Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[Care4all]

That STILL wasn't the comparision being made. The debate was never about SOME types of jobs and what they pay. It was about ALL jobs. From the most menial job that anyone can do the most skilled. I don't have a problem with how pay the high school kid. You pay them based on their value, which is what I have said all along. What I have been asking is when there is NOTHING else to differentiate two employees by, other than their income requirements, would he pay more to the one that needs the income more? The only disagreement I would have with the above is paying people based on how you think the avg. person would perform rather than how THAT person actually performs. Because believe it or not there are plenty of highly financially motivated teenagers out there, while there are also a lot very lazy adults who do no more than what is required of them.

I think you are complicating the issue for no apparent reason.
The bottom line is it doesn't matter what anyone believes is "fair".
Business owners will always defer to their past experiences with various types of people when determining who to hire and wages.
Businesses use all sorts of criteria. Some of these are bound to anger certain people.
I read a story about how HR managers are using criteria that enter gray areas in terms of illegal discrimination. However, as of now, none have been challenged.
One manager that represented a company with mostly white collar professionals that require much travel, explained that she will disqualify from consideration candidates with young children. Others may disqualify single people because they are viewed in certain circumstances as less likely to be reliable than those with families. Some will use credit history as a criteria. Others have disqualified candidates based on the type of vehicle and the condition of said vehicle the candidate uses to commute. The thinking is, "how can I rely on a person to be at work every day if their transportation is always in the shop for repairs."
Yeah, looks "unfair" doesn't it? However, at the end of the day, businesses must only hire those people who can be at work when the job requires the worker to be reliable.
I see nothing wrong with this.

Nor do I. Most of those criteria I have no problem with. I don't think I'm complicating anything at all because I have maintained through this thread there is only one criteria for paying people that have a real problem with that is paying someone based on what the employee needs (i.e. a living wage) as opposed to their value. And in recent pages I have an even bigger problem when two people are paid differently ONLY because one person needs more to live on.

"they" used to pay men more, for the same job done by women.....it still takes place to a degree...and what was surmised was that employers viewed men as the head of the household and needing more money to provide, than the woman....this was a while back....it still continues to a certain degree according to statistics....on average, for the exact same job required and done, women are paid less then men....and all kinds of pay differentials between gender and races are out there, yet i do not believe any laws are being broken other than a case here or there....this is just how the employers make their own decisions on things, I suppose?

but a cost of living wage would be handled the same as minimum wage law is handled, I am guessing?

 

[Bern80]

"they" used to pay men more, for the same job done by women.....it still takes place to a degree...and what was surmised was that employers viewed men as the head of the household and needing more money to provided, than the woman....this was a while back....it still continues to a certain degree according to statistics....on average, for the exact same job required and done, women are paid less then men....and all kinds of pay differentials between gender and races are out there, yet i do not believe any laws are being broken other than a case here or there....this is just how the employers make their own decisions on things, I suppose?

I would agree that form of sexism still occurs. I disagree with why though. I don't think it has to do with a perceptin that men need more being the head of the household. I think has more to do with the notion that men are simply seen as being 'better' than woman.

but a cost of living wage would be handled the same as minimum wage law is handled, I am guessing?

I'm not sure what you mean by handled the same way. Legally you mean as in who does or doesn't have to? I guess my point is I don't see a reason to institute a living wage that all employers must pay. Mainly because there is legitimage market for under living wage employment. Teenagers getting into the work force and supplemental income. You make those McDonalds jobs start paying a living wage to everyone and there will be fewer of those jobs.

 

[Foxfyre]

Paying women less because they didn't "need" as much was one of my major peeves way back when and something I actively fought against. When the woman puts in the time and puts out the effort to excel in the job and does excel in the job, she deserves the same pay as everybody else. And I think it is more common than not that women do receive equal pay for equal work now.

