$70,000 minimum wage- says a lot about people

[djAdvocate]

Apr 21, 2015 10:45:03 GMT -5 justme said:

Apr 21, 2015 10:33:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there is an actual working definition of living wage, but it is a relatively new term:

A living wage is defined as the wage that can meet the basic needs to maintain a safe, decent standard of living within the community.[2] The particular amount that must be earned per hour to meet these needs varies depending on location. In the 1990s the first living wage campaigns were launched by community initiatives in the US addressing increasing poverty faced by workers and their families. They argued that employee, employer, and the community win with a living wage. Employees would be more willing to work, helping the employer reduce worker turnover, and it would help the community when the citizens have enough to have a decent life.[3]

you can follow the footnotes in Wikipedia.

my reading of Living Wage is that it is what Minimum Wage SHOULD be- if it actually did what it was designed to do.

The main thing I've never seen clarified is whether the living wage should support one person or four. Well I suppose I have to some extent, often hearing someone can support a family of four on minimum wage so they need a living wage.

i don't see why it could not have similar standards to the MW.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 21, 2015 10:55:44 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Apr 17, 2015 18:43:51 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I would think a formula could be devised- it isn't like paying more for HCOL areas is anything new.

But I agree it would be a no frills basic needs level- and high enough to avoid welfare for a single person.

If we decide that it is the best interest of society to help out with the children- single moms and dads- then that is a different.  That is a choice on where to spend our tax dollars- just like the mortgage interest deduction is- especially for second homes.  Never seem to hear any complaints about that one  from the people that constantly berate the poor for their special tax treatment

You have to admit though, when the largest employer in the country creates pamphlets on how to sign up for government benefits it is hard to not view them as a pay subsidy.

Just so I'm clear - are you proposing a formula to determine the minimum wage an employer can pay based on an individuals personal situation as opposed to their skill set?

So you hire two cashiers - one is a single male with no dependents.  The other is a single mom with three kids, one of whom is special needs.

What exactly do you think is going to happen in this situation?  Yep - the single mom won't be hired or won't last long.  Just being honest here.

Finally - I've said several times I'm more than willing to give up my mortgage interest deduction (I'm pretty close to the standard deduction anyway) if we have true income tax reform so yea - there are those that comment on that.

I'm much more in favor of a limited timeline for social benefits which include a training program.  I'd love to know how Germany manages things (and I don't - but they have low unemployment and their fiscal situation is better than ours). I also believe the government should be the employer of last resort - hell we have enough social and infrastructure work that needs help.

We do a very poor job in the country of matching resources with needs.

i would be in favor of eliminating the deduction for those that make over "X".  but i think it helps get middle class families into houses, and i would like to preserve that.

[justme]

Apr 21, 2015 11:09:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 21, 2015 10:45:03 GMT -5 justme said:

The main thing I've never seen clarified is whether the living wage should support one person or four. Well I suppose I have to some extent, often hearing someone can support a family of four on minimum wage so they need a living wage.

i don't see why it could not have similar standards to the MW.

If you want it to have similar standards to MW, then why do you want to raise MW if the current standards are good enough? I mean isn't the only standard for MW is it's x dollars?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 21, 2015 11:58:28 GMT -5 justme said:

Apr 21, 2015 11:09:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i don't see why it could not have similar standards to the MW.

If you want it to have similar standards to MW, then why do you want to raise MW if the current standards are good enough? I mean isn't the only standard for MW is it's x dollars?

i think that is precisely what should be done. 

are you aware that FDR intended the FMW to BE a "Living Wage"?  i wasn't, until recently:

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

“By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

edit: it is strange, and i think telling, that the party of FDR doesn't use rhetoric like this any more.  they, too, are now the party of the rich.

[justme]

Apr 21, 2015 12:02:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 21, 2015 11:58:28 GMT -5 justme said:

If you want it to have similar standards to MW, then why do you want to raise MW if the current standards are good enough? I mean isn't the only standard for MW is it's x dollars?

i think that is precisely what should be done. 

are you aware that FDR intended the FMW to BE a "Living Wage"?  i wasn't, until recently:

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

“By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

edit: it is strange, and i think telling, that the party of FDR doesn't use rhetoric like this any more.  they, too, are now the party of the rich.

None of that sets a standard on what quantitatively qualifies as a living wage. I think a decent existence includes three weeks of four star international travel, so I guess that counts as a need in living wage.

