So What Do You Think Is A Fair And Decent Wage?...

[zeke]

The only sustainable healthy economy is provided via private sector activity. And the only honest and reasoned minimum wage is that negotiated between the employer and the employee. When there is full employment in a thriving, healthy economy, labor is much more scarce and the employer will need to pay more to acquire the best employees. In our shitty economy, there are often hundreds of applications for a single job, and also fewer buyers for a product or service, and the employers will offer less.

If government was truly compassionate and gave a damn about any of us, it would be doing whatever it could to encourage private sector economic activity and it wouldn't pretend that more government spending--spending that results in more siphoned out of the economy than is added to it--will accomplish that.

But whatever the economy or conditions that exist on any given day, it is still a pure fact that a 'fair and decent' wage is what the person's labor/expertise/skill set/work ethic is worth to an employer.

I agree with you in principal. In an open, dynamic economy people would be paid their value, providing incentive for them to increase their skills and value to their employers. And maybe we'll one day we'll get back to more of that (full disclosure, I really doubt it).

But at this point in our history, our culture and the level of competence of our students and graduates have decayed to the point where it probably isn't possible right now (Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable), not to mention the victimhood/entitlement mentality that has so polluted our culture. I can see it taking at least one or two generations for that to change even if we made the decision to, and we won't.

Right now it looks like artificial wage compression is the only way to deal with the massive imbalance in the system. I hate to say that, but I don't see an alternative. So the strategy has to be something that causes the least damage possible. Simply and simplistically increasing the minimum wage to $XX would be the wrong direction.

As for the government being "truly compassionate and gave a damn about any of us", only the most naive or deluded actually believe that.

.

It would not be a painless or easy fix, but the fix is simple. Siimply pass a law--a constitutional amendment if necessary--that prohbits the government from passing out attractive free stuff to supplement and/or encourage those who lack the incentive, work ethic, or skill sets to stay in that situation.

Provide sufficient welfare to provide group shelters and all the rice, beans and powdered milk people can consume to ensure that nobody starves or freezes to death, but stop giving dignity and encouragement to poverty along with a full ban on all federal charity or payoff of any kind to any person, group, or entity and a relaxation on all unnecessary taxation and regulation. That would restore a thriving, healthy economy with employers clamoring for people to apply for work.

And if you make poverty unpleasant and boring enough, there will be private sector jobs out there to encourage people to do what they have to do to escape it. And I am convinced that with the federal government out of the charity business, there will be sufficient private sector charitable organizations who will offer a hand up to those who need one.

And meanwhile--even though Kaz is quarreling with me on this --set the minimum wage at say $3/hour to ensure that employers cannot totally steal labor from anybody and then turn the U.S. economy loose to provide the opportunity to earn that 'fair and decent' wage.

And let the people themselves determine what a 'fair and decent' wage is that they will aspire to earn.

Hey Mac, did you find this interesting. On the one hand, some think the government should regulate the high end of the earnings ladder and here is the idea of the using the government to regulate the low end of the earnings ladder.

I had to laugh at some of this though. Like the part about the private sector stepping up to help with all the poor. Like they ain't doing that now. And under these ideas there will be even more that need help. And the private sector is swamped now with requests for help.

I really like the idea that the people will determine a "fair and decent wage". And I thought the employer set the wage scale.

 

[1776]

Stupid fuck.....the stockholders and their company board set the CEO wages and benefits. if they want to pay him/her $10 mil/year to run a company with 10,000 schmucks like you below him, then that is their right.

If the CEO doesn't make a profit for the company and keep schmucks like you employed, he loses that fat paycheck.

Do you complain that professional athletes make $10M-$100M in their contracts???? Oh the horror the average fan at their games makes a tiny fraction of that money....eh?

While the fat pig at the top takes 5,000 times the amount of cash home as the avg worker under him. How is that fair? It isn't fair and either is it good for this country.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree with you in principal. In an open, dynamic economy people would be paid their value, providing incentive for them to increase their skills and value to their employers. And maybe we'll one day we'll get back to more of that (full disclosure, I really doubt it).

But at this point in our history, our culture and the level of competence of our students and graduates have decayed to the point where it probably isn't possible right now (Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable), not to mention the victimhood/entitlement mentality that has so polluted our culture. I can see it taking at least one or two generations for that to change even if we made the decision to, and we won't.

Right now it looks like artificial wage compression is the only way to deal with the massive imbalance in the system. I hate to say that, but I don't see an alternative. So the strategy has to be something that causes the least damage possible. Simply and simplistically increasing the minimum wage to $XX would be the wrong direction.

As for the government being "truly compassionate and gave a damn about any of us", only the most naive or deluded actually believe that.

.