But I also recognized that when women chose to be the major caretaker of the children and others in the family--a noble choice to make in my opinion--she was almost always going to need to take time off to be with the kid with the runny nose or attend parent teacher conferences etc., would not be as available to send for extra training etc., and would often not be as available to work overtime and such. That made her less valuable to her employer compared to somebody who could devote all the energy to the job and as a result she likely made less. I did not see that as unfair or an inequity.

Employers are not in the business of being social workers for their employees. They are in business to make a profit and pay people to do the work necessary to do that. The benevolent boss is loved and appreciated, but if he is too benevolent, it will affect his bottom line and in turn the profits available to hire people and give promotions, raises, and bonuses.

 

[Care4all]

"they" used to pay men more, for the same job done by women.....it still takes place to a degree...and what was surmised was that employers viewed men as the head of the household and needing more money to provided, than the woman....this was a while back....it still continues to a certain degree according to statistics....on average, for the exact same job required and done, women are paid less then men....and all kinds of pay differentials between gender and races are out there, yet i do not believe any laws are being broken other than a case here or there....this is just how the employers make their own decisions on things, I suppose?

I would agree that form of sexism still occurs. I disagree with why though. I don't think it has to do with a perceptin that men need more being the head of the household. I think has more to do with the notion that men are simply seen as being 'better' than woman.

but a cost of living wage would be handled the same as minimum wage law is handled, I am guessing?

I'm not sure what you mean by handled the same way. Legally you mean as in who does or doesn't have to? I guess my point is I don't see a reason to institute a living wage that all employers must pay. Mainly because there is legitimage market for under living wage employment. Teenagers getting into the work force and supplemental income. You make those McDonalds jobs start paying a living wage to everyone and there will be fewer of those jobs.

hmmmmmmm.........I can see how those under skilled working full time. could definitely be hurt....as in, not being able to find employment... but i suppose it would depend on how a living wage law was writen...excluding certain types of jobs, like part time....or excluding businesses with 10 employees or less....

so, when all said and done, it's possible it never really helps the very people it was meant to help....i suppose?

 

[Katzndogz]

Any employer who has ever been confronted by an employee who needs more money can relate.

Offer to let them work more hours. Offer to increase responsibility to be worth more money. See how fast you're turned down as a greedy exploiter.

 

[Care4all]

Any employer who has ever been confronted by an employee who needs more money can relate.

Offer to let them work more hours. Offer to increase responsibility to be worth more money. See how fast you're turned down as a greedy exploiter.

that's a crock of poopee...

every employee of mine who needed and wanted more money were always willing to accept more responsibility for such!

 

[Foxfyre]

Any employer who has ever been confronted by an employee who needs more money can relate.

Offer to let them work more hours. Offer to increase responsibility to be worth more money. See how fast you're turned down as a greedy exploiter.

that's a crock of poopie...

every employee of mine who needed and wanted more money were always willing to accept more responsibility for such!

Having been director of a large work force, I agree that most of my employees were willing to take on extra work or responsibility in return for an unscheduled raise. But I also see Tipsy's point as I also had people on staff who simply refused to do anything more than they were doing which was usually the absolute minimum to avoid being fired. And of course, I was advised (by others) that I was the Wicked Witch of the West when I denied their requested raise.

 

[Care4all]

Any employer who has ever been confronted by an employee who needs more money can relate.

Offer to let them work more hours. Offer to increase responsibility to be worth more money. See how fast you're turned down as a greedy exploiter.

that's a crock of poopie...

every employee of mine who needed and wanted more money were always willing to accept more responsibility for such!

Having been director of a large work force, I agree that most of my employees were willing to take on extra work or responsibility in return for an unscheduled raise. But I also see Tipsy's point as I also had people on staff who simply refused to do anything more than they were doing which was usually the absolute minimum to avoid being fired. And of course, I was advised (by others) that I was the Wicked Witch of the West when I denied their requested raise.

i suppose there are a few people around, lazy like that Foxy, but they wouldn't be around for long in my book....

one, not giving them a raise (for nothing in return) will probably sour them even more, and make them leave or their job performance will diminish to even less productivity....and they will be replaced.

there will always be exceptions to the rule....but for the most part, most all people are willing to do more or have more responsibility, for a raise.

this still doesn't mean the employer can do such....but it will keep you in the employer's mind, when things open up....from my experience with it!

