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.
They don't get it. They think that you can raise minimum wage, prices will stay the same and everyone keeps their job. They think the rich owner will just swallow the loss...or should swallow the loss. I remember reading that the average McDonald's franchise owner nets about $230K/year from the restaurant. If the average MdD's has 30 employees working an average of 30 hours per week that means the owner is making less than $5/hr per employee. There is no way you can raise their wages by $7/hour and NOT result in his raising prices, cutting hours and cutting jobs. People who come up with this stuff are really bad at math and have no idea how the economy runs. It's all magic. 
