Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[thereisnospoon]

This discussion has been pretty interesting. Quite the eye opener! You would think with all the talk we see about people needing to work harder to get ahead, coupled with others who talk about the need for higher wages of workers, that that would translate into a large majority agreeing that if an employee works hard, they should be financially rewarded. You would think we could all agree on that. Nope.

That's not what we see. Instead we see a significant group of people who feel that only certain positions within a company warrant raises and bonuses and increases. And they warrant them at a higher rate than others in the company. Not because of hard work, mind you. But solely based on the supposed skill set needed for that position in the first place.

During tax and tax rate discussions, many people claim that a flat tax is fairest, because if you work and earn money, then it doesn't matter how much you made, we should all pay the same. Yet, when we flip this around, that argument goes out the window. If we all work hard and earn our money, only the top earners deserve raises. What? I always wondered why the hypocrisy, but now I know it's not hypocrisy. Many people simply see no value in lower paying jobs. None. Zero.

This is why a living wage discussion is so hard. If you're a person that looks at a job and sees no value in that job, then how can you even begin to talk about adequately paying the hard-working employee in that job? You can't.

I think before we talk living wage, I think we need a shift in this country. People need to start respecting all work and all jobs and all people in those jobs.

There is no "deserve". There is only "earn".
Now, no one said nor suggested that "only those at the top should get merit wage or salary increases. Don't repeat that because it just isn't true.
I do not know what you mean by "respecting all work".

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Unreal.
Just unfathomable.

 

[Chris]

While CEOs and shareholders have been cashing in, wages as a percent of the economy have dropped to an all-time low.

 

[DontBeStupid]

This discussion has been pretty interesting. Quite the eye opener! You would think with all the talk we see about people needing to work harder to get ahead, coupled with others who talk about the need for higher wages of workers, that that would translate into a large majority agreeing that if an employee works hard, they should be financially rewarded. You would think we could all agree on that. Nope.

That's not what we see. Instead we see a significant group of people who feel that only certain positions within a company warrant raises and bonuses and increases. And they warrant them at a higher rate than others in the company. Not because of hard work, mind you. But solely based on the supposed skill set needed for that position in the first place.

During tax and tax rate discussions, many people claim that a flat tax is fairest, because if you work and earn money, then it doesn't matter how much you made, we should all pay the same. Yet, when we flip this around, that argument goes out the window. If we all work hard and earn our money, only the top earners deserve raises. What? I always wondered why the hypocrisy, but now I know it's not hypocrisy. Many people simply see no value in lower paying jobs. None. Zero.

This is why a living wage discussion is so hard. If you're a person that looks at a job and sees no value in that job, then how can you even begin to talk about adequately paying the hard-working employee in that job? You can't.

I think before we talk living wage, I think we need a shift in this country. People need to start respecting all work and all jobs and all people in those jobs.

There is no "deserve". There is only "earn".
Now, no one said nor suggested that "only those at the top should get merit wage or salary increases. Don't repeat that because it just isn't true.
I do not know what you mean by "respecting all work".

Here you go.

If doing more does not attract customers or improve my employer's bottom line, it won't be rewarded nor should it be.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Unreal.
Just unfathomable.

I would bet you fifty cents against a donut that this guy has not held any kind of meaningful job and certainly didn't work in H.R.

He really is unable to grasp the concept of labor having value and can't or won't separate that from a sense of entitlement. What ARE they teaching kids in school these days? This is downright scary.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I would bet you fifty cents against a donut that this guy has not held any kind of meaningful job and certainly didn't work in H.R.

He really is unable to grasp the concept of labor having value and can't or won't separate that from a sense of entitlement. What ARE they teaching kids in school these days? This is downright scary.

I have never said anything about entitlement. I believe if someone works hard at their job, any job, they should be rewarded. You disagree. You believe certain jobs do not warrant rewards no matter how hard the work. And that others warrant reward no matter the effort level put in simply due to the nature of the position.

People like you are the reason we have such wide spread income inequality.

But whatever, it's not like you care, right? I mean, it's not like you work for a living any more, like some of us.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would bet you fifty cents against a donut that this guy has not held any kind of meaningful job and certainly didn't work in H.R.