And that's sidestepping the whole issue that statements of what a law is or should do rarely line up with what the law actually does.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 21, 2015 12:09:50 GMT -5 justme said:

Apr 21, 2015 12:02:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think that is precisely what should be done. 

are you aware that FDR intended the FMW to BE a "Living Wage"?  i wasn't, until recently:

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

“By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

edit: it is strange, and i think telling, that the party of FDR doesn't use rhetoric like this any more.  they, too, are now the party of the rich.

None of that sets a standard on what quantitatively qualifies as a living wage. I think a decent existence includes three weeks of four star international travel, so I guess that counts as a need in living wage.

i don't think that most people would agree with you, including FDR.  but i always appreciate a good reducio ad absurdum argument. 

And that's sidestepping the whole issue that statements of what a law is or should do rarely line up with what the law actually does.

i understand that.  but i don't think it is that hard to do.

when i was considering moving my business out of state, we looked at the COLI for every location (cost of living index).  that is a number that is out there, in the public domain, and it has a nice hard edge to it.  all you have to do is either meet that or exceed it by some certain agreed upon percent, and you have your number.

[justme]

Apr 21, 2015 12:15:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 21, 2015 12:09:50 GMT -5 justme said:

None of that sets a standard on what quantitatively qualifies as a living wage. I think a decent existence includes three weeks of four star international travel, so I guess that counts as a need in living wage.

i don't think that most people would agree with you, including FDR.  but i always appreciate a good reducio ad absurdum argument. 

And that's sidestepping the whole issue that statements of what a law is or should do rarely line up with what the law actually does.

i understand that.  but i don't think it is that hard to do.

when i was considering moving my business out of state, we looked at the COLI for every location (cost of living index).  that is a number that is out there, in the public domain, and it has a nice hard edge to it.  all you have to do is either meet that or exceed it by some certain agreed upon percent, and you have your number.

There several problems with that. First the index is essentially a percent, it tells you how much more or less a city costs using 100 as the average/base. It doesn't not give you a specific dollar amount. It can also mask certain things being largely different since it looks at the total cost (for instance housing cost doubling but overall cola of only 25 percent more, which has a greater effect on the poor as housing is a larger percent of their earnings). Second of all it's based on the average cost for all in that category not the basic cost. Bringing everyone up to at least the average makes that number no longer the average. (If the lower income workers now have 1400 to spend on housing the demand for 1400 housing would increase which would cause the price to rise). Thirdly, the coli are only for larger cities and don't accurately cover smaller towns and cities. I know because my old work wanted to transfer me but since the city was 10k people it was practically impossible to find the cola for the place. Which was surprisingly high considering it's low population, which I only realized after traveling there.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 21, 2015 12:32:41 GMT -5 justme said:

Apr 21, 2015 12:15:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i understand that.  but i don't think it is that hard to do.

when i was considering moving my business out of state, we looked at the COLI for every location (cost of living index).  that is a number that is out there, in the public domain, and it has a nice hard edge to it.  all you have to do is either meet that or exceed it by some certain agreed upon percent, and you have your number.

There several problems with that. First the index is essentially a percent, it tells you how much more or less a city costs using 100 as the average/base. It doesn't not give you a specific dollar amount. It can also mask certain things being largely different since it looks at the total cost (for instance housing cost doubling but overall cola of only 25 percent more, which has a greater effect on the poor as housing is a larger percent of their earnings). Second of all it's based on the average cost for all in that category not the basic cost. Bringing everyone up to at least the average makes that number no longer the average. (If the lower income workers now have 1400 to spend on housing the demand for 1400 housing would increase which would cause the price to rise). Thirdly, the coli are only for larger cities and don't accurately cover smaller towns and cities. I know because my old work wanted to transfer me but since the city was 10k people it was practically impossible to find the cola for the place. Which was surprisingly high considering it's low population, which I only realized after traveling there.

huh.  you must be looking at different data than me.  the data i saw was most definitely in $, not in %.