 

[pgm]

It would cost the same for each competing company as long as the wages were a federal mandate
the restaurants etc... would be hit hardest.
your right about the built up cost it takes to run a business

ones true labor cost has much more than just what the bare salary is

I don't think restaurants would be affected very much (other businesses would be, though). The kitchen staff tends to make more than the minimum wage per hour (just way less than they would get if they were paid their worth). Servers don't have any relation to the minimum wage unless they don't make enough in tips. A server almost always makes over the minimum wage when you factor in tips (and don't usually even get paid a wage, from my experience). The only people who really get affected are the busboys and a restaurant can simply cut them down and have the servers do that work.

 

[JRK]

Having managed many people my-self there are both those who will earn it and those who expect it. Whats killing my sector is the in-ability to maintain steady work and the huge influx of Hispanics in the last 20 years (legal)
Holding people in account is not the issue. The living wage, what ever one thinks it maybe the right wage would as I asses it be the minimum whether it 7.25 an hour or 13.25 an hour.
The responsibility with those wages would be no different

1) Set expectations
2) work schedule
3) Do quarterly reviews

It is really that simple and I do not care if he is the dish washer. hold people in account they will respond, be fair and document all issues good and bad.

 

[Bern80]

"they" used to pay men more, for the same job done by women.....it still takes place to a degree...and what was surmised was that employers viewed men as the head of the household and needing more money to provided, than the woman....this was a while back....it still continues to a certain degree according to statistics....on average, for the exact same job required and done, women are paid less then men....and all kinds of pay differentials between gender and races are out there, yet i do not believe any laws are being broken other than a case here or there....this is just how the employers make their own decisions on things, I suppose?

I would agree that form of sexism still occurs. I disagree with why though. I don't think it has to do with a perceptin that men need more being the head of the household. I think has more to do with the notion that men are simply seen as being 'better' than woman.

but a cost of living wage would be handled the same as minimum wage law is handled, I am guessing?

I'm not sure what you mean by handled the same way. Legally you mean as in who does or doesn't have to? I guess my point is I don't see a reason to institute a living wage that all employers must pay. Mainly because there is legitimage market for under living wage employment. Teenagers getting into the work force and supplemental income. You make those McDonalds jobs start paying a living wage to everyone and there will be fewer of those jobs.

hmmmmmmm.........I can see how those under skilled working full time. could definitely be hurt....as in, not being able to find employment... but i suppose it would depend on how a living wage law was writen...excluding certain types of jobs, like part time....or excluding businesses with 10 employees or less....

so, when all said and done, it's possible it never really helps the very people it was meant to help....i suppose?

More specifically it helps some at the cost of others. Say you have 100 low skill level employees that are being paid a wage deemed less than someone could live on. Then a law passes raising the pay all 100 employees to a living wage. What has been historically shown to happen is their pay goes up, but maybe 20-30 of them get laid off because the employer simply can't afford it.

I know I keep using this example, but they're a good one. So let's use them in a little exercise to see what happens if a living wage were applied to them. They don't fall into an criteria you mentioned above that would hypothetically be exempt from such a law. Obviously they have more than 10 employees and they allow anyone to work as many hours as they want (up to 40). So the new law goes into effect, which of the employees are supposed to get the living wage or are all of them? Feel free to jump in here JRK.

 

[Katzndogz]

In all my years of being an employer, I had ONE girl who accepted what amounted to a promotion to make more money.

I had one guy explain to me that as the employer I was responsible for increased productivity, not him, "It's your business" when he asked for a raise.