It would not be a painless or easy fix, but the fix is simple. Siimply pass a law--a constitutional amendment if necessary--that prohbits the government from passing out attractive free stuff to supplement and/or encourage those who lack the incentive, work ethic, or skill sets to stay in that situation.

Provide sufficient welfare to provide group shelters and all the rice, beans and powdered milk people can consume to ensure that nobody starves or freezes to death, but stop giving dignity and encouragement to poverty along with a full ban on all federal charity or payoff of any kind to any person, group, or entity and a relaxation on all unnecessary taxation and regulation. That would restore a thriving, healthy economy with employers clamoring for people to apply for work.

And if you make poverty unpleasant and boring enough, there will be private sector jobs out there to encourage people to do what they have to do to escape it. And I am convinced that with the federal government out of the charity business, there will be sufficient private sector charitable organizations who will offer a hand up to those who need one.

And meanwhile--even though Kaz is quarreling with me on this --set the minimum wage at say $3/hour to ensure that employers cannot totally steal labor from anybody and then turn the U.S. economy loose to provide the opportunity to earn that 'fair and decent' wage.

And let the people themselves determine what a 'fair and decent' wage is that they will aspire to earn.

Hey Mac, did you find this interesting. On the one hand, some think the government should regulate the high end of the earnings ladder and here is the idea of the using the government to regulate the low end of the earnings ladder.

I had to laugh at some of this though. Like the part about the private sector stepping up to help with all the poor. Like they ain't doing that now. And under these ideas there will be even more that need help. And the private sector is swamped now with requests for help.

I really like the idea that the people will determine a "fair and decent wage". And I thought the employer set the wage scale.

And points made go zoooooooooooooom, right over another liberal's head. I'm getting so many examples of that happening, I think I'm gonna write my own book about it.

But just to set the record straight, employers are people too.

But in a thriving economy, the employee is empowered to be able to sell his labor to the highest bidder and it will be a sellers market. And the employer will pay what he has to pay to get the best people who will generate the maximum profit for his business. However, if the employee demands more than the employer can pay and still make a decent profit, then both lose out. Because the employee won't work and the employer won't do business at all. In a free market thriving economy the relationship between employee an employer can be a mutually satisfactory contractual agreement.

Once the government starts short circuiting that process, everybody other than an elite few will lose.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Thank you Zeke, while Betty continues to avoid you step up. Not hysterical at all.

Your premise appears to be that a company is going to simply reduce its executives pay to pay for the increase of its minimum wage workers. That the executives are going to practice goodwill so that other people can have more.

That's not going to happen, for any number of reasons. Any company will tell you that they are paying market rate for their executives and cannot just arbitrarily cut the pay of those people because it would risk losing those executives in the free market. Now, my guess is that this would anger you because you feel these people are paid too much, and that may be true, but it's simply not going to happen.

What will happen is that the company will make cuts at street level first. These people are far more easy to replace than executives, and if they don't like it, they are free to find employment elsewhere. This is just fundamental business economics at its most basic level. So this notion that execs will just take a pay cut to pay for minimum wage people is just not gonna happen.

Unless we do as I said - some kind of government mandate about pay.

So, I hope that answers your question. I'm not making value judgments on how much execs make, I'm just pointing out reality.

So, a question for you: Should the government mandate how much those execs can make? That would take their money and give it to the minimum wage workers with no cost increase to the company, as you said.

.

I would venture to suggest that, if forced to pay a higher minimum wage, the employers would be much more likely to increase the amount charged for the goods or services they provide, thereby increasing the cost to their customers. Those customers would, in turn, increase their charges to cover increased costs, and so on. Pretty soon, guess what happens to all those wage increases?

It's been my experience -- this is anecdotal evidence only -- that the typical business hates increasing prices, and it will only do so after they have minimized costs everywhere else. So rather than increase prices, the first thing they'd look to do is decrease hours.

Increasing prices is bad, bad, bad, especially as you get larger and more visible.

Just my two cents, but either way, artificially increased wages will cause damage in one or both directions. Simply increasing minimum wages is the naive, simplistic approach, and we certainly have more than enough of that right now. I could make a much better case for collective bargaining, because if executed properly in can be advantageous for both parties.

.

You have a good point. While avoiding price increases would be a primary consideration, raising the minimum wage too much would require nothing less. Follow the reasoning that since so many more people have so much more money, an increase in prices should be easily assimilated, no?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Liberals being idiots...regulate and tax companies to death which in turns causes their product prices to be raised to stay profitable....so then liberals complain that the minimum wage is too low to afford those products, then the companies raise their product prices to cover the wage increases......wash, rinse and repeat until minimum wage is $200/hr decades from now.

Not to mention, to keep prices reasonably low, many companies have moved production to locations where labor costs don't drive them to bankruptcy.