[justme]

Apr 21, 2015 14:35:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 21, 2015 12:32:41 GMT -5 justme said:

There several problems with that. First the index is essentially a percent, it tells you how much more or less a city costs using 100 as the average/base. It doesn't not give you a specific dollar amount. It can also mask certain things being largely different since it looks at the total cost (for instance housing cost doubling but overall cola of only 25 percent more, which has a greater effect on the poor as housing is a larger percent of their earnings). Second of all it's based on the average cost for all in that category not the basic cost. Bringing everyone up to at least the average makes that number no longer the average. (If the lower income workers now have 1400 to spend on housing the demand for 1400 housing would increase which would cause the price to rise). Thirdly, the coli are only for larger cities and don't accurately cover smaller towns and cities. I know because my old work wanted to transfer me but since the city was 10k people it was practically impossible to find the cola for the place. Which was surprisingly high considering it's low population, which I only realized after traveling there.

huh.  you must be looking at different data than me.  the data i saw was most definitely in $, not in %.

Indexes are by nature not a dollar amount. They're normalized with the average cost/whatever equaling 100. If the index for city a is 125 that means it's 25 percent higher than the average city. I've never seen an index that's not normalized.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 21, 2015 14:41:15 GMT -5 justme said:

Apr 21, 2015 14:35:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

huh.  you must be looking at different data than me.  the data i saw was most definitely in $, not in %.

Indexes are by nature not a dollar amount. They're normalized with the average cost/whatever equaling 100. If the index for city a is 125 that means it's 25 percent higher than the average city. I've never seen an index that's not normalized.

fine, then i guess i am using the wrong terminology.  let's leave the "I" off.  the COL data i saw was all in dollars.

better?

[justme]

I suppose? I haven't seen any that's based on dollars though. They use the indexes to adjust your current living from one place to the next. Still has all the problems I listed above unless someone went to each city to find the cost of basic living in the city.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 21, 2015 15:39:51 GMT -5 justme said:

I suppose? I haven't seen any that's based on dollars though. They use the indexes to adjust your current living from one place to the next. Still has all the problems I listed above unless someone went to each city to find the cost of basic living in the city.

if so, i am sure that the baseline (100) is based on something calculable.  it is not just an imaginary number, right?

[justme]

Apr 21, 2015 15:42:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 21, 2015 15:39:51 GMT -5 justme said:

I suppose? I haven't seen any that's based on dollars though. They use the indexes to adjust your current living from one place to the next. Still has all the problems I listed above unless someone went to each city to find the cost of basic living in the city.

if so, i am sure that the baseline (100) is based on something calculable.  it is not just an imaginary number, right?

Yes. For col it would be the average of all the cities, at least the ones I've seen. So it's not an actual city but there are ones that practically are compared to the average number.

In contrast there's also indexes that are comparing over time where the base year is zero. The example being the CPI. Because it's looking at one thing over time the 100 equals an actual amount vs an average like above.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 21, 2015 15:51:25 GMT -5 justme said:

Apr 21, 2015 15:42:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if so, i am sure that the baseline (100) is based on something calculable.  it is not just an imaginary number, right?

Yes. For col it would be the average of all the cities, at least the ones I've seen. So it's not an actual city but there are ones that practically are compared to the average number.

In contrast there's also indexes that are comparing over time where the base year is zero. The example being the CPI. Because it's looking at one thing over time the 100 equals an actual amount vs an average like above.

so, if you live in a city with a COLI of 125, and the baseline of 100 = $42,000, can't you simply DERIVE the number by multiplying 1.25 and $42,000?

[justme]

Apr 21, 2015 15:57:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 21, 2015 15:51:25 GMT -5 justme said:

Yes. For col it would be the average of all the cities, at least the ones I've seen. So it's not an actual city but there are ones that practically are compared to the average number.

In contrast there's also indexes that are comparing over time where the base year is zero. The example being the CPI. Because it's looking at one thing over time the 100 equals an actual amount vs an average like above.

so, if you live in a city with a COLI of 125, and the baseline of 100 = $42,000, can't you simply DERIVE the number by multiplying 1.25 and $42,000?

But where did the baseline come from? How did you get 42000? Cost of living is a bunch of averages. The average cost of specific items compared to the averages of all the averages.

Cost of living is not a number that says this is the minimum needed for basic necessities. It says this is what the average spent in these categories are. It allows government to scale benefits if they wish to account for higher costs. It gives employers and employees a way to figure out what they would have to make in another city to be on the same level.

