Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[Foxfyre]

Hmm. You know I don't see a whole lot of growth there on the bottom percentiles. It's almost like they're stagnant. But you claim they aren't.

Please to explain.

What you should be taking away from that graph is that the more valuable the skill set is the more likely compensation for it will increase over time. If what you do for someone is valuable to not just your employer now, but to other prospective employers, your current employer will have to continue to increase your pay to keep you from going somewhere that pays better.

If all you have is a skill set that pretty much anyone else can do, it isn't reasonable to think said skill set is going to become any more valuable over time. Your graph reflects exactly that.

So in other words, you don't think experience is rewarded in any way nor should it be. You think that someone starting on the line in a factory has the exact same skills as someone on that line for 20 years. And that they should be paid exactly the same wages. Wow dude.

I worked in HR for a major company and was allowed to see the annual raises for everyone, all positions. I saw Admin Assistants getting 3% raises while their VP bosses got 10%. CEOs, even higher. THAT is what this chart represents.

Did the Administrative Assistant have the same responsiblity that the VPs and CEOs had? Did they produce as much for the company; generate profits; control inputs, outlays, expenses? Did the consequences of their job carry the same weight as the higher paid employees? Did they need the same education, skill set, and take the same risks?

If you really did work in H.R., I would think you would have had training in all the components that go into what a particular job is worth to the employer. If you didn't you really needed to be in a different line of work.

 

[Kuros]

Let the free market work. So long as people's unalienable rights are secured, as guaranteed by the Constitution, a free market will bring the cream to the top and bury or obscure the rotten. Try to do that artificially and you will invariably promote the bad and harm the good.

Wake up. We don't have a free market. We have socialized risk and privatized profit.

Its called corporatism.

Corporatism is not evil. All incorporation does is adjust the means and risk of handling assets, taxes, and liability.

Government meddling is rarely intended to be evil, but too often results in being just that. You are correct that we too often do not have a free market these days due to an incomprehensible tax code, over regulation, government picking winners and losers, and similar meddling.

But, if we can again put people into Congress and the White House who understand the benefits of the free market and a free people, we can return to a free market system. And that will return the nation to a track of prosperity.

I've bolded what I agree with. The gov't picks winners and losers partly because of the outsized influence of corporations, banks, and private equity groups.

Meanwhile, outside of Washington, the younger generation is having a rough time of it. This is a post-crash developed world phenomenon.

 

[Bern80]

So in other words, you don't think experience is rewarded in any way nor should it be. You think that someone starting on the line in a factory has the exact same skills as someone on that line for 20 years. And that they should be paid exactly the same wages. Wow dude.

Do I think you should be rewarded simply for taking up space for another year? No. I have worked on production lines. They are highly repeitious jobs. Going from no experience to experienced takes maybe two days, give or take.

I worked in HR for a major company and was allowed to see the annual raises for everyone, all positions. I saw Admin Assistants getting 3% raises while their VP bosses got 10%. CEOs, even higher. THAT is what this chart represents.

And it represents that because the VP and CEO are more valuable because their skill set is more scarce than the admin. asst. Just like I said.

 

[Kuros]

Define EBITDAM.

No Googling now!!!!!

 

[Bern80]

You don't know me, or my background, or my knowledge of business/management.

I've bolded the strawmen you've just pulled out of your ass.

The best part of your post is a mere personal anecdote. You'll have to do better than that.

Admittedly, I know nothing of your background.... but your knowledge of business/management is on full display... it is sorely lacking.

How so?

Look, I've never seen you write in paragraph form, or anything beyond one-line quips. Show me your work. How can you infer I have no understanding of business/management?

Simply put, if you did, you wouldn't be making the arguments you're making because you would know how ridiculous it is to contend that most businesses are trying to screw both their customers and their employees.

 

[Contumacious]

What happens when employers build Widgets and don't pay a wage their employees can support their families on?

The taxpayer steps in and subsidizes food, housing and healthcare for that family. Employer gets to profit off of cheap widgets.....taxpayers make up the difference

Have you tried convincing the politicians to abolish thee welfare/warfare state?

Have you tried to convice the politicos to dismantle the massive regulatory state which causes products and services to costs so much?

.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Define EBITDAM.

No Googling now!!!!!

Noticeably though, you never answered any of my questions. And my point was, no need to Google that which you know....

Have a nice day there Sparky.

 

[mskafka]

The libs dont understand if they raise the min wage or have 15.00 an hour everything else raises and they will still be in the same position and just making more but also paying more for the goods.

who requessted 15 an hour?