 

[gallantwarrior]

While the fat pig at the top takes 5,000 times the amount of cash home as the avg worker under him. How is that fair? It isn't fair and either is it good for this country.

If it's a publically traded company, why don't the shareholders: a) vote to decrease management compensation and redistribute it to lower-paid workers, or b) vote to take less in dividends and sacrifice their share increases in order to pay lower-paid workers more?

 

[Noomi]

While the fat pig at the top takes 5,000 times the amount of cash home as the avg worker under him. How is that fair? It isn't fair and either is it good for this country.

The fat pig CEO's will also cut employees pay checks while at the same time give themselves massive bonuses.

That shouldn't be allowed.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Stupid fuck.....the stockholders and their company board set the CEO wages and benefits. if they want to pay him/her $10 mil/year to run a company with 10,000 schmucks like you below him, then that is their right.

If the CEO doesn't make a profit for the company and keep schmucks like you employed, he loses that fat paycheck.

Do you complain that professional athletes make $10M-$100M in their contracts???? Oh the horror the average fan at their games makes a tiny fraction of that money....eh?

While the fat pig at the top takes 5,000 times the amount of cash home as the avg worker under him. How is that fair? It isn't fair and either is it good for this country.

A athlete is like a money pit that would be better spent on education and advances in other area's.

 

[ScienceRocks]

While the fat pig at the top takes 5,000 times the amount of cash home as the avg worker under him. How is that fair? It isn't fair and either is it good for this country.

If it's a publically traded company, why don't the shareholders: a) vote to decrease management compensation and redistribute it to lower-paid workers, or b) vote to take less in dividends and sacrifice their share increases in order to pay lower-paid workers more?

They put their own greed over the workers.

Sad to see

Simply limit pay to 1,000 percent of the avg worker under them. Make that law in this country that forces them to either expand company or pay workers better.

This is probably the best way to deal with it.

 

[Noomi]

Depends on the job, and not what the person seeking job thinks they are worth.

What the employer thinks the job is worth and what the job is really worth are likely two different things.

No wonder people prefer to stay on welfare - they get more money sitting on their butts than working for a few dollars an hour.

 

[Papageorgio]

Depends on the job, and not what the person seeking job thinks they are worth.

What the employer thinks the job is worth and what the job is really worth are likely two different things.

No wonder people prefer to stay on welfare - they get more money sitting on their butts than working for a few dollars an hour.

You really have no clue or you have low self worth.

I have employees that are worth their weight and I have a couple I wouldn't mind if they found a new job.

Our company works hard to employee the best we can afford. There is a line where if we pay more, then we need to raise prices. Then we are not competitive. We try to be competitive in wages and prices, not easy to do.

 

[Noomi]

Depends on the job, and not what the person seeking job thinks they are worth.

What the employer thinks the job is worth and what the job is really worth are likely two different things.

No wonder people prefer to stay on welfare - they get more money sitting on their butts than working for a few dollars an hour.

You really have no clue or you have low self worth.

I have employees that are worth their weight and I have a couple I wouldn't mind if they found a new job.

Our company works hard to employee the best we can afford. There is a line where if we pay more, then we need to raise prices. Then we are not competitive. We try to be competitive in wages and prices, not easy to do.

I do have a clue. I know that some employees refuse to pay their employees what they are really worth.

 

[gallantwarrior]

While the fat pig at the top takes 5,000 times the amount of cash home as the avg worker under him. How is that fair? It isn't fair and either is it good for this country.

If it's a publically traded company, why don't the shareholders: a) vote to decrease management compensation and redistribute it to lower-paid workers, or b) vote to take less in dividends and sacrifice their share increases in order to pay lower-paid workers more?

They put their own greed over the workers.

Sad to see

Simply limit pay to 1,000 percent of the avg worker under them. Make that law in this country that forces them to either expand company or pay workers better.

This is probably the best way to deal with it.

What about the shareholders?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Depends on the job, and not what the person seeking job thinks they are worth.

What the employer thinks the job is worth and what the job is really worth are likely two different things.

No wonder people prefer to stay on welfare - they get more money sitting on their butts than working for a few dollars an hour.

And that is the biggest problem. NOBODY should make more sitting on their asses than working. Maybe the government should get out of the business of subsidizing lazy f**kers.

 

[gallantwarrior]

What the employer thinks the job is worth and what the job is really worth are likely two different things.

No wonder people prefer to stay on welfare - they get more money sitting on their butts than working for a few dollars an hour.

You really have no clue or you have low self worth.

I have employees that are worth their weight and I have a couple I wouldn't mind if they found a new job.

Our company works hard to employee the best we can afford. There is a line where if we pay more, then we need to raise prices. Then we are not competitive. We try to be competitive in wages and prices, not easy to do.

I do have a clue. I know that some employees refuse to pay their employees what they are really worth.