To use it to figure out the basic living wage needed one would still need to figure out the min needed in the 100 city and derive it from there. Though even that way has some pitfalls due to averages.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 21, 2015 16:12:40 GMT -5 justme said:

Apr 21, 2015 15:57:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so, if you live in a city with a COLI of 125, and the baseline of 100 = $42,000, can't you simply DERIVE the number by multiplying 1.25 and $42,000?

But where did the baseline come from? How did you get 42000? Cost of living is a bunch of averages. The average cost of specific items compared to the averages of all the averages.

Cost of living is not a number that says this is the minimum needed for basic necessities. It says this is what the average spent in these categories are. It allows government to scale benefits if they wish to account for higher costs. It gives employers and employees a way to figure out what they would have to make in another city to be on the same level.

To use it to figure out the basic living wage needed one would still need to figure out the min needed in the 100 city and derive it from there. Though even that way has some pitfalls due to averages.

we already established where it came from.  it is based on an average.

did you mean "how were the data points selected"?  i have no idea.  but i would assume that economists study these things and determine the factors that contribute to FDR's standard of "minimal comfort". 

the baseline should be relatively immaterial if the scaling is accurate.  i am sure you will ask me to explain this last remark, but i have run out of time, so i will get to it later if you do.

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2015 10:35:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 20, 2015 22:48:15 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Well Rush the genius chimed in on it- apparently a private company in a free market that sets their own wage structure in a way he disagrees with is Socialism   With a Solyndra reference to boot.

www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/04/15/ceo_buys_short_term_love

     This is pure, unadulterated socialism, which has never worked. That's why I hope this company is a case study in MBA programs on how socialism does not work, because it's gonna fail. My guess is that just like when Solyndra went south, there will not be a story on Gravity Payments succumbing to gravity and going under.

That's right folks- a private owner with a private company is guilty of pure unadulterated Socialism

And he hopes it fails- that sounds familiar. 

he's utterly wrong on the facts, to boot.  Barclays has a better pay structure than this company.

Rush is wrong on something? What're the odds?

[EVT1]

Apr 21, 2015 16:18:48 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Apr 21, 2015 10:35:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

he's utterly wrong on the facts, to boot.  Barclays has a better pay structure than this company.

Rush is wrong on something? What're the odds?

100-1 he is full of shit on any given day.  And that's generous- more like 1000-1 but he knows how to massage the information. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I am in full support of the owner of a private business paying whatever wage they wish to pay for whatever reason they wish to pay it.

[EVT1]

May 6, 2015 17:58:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I am in full support of the owner of a private business paying whatever wage they wish to pay for whatever reason they wish to pay it.

So does that mean you disagree with master Rush, and that said private company is in fact not an example of pure unadulterated socialism?  And that it is actually a participant in the free market?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 6, 2015 19:29:04 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 6, 2015 17:58:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I am in full support of the owner of a private business paying whatever wage they wish to pay for whatever reason they wish to pay it.

So does that mean you disagree with master Rush, and that said private company is in fact not an example of pure unadulterated socialism?  And that it is actually a participant in the free market?

I'm not sure if Rush said that, and if he did, in what context.  My honest answer is: I don't know.

[EVT1]

See post #46 for the quote from his website.

[jkapp]

www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/a-ceo-raised-his-companys-minimum-wage-to-dollar70000-a-year-and-some-employees-quit-because-of-it/ar-BBlhrAI?ocid=iehp

A CEO raised his company's minimum wage to $70,000 a year, and some employees quit because of it

You mean someone who busted their butt working 50-60 hours a week to help make the business a success is not happy that people who worked their 8 and got the hell out every day are getting larger raises?  The hell you say! 

[jkapp]

Apr 15, 2015 10:21:35 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Apr 15, 2015 3:41:32 GMT -5 haapai said:

I cannot get myself to click on that link.  I've read the story elsewhere and I won't be able to keep myself from reading the comments. 

But it does set up an interesting spin-off.  How would you handle the news that over the next three years, your salary would double?  Only about a quarter of the employees were facing that scenario, but it's still mind-boggling. 

So my question is.....what about the guy who is making $70K and is doing a job that requires a larger skill set and education?  He is now on par with the receptionist.  I'm not sure I'd be happy about that, knowing that I have $50K in student loans that I need to pay in order to get a job that pays on the magnitude of $70K.

My best guess is that he is going to lose his more skilled workers, at the expense of the less skilled.  The company needs both, and this could really put a crimp on the success of this move.