Straw man.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wake up. We don't have a free market. We have socialized risk and privatized profit.

Its called corporatism.

Corporatism is not evil. All incorporation does is adjust the means and risk of handling assets, taxes, and liability.

Government meddling is rarely intended to be evil, but too often results in being just that. You are correct that we too often do not have a free market these days due to an incomprehensible tax code, over regulation, government picking winners and losers, and similar meddling.

But, if we can again put people into Congress and the White House who understand the benefits of the free market and a free people, we can return to a free market system. And that will return the nation to a track of prosperity.

I've bolded what I agree with. The gov't picks winners and losers partly because of the outsized influence of corporations, banks, and private equity groups.

Meanwhile, outside of Washington, the younger generation is having a rough time of it. This is a post-crash developed world phenomenon.

Sorry but I am 100% certain that it is the government picking winners and losers that CAUSES outsized influence of corporations, banks, and private equity groups. Take away Congress's ability to dispense charity or benevolence on ANYBODY--make it illegal to pick winners and losers anywhere--and BOA or Goldmann Sachs has no more influence than the corner gas station or drug store.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not so long ago, I was privileged to hear the story of a Vietnamese immigrant who came into the USA with little more than a sponsor and a job waiting for him. Shortly after his arrival, the sponsor was killed in an accident and the job disappeared with him. The only work the immigrant could find was picking vegetables on a local farm so that is what he did. It was at near starvation wages but he didn't care.

However, the foreman noticed that he took great care to pick only the ripe vegetables and was careful in how he handled them so as not to bruise them. He arrived early for work and stayed late and was highly productive. Before long he was promoted to foreman, a position at which he also excelled and eventually manager. By living frugally and saving every dime he could, he was able to acquire enough venture capital to start his own business. The business is in its third year and is thriving. He recently married and is expecting his first child.

I found myself wondering how many Americans would be willing to do what he did to achieve the American dream? But he is living proof that it is still possible to achieve it when you expect to do it all on merit and not be given anything.

I have known MANY people like that. A man that came from the Phillipines and started washing dishes, now owns a string of restaurants. Another man who came alone at the age of 14 and now owns a bunch of apartment buildings. He was my landlord for a time. A woman that came here unable to speak the language at all became a very successful lawyer. What sets these people apart isn't only that they are willing to work extremely hard with dedication. It's that they are willing to sacrifice the now for the future. Even Americans who work very very hard sometimes lack the ability to make sacrifices now for the future.

 

[DontBeStupid]

What you should be taking away from that graph is that the more valuable the skill set is the more likely compensation for it will increase over time. If what you do for someone is valuable to not just your employer now, but to other prospective employers, your current employer will have to continue to increase your pay to keep you from going somewhere that pays better.

If all you have is a skill set that pretty much anyone else can do, it isn't reasonable to think said skill set is going to become any more valuable over time. Your graph reflects exactly that.

So in other words, you don't think experience is rewarded in any way nor should it be. You think that someone starting on the line in a factory has the exact same skills as someone on that line for 20 years. And that they should be paid exactly the same wages. Wow dude.

I worked in HR for a major company and was allowed to see the annual raises for everyone, all positions. I saw Admin Assistants getting 3% raises while their VP bosses got 10%. CEOs, even higher. THAT is what this chart represents.

Did the Administrative Assistant have the same responsiblity that the VPs and CEOs had? Did they produce as much for the company; generate profits; control inputs, outlays, expenses? Did the consequences of their job carry the same weight as the higher paid employees? Did they need the same education, skill set, and take the same risks?

If you really did work in H.R., I would think you would have had training in all the components that go into what a particular job is worth to the employer. If you didn't you really needed to be in a different line of work.

Well now that's interesting. Here you are going on and on about hard work and how people need to work harder to get rewarded in life, and yet when we bring up a real-world example, you don't mention hard work at all. Why is that?

All of the things you mentioned are criteria for deciding the pay of a person. I think we all agree on that. Annual raises though should be rewards for how hard you have worked. Not what position you have. We can't all be CEOs and VPs. There simply aren't enough of those positions! Does that mean someone who is a good, solid, hard working Admin Asst should NEVER get a raise above the standard of living adjustment?

You seem to think so. And it's people like you that have caused the wage stagnation we've seen.

We used to reward people for hard work. We don't any more. How about we start doing that again?

 

[DontBeStupid]

So in other words, you don't think experience is rewarded in any way nor should it be. You think that someone starting on the line in a factory has the exact same skills as someone on that line for 20 years. And that they should be paid exactly the same wages. Wow dude.