He really is unable to grasp the concept of labor having value and can't or won't separate that from a sense of entitlement. What ARE they teaching kids in school these days? This is downright scary.

I have never said anything about entitlement. I believe if someone works hard at their job, any job, they should be rewarded. You disagree. You believe certain jobs do not warrant rewards no matter how hard the work. And that others warrant reward no matter the effort level put in simply due to the nature of the position.

People like you are the reason we have such wide spread income inequality.

But whatever, it's not like you care, right? I mean, it's not like you work for a living any more, like some of us.

Okay Sonny Boy, that's about enough absolute nonsense unless you be forever branded on this board as an ignorant twerp who is clueless about how the real world works.

How dare you suggest I don't care? I have worked at paying jobs since I was 14 and all my adult life. I have been an employee and I have been an employer. I was twice named 'boss of the year' in my community and that was based on the efforts of my staff. I not only have hired people, fired people, promoted people, authorized wages, but have written personnel policy, done extensive financial evaluation to determine what wages could or could not be paid, and have lectured on this very thing at the university level. I have worked for minimum wage and was glad to get it. And I have been paid very very well for what I do.

I have had little responsibility on the jobs I didn't make much and I have had huge responsibility on the jobs I got paid well. I worked equally hard at both but I did not feel I was entitled to anything other than what I agreed to work for.

Is that a concept so over your head that you can't understand it?

People who work hard at their jobs should and will be rewarded if the work is productive. If somebody doesn't get any better or more productive on his/her job over time, on what basis do you think he or she is entitled to anything more than what he or she agreed to work for? If he hardly works at all or if he practically kills himself, nobody is entitled to anything more than he agreed to work for.

Those who make themselves more valuable to their employers will merit and most likely receive compensation for that if the employer has any sense at all. Most employers do.

But the guy who has his neck stuck way out there, is taking the risks, is shouldering the blame and is held accounable when things go wrong merits much more pay than the guy on the assembly line who only has to show up and do a simple job for an agreed rate of pay.

Of course if you had actually worked in H.R., you would know that.

 

[Inthemiddle]

People have the right to do whatever they want with their lives. However, they don't have the right to do it by taking money from the people who earned it.

Nobody is taking money from anyone. If the only thing you can offer to the discussion is to come up with propaganda and intentional misrepresentations like that, don't bother saying anything at all.

"Class warfare" is when 'A' believes he has the right to the wages of 'B.'

Do you even know what class warfare actually is? Or is it like "fascism" to you; a word or phrase used mainly to denote something you dislike with the hope that its pejorative nature will inspire agreement with your own position? Class warfare occurs when two classes compete over different interests, or when people advocate the suffering, oppression, etc. of a class based on the idea that one is more entitled to certain privileges than the other.

Now get to work, asshole.

Actually, I'm done work for the day. But if stupid comments like this are the only thing with which you can reply, then I'd suggest getting a new hobby, because you're not very good at the internets.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I would bet you fifty cents against a donut that this guy has not held any kind of meaningful job and certainly didn't work in H.R.

He really is unable to grasp the concept of labor having value and can't or won't separate that from a sense of entitlement. What ARE they teaching kids in school these days? This is downright scary.

I have never said anything about entitlement. I believe if someone works hard at their job, any job, they should be rewarded. You disagree. You believe certain jobs do not warrant rewards no matter how hard the work. And that others warrant reward no matter the effort level put in simply due to the nature of the position.

People like you are the reason we have such wide spread income inequality.

But whatever, it's not like you care, right? I mean, it's not like you work for a living any more, like some of us.

Okay Sonny Boy, that's about enough absolute nonsense unless you be forever branded on this board as an ignorant twerp who is clueless about how the real world works.

How dare you suggest I don't care? I have worked at paying jobs since I was 14 and all my adult life. I have been an employee and I have been an employer. I was twice named 'boss of the year' in my community and that was based on the efforts of my staff. I not only have hired people, fired people, promoted people, authorized wages, but have written personnel policy, done extensive financial evaluation to determine what wages could or could not be paid, and have lectured on this very thing at the university level. I have worked for minimum wage and was glad to get it. And I have been paid very very well for what I do.