That being said, for the years leading up to this announcement, the CEO was making $1 million+/year.  Taking a pay cut is hardly going to have an impact on his lifestyle.

Ding-ding-ding!!  And that's seems to be what's starting to happen!  You win a cigar, or a beer, or whatever 

[Deleted]

The problem is... if you want to raise the base pay to $70,000... that's fine... but you must ALSO raise all other wages accordingly.

Say base pay was 20,000... and it goes up to 70,000... that's an increase of 250%. ALL wages would need to go up by a corresponding percentage or the higher ups that didn't get raises (or didn't get them as much as they think they should have) will feel that they have been "shafted... and leave.

[Opti]

Aug 1, 2015 22:08:05 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The problem is... if you want to raise the base pay to $70,000... that's fine... but you must ALSO raise all other wages accordingly.

Say base pay was 20,000... and it goes up to 70,000... that's an increase of 250%. ALL wages would need to go up by a corresponding percentage or the higher ups that didn't get raises (or didn't get them as much as they think they should have) will feel that they have been "shafted... and leave.

You must, or you and many people think you should?

Legally, there is no must. Morally there is not even a must. Interestingly when CEO pay reached outrageous amounts very few people were saying you must or even should raise other employee wages because they deserve it too.

All this crap is purely hypothetical to incorrect. The lowest pay was higher than $20K a year. People are shafted in lots of companies. The economy is not so sterling that all of us can bound over to a new improved job just because we feel like it. And even if you feel screwed that the people who used to be paid less than you get paid the same, in that company, how does that automatically mean you are worth more in the market place in general?

Again, one company changed its pay structure. One. How does that really change your market value if you were already making over $70k.yr. ? Please explain, because if it is not a large company, I'm not seeing how it can make that big a difference to overall marketability of any of its employees.

[Opti]

OT, I am currently watching the movie Arbitrage. Damn, what a study on how a very rich person might think, do, act when it all goes wheels up. Personally so many lines to love, but 'Everyone works for me. You are not my partner' to the daughter CIO. Well, priceless/amazing - since it is a film. Thank the deity of your choice.

(Richard Gere plays the 60 year old mogul.)

[Deleted]

Aug 1, 2015 22:16:39 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 1, 2015 22:08:05 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The problem is... if you want to raise the base pay to $70,000... that's fine... but you must ALSO raise all other wages accordingly.

Say base pay was 20,000... and it goes up to 70,000... that's an increase of 250%. ALL wages would need to go up by a corresponding percentage or the higher ups that didn't get raises (or didn't get them as much as they think they should have) will feel that they have been "shafted... and leave.

You must, or you and many people think you should?

Legally, there is no must. Morally there is not even a must. Interestingly when CEO pay reached outrageous amounts very few people were saying you must or even should raise other employee wages because they deserve it too.

All this crap is purely hypothetical to incorrect. The lowest pay was higher than $20K a year. People are shafted in lots of companies. The economy is not so sterling that all of us can bound over to a new improved job just because we feel like it. And even if you feel screwed that the people who used to be paid less than you get paid the same, in that company, how does that automatically mean you are worth more in the market place in general?

Again, one company changed its pay structure. One. How does that really change your market value if you were already making over $70k.yr. ? Please explain, because if it is not a large company, I'm not seeing how it can make that big a difference to overall marketability of any of its employees.

Not "must" as in "there will be legal consequences if you don't"... but "must" as in "the employees above the ones that just got raises will be pissed... and will likely show their displeasure by quitting" (as happened with this company).

It may not change the "market value" of the person that was earning 70K BEFORE the lowly workers were raised to his/her salary level... but he/she will go somewhere else and make that 70K... with underlings making far less than he/she again.

[sesfw]

but he/she will go somewhere else and make that 70K..

I'm curious as to where they will go to get the $70K starting wage.  I'm also wondering about the background story that isn't being told.

[Deleted]

Aug 2, 2015 15:34:43 GMT -5 sesfw said:

but he/she will go somewhere else and make that 70K..

I'm curious as to where they will go to get the $70K starting wage.  I'm also wondering about the background story that isn't being told.

Well... if they are truly WORTH the salary they are getting they'll wait to quit until they have secured other employment... and they will use "I'm making $X, where I am now... are you willing to match/beat it?" in their negotiations.