Do I think you should be rewarded simply for taking up space for another year? No. I have worked on production lines. They are highly repeitious jobs. Going from no experience to experienced takes maybe two days, give or take.

I worked in HR for a major company and was allowed to see the annual raises for everyone, all positions. I saw Admin Assistants getting 3% raises while their VP bosses got 10%. CEOs, even higher. THAT is what this chart represents.

And it represents that because the VP and CEO are more valuable because their skill set is more scarce than the admin. asst. Just like I said.

Think about what you just wrote. You are saying that a VP should be paid higher than his assistant, and that NO MATTER WHAT, he should get a higher percentage raise every year, because of his skill set and not because of his work. And you think this is fair.

Also, think about it again, if you raise the VP wages every year by a higher percentage than his assistant, the inequality in their incomes will grow every year. You know, kind of like I said it would, showed it did and say it will continue to do.

And you think this is all fine?

 

[Katzndogz]

Someone with a specialized skill set is always going to make more money that someone unskilled. Yes it is fair. If an unskilled person wants that higher wage, they can always become skilled. An uneducated person can always become educated. Aside from that, merit should always be rewarded more than sloth. Most companies do that. The secretary who works harder than the other secretaries will get a raise higher than the other secretaries, not higher than the VP. The secretary will get a lot closer to being VP if she goes back to school, gets an MBA, and a post graduate degree which is what that VP did to become VP.

 

[DiamondDave]

So in other words, you don't think experience is rewarded in any way nor should it be. You think that someone starting on the line in a factory has the exact same skills as someone on that line for 20 years. And that they should be paid exactly the same wages. Wow dude.

I worked in HR for a major company and was allowed to see the annual raises for everyone, all positions. I saw Admin Assistants getting 3% raises while their VP bosses got 10%. CEOs, even higher. THAT is what this chart represents.

Did the Administrative Assistant have the same responsiblity that the VPs and CEOs had? Did they produce as much for the company; generate profits; control inputs, outlays, expenses? Did the consequences of their job carry the same weight as the higher paid employees? Did they need the same education, skill set, and take the same risks?

If you really did work in H.R., I would think you would have had training in all the components that go into what a particular job is worth to the employer. If you didn't you really needed to be in a different line of work.

Well now that's interesting. Here you are going on and on about hard work and how people need to work harder to get rewarded in life, and yet when we bring up a real-world example, you don't mention hard work at all. Why is that?

All of the things you mentioned are criteria for deciding the pay of a person. I think we all agree on that. Annual raises though should be rewards for how hard you have worked. Not what position you have. We can't all be CEOs and VPs. There simply aren't enough of those positions! Does that mean someone who is a good, solid, hard working Admin Asst should NEVER get a raise above the standard of living adjustment?

You seem to think so. And it's people like you that have caused the wage stagnation we've seen.

We used to reward people for hard work. We don't any more. How about we start doing that again?

Ehhh... wrong answer, stupid..

Raises should be rewards for what you bring to the company... not "hard work"... I can have a guy who works 40% harder scrubbing urinals or putting mail in the company mailboxes.. but that does not bring extra like a sales executive bringing in 20% more business or a CEO bringing the company along the path to success... for there are many MANY more who can scrub a urinal or type a memo or stuff a mailbox, than there are that can up business...

You sir, are a complete buffoon

 

[kwc57]

So in other words, you don't think experience is rewarded in any way nor should it be. You think that someone starting on the line in a factory has the exact same skills as someone on that line for 20 years. And that they should be paid exactly the same wages. Wow dude.

I worked in HR for a major company and was allowed to see the annual raises for everyone, all positions. I saw Admin Assistants getting 3% raises while their VP bosses got 10%. CEOs, even higher. THAT is what this chart represents.

Did the Administrative Assistant have the same responsiblity that the VPs and CEOs had? Did they produce as much for the company; generate profits; control inputs, outlays, expenses? Did the consequences of their job carry the same weight as the higher paid employees? Did they need the same education, skill set, and take the same risks?

If you really did work in H.R., I would think you would have had training in all the components that go into what a particular job is worth to the employer. If you didn't you really needed to be in a different line of work.

Well now that's interesting. Here you are going on and on about hard work and how people need to work harder to get rewarded in life, and yet when we bring up a real-world example, you don't mention hard work at all. Why is that?

All of the things you mentioned are criteria for deciding the pay of a person. I think we all agree on that. Annual raises though should be rewards for how hard you have worked. Not what position you have. We can't all be CEOs and VPs. There simply aren't enough of those positions! Does that mean someone who is a good, solid, hard working Admin Asst should NEVER get a raise above the standard of living adjustment?