I have had little responsibility on the jobs I didn't make much and I have had huge responsibility on the jobs I got paid well. I worked equally hard at both but I did not feel I was entitled to anything other than what I agreed to work for.

Is that a concept so over your head that you can't understand it?

People who work hard at their jobs should and will be rewarded if the work is productive. If somebody doesn't get any better or more productive on his/her job over time, on what basis do you think he or she is entitled to anything more than what he or she agreed to work for? If he hardly works at all or if he practically kills himself, nobody is entitled to anything more than he agreed to work for.

Those who make themselves more valuable to their employers will merit and most likely receive compensation for that if the employer has any sense at all. Most employers do.

But the guy who has his neck stuck way out there, is taking the risks, is shouldering the blame and is held accounable when things go wrong merits much more pay than the guy on the assembly line who only has to show up and do a simple job for an agreed rate of pay.

Of course if you had actually worked in H.R., you would know that.

Great speech. Really, top notch. I especially liked the part where I agree with every thing you said. Did you know that? Everything you wrote I agree with. I said I agreed with it. I have never even hinted that I disagreed with it. Obviously, there are job positions with more responsibility or a more challenging skill set and they should be compensated more accordingly. I have always said that. I have never hinted otherwise. You have been attacking me and insulting me ... while I am agreeing with you!!

It really makes me wonder if you read my posts at all.

The part where you and I disagree, is with wage increases, raises. I believe that if everyone works hard and the company performs well then everyone should get equal percentages of wage increases. You disagree. You think higher positions, positions that directly affect the bottom line, should always get more of a percentage, regardless of the level of work.

And that's fine! You can believe that all you want.

But it doesn't change the fact that that belief is one of the reasons we have such wide-spread income inequality. Look at BofA. They were hit hard and rescued by tax payers. BofA then took that money and gave large bonuses to their Execs while firing the "expendable" workers at the bottom. They did exactly what you want them to do. Has it helped the country? The economy? Nope.

Look, if you want to insult me over a difference in opinion, go for it. I'm sure The T would love to join you. But insulting me for agreeing with you? That makes no sense and is just waste of time.

You and I are different. I believe hard work, regardless of the job, should be rewarded. You disagree. Such is life.

 

[Inthemiddle]

When you're talking about increasing the minimum wage, that's exactly what you're talking about.

Actually, if you were informed you'd know that there is no single minimum wage. There are several minimum wages which apply to a variety of situations. Certain professions have one minimum wage, while others have another. There's also an age stipulation, whereas minors are entitled only to a lower minimum wage by law.

Any adult who has been out of school for more than a couple of years and is still earning the minimum wage is suffering from brain damage.

Uh, that's a useless comment, and is an expression of class warfare on your part. On what basis can you conclude that the only way it's possible for an adult to work for minimum wage is to have a health problem?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Nope. That's labor union propaganda.

Okay, let's take this slowly. Do you really mean to imply that the current ratio of CEO pay to average employee pay is not substantially higher than it was a few decades ago? Do you really mean to claim that the increase of CEO pay has not ballooned in comparison to employee pay?

Think very carefully before you reply and make sure that you're on the right side of the facts.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Of course if you had actually worked in H.R., you would know that.

A VP makes $100K and her assistant makes $50K annually. The VP makes 100% more than the assistant, but everyone agrees that's fair based on job duties and skill sets.

Both employees work their asses off all year and the VP fully agrees she could not have done her job as well without her assistant. Raises come around. The VP gets 10% and the assistant gets a cost of living 3%.

Next year, same thing. Year after that, same thing. Now, the VP is making $133K and the assistant is making $54.6K. The VP is now making 144% of what the assistant is making.

Is that what the assistant agreed to? Is the company being fair to that employee? Is this a good way to retain a hard working employee? To build company morale?

But anyway, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure I never worked in HR.

 

[IndependntLogic]

If it takes 15.00 an hour to have a "living" wage, well I really dont have an issue with that except that really all your doing is raising the cost to build a widget, or grow a widget to a point in which the 8.00 an hour becomes 15.00 an hour it seems to me
What is a living wage?