How do you determine what an employee is worth to the employer?

 

[Papageorgio]

What the employer thinks the job is worth and what the job is really worth are likely two different things.

No wonder people prefer to stay on welfare - they get more money sitting on their butts than working for a few dollars an hour.

You really have no clue or you have low self worth.

I have employees that are worth their weight and I have a couple I wouldn't mind if they found a new job.

Our company works hard to employee the best we can afford. There is a line where if we pay more, then we need to raise prices. Then we are not competitive. We try to be competitive in wages and prices, not easy to do.

I do have a clue. I know that some employees refuse to pay their employees what they are really worth.

If you are not getting what you are worth, there are companies that will pay what you are worth. It is a supply and demand market.

 

[Noomi]

Depends on the job, and not what the person seeking job thinks they are worth.

What the employer thinks the job is worth and what the job is really worth are likely two different things.

No wonder people prefer to stay on welfare - they get more money sitting on their butts than working for a few dollars an hour.

And that is the biggest problem. NOBODY should make more sitting on their asses than working. Maybe the government should get out of the business of subsidizing lazy f**kers.

They sit around because the employer doesn't pay them what they are worth - the government pays them because they need to buy food and pay the rent, all the things they can't do if they are working!

 

[Noomi]

You really have no clue or you have low self worth.

I have employees that are worth their weight and I have a couple I wouldn't mind if they found a new job.

Our company works hard to employee the best we can afford. There is a line where if we pay more, then we need to raise prices. Then we are not competitive. We try to be competitive in wages and prices, not easy to do.

I do have a clue. I know that some employees refuse to pay their employees what they are really worth.

How do you determine what an employee is worth to the employer?

That is the 64 thousand dollar question - who does decide?

 

[BlackSand]

You really have no clue or you have low self worth.

I have employees that are worth their weight and I have a couple I wouldn't mind if they found a new job.

Our company works hard to employee the best we can afford. There is a line where if we pay more, then we need to raise prices. Then we are not competitive. We try to be competitive in wages and prices, not easy to do.

You know it is really amazing when you sit down with an employee ... Break it down in financial terms as far as what they provide to the overall process ... And how it correlates with what they are actually worth to the business.
Employees often don't see themselves as the assets that they actually are ... Or understand that they have an assignable value in the equation.

It is even more interesting when you have competitive or scored annual pay raises.

For instance ... You make an average annual increase in total payroll of around 5% ... But instead of giving everyone 5% ... Award the increases according to Performance Appraisal benchmarks and how each employee meets and exceeds goals.
Yeah ... There will be some employees that bitch about the appraisals ... Call them unfair or whatever ... Gripe and complain about how you like one employee better than another ... While never actually asking themselves why that may be.
But as long as you are fair and well documented ... They are a great reminder to the employee that it doesn't matter what they think ... It is your business and if they think they can do it better, the door to the parking lot is open.

There will be circumstances where some employees may get an 8-10% raise ... Other circumstances where the employee may only get a 2% raise ... And it doesn't take long to get rid of crappy employees that way.

.

 

[Papageorgio]

You really have no clue or you have low self worth.

I have employees that are worth their weight and I have a couple I wouldn't mind if they found a new job.

Our company works hard to employee the best we can afford. There is a line where if we pay more, then we need to raise prices. Then we are not competitive. We try to be competitive in wages and prices, not easy to do.

You know it is really amazing when you sit down with an employee ... Break it down in financial terms as far as what they provide to the overall process ... And how it correlates with what they are actually worth to the business.
Employees often don't see themselves as the assets that they actually are ... Or understand that they have an assignable value in the equation.

It is even more interesting when you have competitive or scored annual pay raises.

For instance ... You make an average annual increase in total payroll of around 5% ... But instead of giving everyone 5% ... Award the increases according to Performance Appraisal benchmarks and how each employee meets and exceeds goals.
Yeah ... There will be some employees that bitch about the appraisals ... Call them unfair or whatever ... Gripe and complain about how you like one employee better than another ... While never actually asking themselves why that may be.
But as long as you are fair and well documented ... They are a great reminder to the employee that it doesn't matter what they think ... It is your business and if they think they can do it better, the door to the parking lot is open.

There will be circumstances where some employees may get an 8-10% raise ... Other circumstances where the employee may only get a 2% raise ... And it doesn't take long to get rid of crappy employees that way.

.

I have conversations with employees all the time, it keeps us focused on the tasks at hand. When we buy equipment or equipment breaks down, I'll discuss how much that will cost and what additional revenue will be needed to justify our decisions.

I believe that most employees care about the company they work for, I also realize that outside their jobs, they have little clue as to what goes into running a company.

When I read posts by those on this board, I can tell who has and doesn't have a clue about running a successful business.