You seem to think so. And it's people like you that have caused the wage stagnation we've seen.

We used to reward people for hard work. We don't any more. How about we start doing that again?

I've suggested it before, but you really need to talk to the mods about changing your screen name. How do you post without being embarassed? Are you really so black and white that you can't understand what someone is saying. Are you really that stupid? I suggest you change your name to IamStupid. You remind me of a child who wants everything spelled out specifically so that when they do something they know to be wrong, they can pull out the old, "we'll you didn't say XYZ". Grow up. Your first mistake is in thinking that "annual" raises are some sort of automatic thing. They are not. In the REAL non-union world, raises ARE most usually determined on how hard you work. ALSO, in the real world, raises are determined of the position or job you hold and it's value to the company. Are you really unaware of that? The guy that brings in the million dollar contract is worth far more than the person who typed the contract for him. You do get that don't you? They both work hard and they both deserve something, but that is where the comparison ends. You need to stop and just walk away with whatever imagined dignity you have is still intact in your mind.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Raises should be rewards for what you bring to the company... not "hard work"...

So you believe hard work should not be rewarded?

I disagree, but I guess you can believe what you want.

 

[kwc57]

So in other words, you don't think experience is rewarded in any way nor should it be. You think that someone starting on the line in a factory has the exact same skills as someone on that line for 20 years. And that they should be paid exactly the same wages. Wow dude.

Do I think you should be rewarded simply for taking up space for another year? No. I have worked on production lines. They are highly repeitious jobs. Going from no experience to experienced takes maybe two days, give or take.

I worked in HR for a major company and was allowed to see the annual raises for everyone, all positions. I saw Admin Assistants getting 3% raises while their VP bosses got 10%. CEOs, even higher. THAT is what this chart represents.

And it represents that because the VP and CEO are more valuable because their skill set is more scarce than the admin. asst. Just like I said.

Think about what you just wrote. You are saying that a VP should be paid higher than his assistant, and that NO MATTER WHAT, he should get a higher percentage raise every year, because of his skill set and not because of his work. And you think this is fair.

Also, think about it again, if you raise the VP wages every year by a higher percentage than his assistant, the inequality in their incomes will grow every year. You know, kind of like I said it would, showed it did and say it will continue to do.

And you think this is all fine?

Absolutely! I went to high school with a girl who became a dental assistant. She had a taste for the finer things in life. She envied the lifestyle of the dentist she worked for. She went back to school and became a dentist. I can assure you, her take away from her experience wasn't to give equal pay to her own dental assistants. Do you even work or are you carrying a 99% sign around and posting on your capitalist iPad?

 

[kwc57]

Raises should be rewards for what you bring to the company... not "hard work"...

So you believe hard work should not be rewarded?

I disagree, but I guess you can believe what you want.

Negged for being a total asshat.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Do I think you should be rewarded simply for taking up space for another year? No. I have worked on production lines. They are highly repeitious jobs. Going from no experience to experienced takes maybe two days, give or take.



And it represents that because the VP and CEO are more valuable because their skill set is more scarce than the admin. asst. Just like I said.

Think about what you just wrote. You are saying that a VP should be paid higher than his assistant, and that NO MATTER WHAT, he should get a higher percentage raise every year, because of his skill set and not because of his work. And you think this is fair.

Also, think about it again, if you raise the VP wages every year by a higher percentage than his assistant, the inequality in their incomes will grow every year. You know, kind of like I said it would, showed it did and say it will continue to do.

And you think this is all fine?

Absolutely! I went to high school with a girl who became a dental assistant. She had a taste for the finer things in life. She envied the lifestyle of the dentist she worked for. She went back to school and became a dentist. I can assure you, her take away from her experience wasn't to give equal pay to her own dental assistants. Do you even work or are you carrying a 99% sign around and posting on your capitalist iPad?

Here we go again.

There's nothing wrong with being a dental assistant. Plenty of people do that work and enjoy it and we need people to do that work! The idea, though, that because they chose that job their wage should NEVER increase, no matter how hard they work or how good they are, is just ludicrous. Plus, I would hazard to say it's un-American. We pride ourselves on hard work and being rewarded for it, but now you're the 3rd person to say that shouldn't be the case!

 

[DiamondDave]

Raises should be rewards for what you bring to the company... not "hard work"...

So you believe hard work should not be rewarded?

I disagree, but I guess you can believe what you want.

Hard work does not inherently equate to better work, more benefit for the company, etc...

You sir, are a ignorant as to the workings of business