Why should we explain to you Libs what a living wage is?

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course if you had actually worked in H.R., you would know that.

A VP makes $100K and her assistant makes $50K annually. The VP makes 100% more than the assistant, but everyone agrees that's fair based on job duties and skill sets.

Both employees work their asses off all year and the VP fully agrees she could not have done her job as well without her assistant. Raises come around. The VP gets 10% and the assistant gets a cost of living 3%.

Next year, same thing. Year after that, same thing. Now, the VP is making $133K and the assistant is making $54.6K. The VP is now making 144% of what the assistant is making.

Is that what the assistant agreed to? Is the company being fair to that employee? Is this a good way to retain a hard working employee? To build company morale?

But anyway, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure I never worked in HR.

Well thank you for now agreeing that you didn't work in HR after you said you did. But it is hardly agreeing with me when you say the administrative assistant deserves the same compensation as the producers in the company.

The assistant agreed to work for a given wage. The VP agreed to work for a given wage. The assistant most likely is doing necessary work or he or she wouldn't have been hired, but other than doing the necessary job is most likely not doing anything that increases the productivity or efficiency or profits of the business. The VP however is in charge of productivity, efficiency, and profits of the business and if he does his job well he deserves to be rewarded for that extra productivity, efficiency, and profits. If he fails to produce, he is likely out of a job.

THAT is why the VP merits a bigger raise than the administrative assistant. If the administrative assistant is dissatisfied with his/her wage, s/he should change jobs or do whatever is necessary to move from a dead end administrative job to production. Greater responsibility, greater stress, greater pressures, and much less job security will be involved but he or she will also be in a position to qualify for the big money if he/she produces.

Work is only worth as much as its value to the employer who pays the wages.

Stupid companies pay the VP or other executives whether or not they produce. That will eventually get them into trouble, but it's their money and they are free to do with it whatever they wish however stupid that might be.

 

[Ava]

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

Employer goes out of business if he pays more than his overhead. Widgets go up in price for all consumers if he stays in business. It is up the the wage earner to earn their livelihoods The unemployment rate for the college educated is 4.5%. Stop whining and get an education while the government will still pay for it....

 

[DontBeStupid]

Of course if you had actually worked in H.R., you would know that.

A VP makes $100K and her assistant makes $50K annually. The VP makes 100% more than the assistant, but everyone agrees that's fair based on job duties and skill sets.

Both employees work their asses off all year and the VP fully agrees she could not have done her job as well without her assistant. Raises come around. The VP gets 10% and the assistant gets a cost of living 3%.

Next year, same thing. Year after that, same thing. Now, the VP is making $133K and the assistant is making $54.6K. The VP is now making 144% of what the assistant is making.

Is that what the assistant agreed to? Is the company being fair to that employee? Is this a good way to retain a hard working employee? To build company morale?

But anyway, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure I never worked in HR.

Well thank you for now agreeing that you didn't work in HR after you said you did. But it is hardly agreeing with me when you say the administrative assistant deserves the same compensation as the producers in the company.

The assistant agreed to work for a given wage. The VP agreed to work for a given wage. The assistant most likely is doing necessary work or he or she wouldn't have been hired, but other than doing the necessary job is most likely not doing anything that increases the productivity or efficiency or profits of the business. The VP however is in charge of productivity, efficiency, and profits of the business and if he does his job well he deserves to be rewarded for that extra productivity, efficiency, and profits. If he fails to produce, he is likely out of a job.

THAT is why the VP merits a bigger raise than the administrative assistant. If the administrative assistant is dissatisfied with his/her wage, s/he should change jobs or do whatever is necessary to move from a dead end administrative job to production. Greater responsibility, greater stress, greater pressures, and much less job security will be involved but he or she will also be in a position to qualify for the big money if he/she produces.

Work is only worth as much as its value to the employer who pays the wages.

Stupid companies pay the VP or other executives whether or not they produce. That will eventually get them into trouble, but it's their money and they are free to do with it whatever they wish however stupid that might be.

1) Sarcasm is wasted on you.
2) I was right. You only value jobs that directly affect the bottom line. You don't care about any others.