 

[JRK]

It would cost the same for each competing company as long as the wages were a federal mandate
the restaurants etc... would be hit hardest.
your right about the built up cost it takes to run a business

ones true labor cost has much more than just what the bare salary is

I don't think restaurants would be affected very much (other businesses would be, though). The kitchen staff tends to make more than the minimum wage per hour (just way less than they would get if they were paid their worth). Servers don't have any relation to the minimum wage unless they don't make enough in tips. A server almost always makes over the minimum wage when you factor in tips (and don't usually even get paid a wage, from my experience). The only people who really get affected are the busboys and a restaurant can simply cut them down and have the servers do that work.

I am not sure how much labor cost effect the cost of prepared foods, but there has to be a bare labor cost per hour the industry uses. I would think 8-8-15 would be used to feed 3 groups per hour. using what I see as a living wage here local of 12.5 with help on personal insurance your bare rate would go to from 10.33 to 13.33 an hour with 3 man hours per hour, BARE which would add 9.00 per hour, 72 per day, 500 per 7 day week

That is allot of pizza
20 pizzas a day
140 a week
3.57 per pizza

not to bad huh?

 

[Katzndogz]

An exercise in how raising the minimum wage works.

I needed someone part time to do janitorial work. I hired a woman, part time for the agreed upon minimum wage. She initially accepted the job, then called and said she was declining because she got another job that also paid minimum wage but it was full time. I understood.

A few days later the minimum wage in the Los Angeles area was raised. The woman called me back. The new employers were unwilling to pay the new minimum wage. They would make other arrangements and let her go. I told her that after consideration of the tasks required and the new minimum wage, I wasn't hiring anyone at all. The woman had no job at all.

Wages have to be balanced by what an employee needs to what the task is. All tasks have a value. Exceed that and there is no job.

 

[JRK]

An exercise in how raising the minimum wage works.

I needed someone part time to do janitorial work. I hired a woman, part time for the agreed upon minimum wage. She initially accepted the job, then called and said she was declining because she got another job that also paid minimum wage but it was full time. I understood.

A few days later the minimum wage in the Los Angeles area was raised. The woman called me back. The new employers were unwilling to pay the new minimum wage. They would make other arrangements and let her go. I told her that after consideration of the tasks required and the new minimum wage, I wasn't hiring anyone at all. The woman had no job at all.

Wages have to be balanced by what an employee needs to what the task is. All tasks have a value. Exceed that and there is no job.

Our tax system is doing far more damage than that as we speak. This is why Cains 9-9-9 or the fair tax or something like that is our only hope
Corporate tax is way to hi as well as capital gains tax

 

[Utilitarian]

Of course they do! Once an individual has reached a comfort level they have no inclination to move beyond it. They only move when it's uncomfortable. They are especially resistent to move up if it takes more effort than they wish to put forth.

I could live off of my current salary for the rest of my life, but I still want to move up in my company.

My comfort level is pretty high, but that doesn't eliminate my ambition.

Has it occurred to you that ambition is not a universal trait? It is not, as far as I can see, even a terribly common one. And, of course, not everyone has the SAME ambitions.

Ambition is relative. However, it's an interesting dilemma.

For the sake of discussion, what percentage of the population do you believe is as ambitious as I've indicated?

 

[Utilitarian]

Are we talking an 18 year old senior in high school or a 30 year old man with a wife and kid? In an earlier post I talked about the choices we make in life. No 30 year old man with a family should be working a minimum wage job. A guy who lost his job and is doing it temporarily to have some cash flow until he finds a job that pays more for his skill set is one thing. If he has been working minimum wages jobs since he was a kid, he has made some really poor choices along the road of life. That is what I don't get when everyone keeps talking about minimum wage jobs should be a living wage. No, they shouldn't. Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs to get your feet wet in the workplace, get some experience and move up. It isn't a stopping point.

A certain amount of accountability is vital in every society, but shit happens.

There are 30 year olds working minimum wage jobs. Sometimes people make dumb decisions. They pay for it by working a job like that, but my point is that paying them just a tad more isn't a bad thing.

The comment was made earlier that if a living wage was the same as minimum wage, there would be no motivation to move up, but that's not true for about 95% of the population. Almost no one wants to work that kind of job for the long term, even if they can live off of it.