 

[francoHFW]

STILL the equivalent of 1968's min wage, $10.50.

 

[Foxfyre]

A VP makes $100K and her assistant makes $50K annually. The VP makes 100% more than the assistant, but everyone agrees that's fair based on job duties and skill sets.

Both employees work their asses off all year and the VP fully agrees she could not have done her job as well without her assistant. Raises come around. The VP gets 10% and the assistant gets a cost of living 3%.

Next year, same thing. Year after that, same thing. Now, the VP is making $133K and the assistant is making $54.6K. The VP is now making 144% of what the assistant is making.

Is that what the assistant agreed to? Is the company being fair to that employee? Is this a good way to retain a hard working employee? To build company morale?

But anyway, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure I never worked in HR.

Well thank you for now agreeing that you didn't work in HR after you said you did. But it is hardly agreeing with me when you say the administrative assistant deserves the same compensation as the producers in the company.

The assistant agreed to work for a given wage. The VP agreed to work for a given wage. The assistant most likely is doing necessary work or he or she wouldn't have been hired, but other than doing the necessary job is most likely not doing anything that increases the productivity or efficiency or profits of the business. The VP however is in charge of productivity, efficiency, and profits of the business and if he does his job well he deserves to be rewarded for that extra productivity, efficiency, and profits. If he fails to produce, he is likely out of a job.

THAT is why the VP merits a bigger raise than the administrative assistant. If the administrative assistant is dissatisfied with his/her wage, s/he should change jobs or do whatever is necessary to move from a dead end administrative job to production. Greater responsibility, greater stress, greater pressures, and much less job security will be involved but he or she will also be in a position to qualify for the big money if he/she produces.

Work is only worth as much as its value to the employer who pays the wages.

Stupid companies pay the VP or other executives whether or not they produce. That will eventually get them into trouble, but it's their money and they are free to do with it whatever they wish however stupid that might be.

1) Sarcasm is wasted on you.
2) I was right. You only value jobs that directly affect the bottom line. You don't care about any others.

Translation: I can't rebut it so I'll accuse you of being uncaring. If you did work in H.R., it must have been that same company that gave the unproductive VP a big raise.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Well thank you for now agreeing that you didn't work in HR after you said you did. But it is hardly agreeing with me when you say the administrative assistant deserves the same compensation as the producers in the company.

The assistant agreed to work for a given wage. The VP agreed to work for a given wage. The assistant most likely is doing necessary work or he or she wouldn't have been hired, but other than doing the necessary job is most likely not doing anything that increases the productivity or efficiency or profits of the business. The VP however is in charge of productivity, efficiency, and profits of the business and if he does his job well he deserves to be rewarded for that extra productivity, efficiency, and profits. If he fails to produce, he is likely out of a job.

THAT is why the VP merits a bigger raise than the administrative assistant. If the administrative assistant is dissatisfied with his/her wage, s/he should change jobs or do whatever is necessary to move from a dead end administrative job to production. Greater responsibility, greater stress, greater pressures, and much less job security will be involved but he or she will also be in a position to qualify for the big money if he/she produces.

Work is only worth as much as its value to the employer who pays the wages.

Stupid companies pay the VP or other executives whether or not they produce. That will eventually get them into trouble, but it's their money and they are free to do with it whatever they wish however stupid that might be.

1) Sarcasm is wasted on you.
2) I was right. You only value jobs that directly affect the bottom line. You don't care about any others.

Translation: I can't rebut it so I'll accuse you of being uncaring. If you did work in H.R., it must have been that same company that gave the unproductive VP a big raise.

How can I rebut the fact that you just don't care? I can't.

Look, I already said that we disagree on this. I value all jobs and all hard work. You don't. Why do you insist on continuing to fight over this?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay guys, ya'll tried to tell me I was engaging in an exercise of futility but I pushed on. I honestly thought Don'tBeStupid was capable of grasping the concept we've all been trying to teach him. Apparently he isn't. But oh well.

I'm gonna go make chicken fried steak, mashed potatoes, creamed gravy, and a nice salad and enjoy the opening game of the World Series. Later all.