It's a bad thing if what they're doing isn't WORTH a tad more. You think business owners don't have other things to do with that money? As the left is fond of trumpeting when telling us how we don't need "eeevil corporations", the vast majority of employers in this country are small or mid-sized businesses.

Your employer is not your parent, and is in no way obligated to take care of your life problems for you. Grow up.

Are you interested in discussing this further, or are you here simply to be pedantic?

 

[Bern80]

A certain amount of accountability is vital in every society, but shit happens.

There are 30 year olds working minimum wage jobs. Sometimes people make dumb decisions. They pay for it by working a job like that, but my point is that paying them just a tad more isn't a bad thing.

The comment was made earlier that if a living wage was the same as minimum wage, there would be no motivation to move up, but that's not true for about 95% of the population. Almost no one wants to work that kind of job for the long term, even if they can live off of it.

It's a bad thing if what they're doing isn't WORTH a tad more. You think business owners don't have other things to do with that money? As the left is fond of trumpeting when telling us how we don't need "eeevil corporations", the vast majority of employers in this country are small or mid-sized businesses.

Your employer is not your parent, and is in no way obligated to take care of your life problems for you. Grow up.

Are you interested in discussing this further, or are you here simply to be pedantic?

We very much are trying to discuss. We're trying to figure out why it is some here believe it is the obligation of one's employer to provide your basic needs.

 

[Foxfyre]

I could live off of my current salary for the rest of my life, but I still want to move up in my company.

My comfort level is pretty high, but that doesn't eliminate my ambition.

Has it occurred to you that ambition is not a universal trait? It is not, as far as I can see, even a terribly common one. And, of course, not everyone has the SAME ambitions.

Ambition is relative. However, it's an interesting dilemma.

For the sake of discussion, what percentage of the population do you believe is as ambitious as I've indicated?

Actually a relative small percentage I think. There is already a degree of dog/cat fighting to claw your way to the top and only a few have the talent or stamina or appetite for that. And many are simply not emotionally suited to occupy those top spots where you constantly have people gunning for your job or to take you down because they don't like you.

I am of a temperament that I am never satisfied with where I am. Some would call it a strong work ethic. Other would call it compulsive obsessive behavior. I suspect there may be a bit of both in there, but once I master a job and get to the point I can do it fairly effortlessly, if there is nowhere to go, I will invariably start expanding the job on my own. That has gotten me into trouble at times. But usually it has netted me promotions or enhanced my resume enough that I could move up somewhere else.

But there really are people who are happy as clams doing their routine jobs effectively and efficiently and really have no desire to do anything else.

 

[Utilitarian]

Has it occurred to you that ambition is not a universal trait? It is not, as far as I can see, even a terribly common one. And, of course, not everyone has the SAME ambitions.

Ambition is relative. However, it's an interesting dilemma.

For the sake of discussion, what percentage of the population do you believe is as ambitious as I've indicated?

Actually a relative small percentage I think. There is already a degree of dog/cat fighting to claw your way to the top and only a few have the talent or stamina or appetite for that. And many are simply not emotionally suited to occupy those top spots where you constantly have people gunning for your job or to take you down because they don't like you.

I am of a temperament that I am never satisfied with where I am. Some would call it a strong work ethic. Other would call it compulsive obsessive behavior. I suspect there may be a bit of both in there, but once I master a job and get to the point I can do it fairly effortlessly, if there is nowhere to go, I will invariably start expanding the job on my own. That has gotten me into trouble at times. But usually it has netted me promotions or enhanced my resume enough that I could move up somewhere else.

But there really are people who are happy as clams doing their routine jobs effectively and efficiently and really have no desire to do anything else.

I find it odd that anyone who believes that most people would be happy with a rather low income as long as it's "comfy" would also support a highly free market economy.

If your assumption is true, then basically, we can look forward shortly to a major fall in standard of living. I already believe that we're in decline, but the decline will be much faster in an environment where only a small percentage of people are willing to advance in skill.

If the only thing really keeping people motivated is desperation, we can expect the bottom of the pay scale to plummet.