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

[gooddecisions]

Aug 9, 2015 4:08:51 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

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

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.

Perhaps legally and morally there is no "must," but in reality there is.  For instance when all the stock clerks who put the goods on the shelves make $70k and the manager who supervises them makes $70k...where's the incentive to be a manager? 

You're taking things to the extreme.  With responsibility comes pay - in theory at least - and that's ok.  Because with responsibility comes extra time and stress.  Expecting the CEO of a company to make the same salary as the lowest rung on the ladder is ludicrous.

I don't know if people are shafted in lots of companies.  Maybe?  If you feel shafted then take your skills to another company who compensates you for the work you do.  Ultimately it's about supply and demand just like sales...the bigger the demand the higher the salary.  There just isn't that much demand for unskilled labor, because everybody can do it.  Would you pay someone who takes out your trash the same amount as someone who welds wrought iron railings together or fixes your air conditioner?

Trash collectors in Seattle make $110K. Times have changed and low skill work is well-compensated. This article is old, but memorable:
globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/04/seattle-trash-collectors-make-average.html

[djAdvocate]

Aug 9, 2015 13:58:41 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Aug 9, 2015 7:18:32 GMT -5 gooddecisions said:

Trash collectors in Seattle make $110K. Times have changed and low skill work is well-compensated. This article is old, but memorable:
globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/04/seattle-trash-collectors-make-average.html

Wow...I never would have guessed that!  I need to re-evaluate professions...

this is actually a very serious issue in anarchism.  the least desirable professions end up being the most highly compensated in those systems, NO MATTER WHAT THE SKILL LEVEL.  therefore, it is possible in an anarchistic society to see a CEO getting paid LESS than a trash collector, and that makes perfect sense (if you are a libertarian socialist).  i think this dilemma is so well studied it even has a name, but i don't know what it is.

[gooddecisions]

Aug 9, 2015 14:35:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 9, 2015 13:58:41 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Wow...I never would have guessed that!  I need to re-evaluate professions...

this is actually a very serious issue in anarchism.  the least desirable professions end up being the most highly compensated in those systems, NO MATTER WHAT THE SKILL LEVEL.  therefore, it is possible in an anarchistic society to see a CEO getting paid LESS than a trash collector, and that makes perfect sense (if you are a libertarian socialist).  i think this dilemma is so well studied it even has a name, but i don't know what it is.

...or they just have very strong unions, like in this case. I remember being a kid and somebody said something about growing up to be a garbage man (in a negative context). My dad was very quick to say that the trash man is actually very well paid. I suspect just about anyone would be happy to collect trash if they were aware that they get paid so much. The only thing that surprises me is that it's not well-known. Similarly, I recall the article about the bus drivers in Chicago making 6-figures. Again, unions.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 9, 2015 14:47:34 GMT -5 gooddecisions said:

Aug 9, 2015 14:35:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is actually a very serious issue in anarchism.  the least desirable professions end up being the most highly compensated in those systems, NO MATTER WHAT THE SKILL LEVEL.  therefore, it is possible in an anarchistic society to see a CEO getting paid LESS than a trash collector, and that makes perfect sense (if you are a libertarian socialist).  i think this dilemma is so well studied it even has a name, but i don't know what it is.

...or they just have very strong unions, like in this case. I remember being a kid and somebody said something about growing up to be a garbage man (in a negative context). My dad was very quick to say that the trash man is actually very well paid. I suspect just about anyone would be happy to collect trash if they were aware that they get paid so much. The only thing that surprises me is that it's not well-known. Similarly, I recall the article about the bus drivers in Chicago making 6-figures. Again, unions.

i think it is fairly well known, but i think it would be well compensated even if there were NO unions- though perhaps not as well. 

[chiver78]

Aug 9, 2015 14:47:34 GMT -5 gooddecisions said:

Aug 9, 2015 14:35:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is actually a very serious issue in anarchism.  the least desirable professions end up being the most highly compensated in those systems, NO MATTER WHAT THE SKILL LEVEL.  therefore, it is possible in an anarchistic society to see a CEO getting paid LESS than a trash collector, and that makes perfect sense (if you are a libertarian socialist).  i think this dilemma is so well studied it even has a name, but i don't know what it is.

...or they just have very strong unions, like in this case. I remember being a kid and somebody said something about growing up to be a garbage man (in a negative context). My dad was very quick to say that the trash man is actually very well paid. I suspect just about anyone would be happy to collect trash if they were aware that they get paid so much. The only thing that surprises me is that it's not well-known. Similarly, I recall the article about the bus drivers in Chicago making 6-figures. Again, unions.

toll collectors, too. here in MA, that's a job you can't get unless you know someone.

[Opti]

Aug 9, 2015 4:08:51 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

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

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.

Perhaps legally and morally there is no "must," but in reality there is.  For instance when all the stock clerks who put the goods on the shelves make $70k and the manager who supervises them makes $70k...where's the incentive to be a manager? 

You're taking things to the extreme.  With responsibility comes pay - in theory at least - and that's ok.  Because with responsibility comes extra time and stress.  Expecting the CEO of a company to make the same salary as the lowest rung on the ladder is ludicrous.

I don't know if people are shafted in lots of companies.  Maybe?  If you feel shafted then take your skills to another company who compensates you for the work you do.  Ultimately it's about supply and demand just like sales...the bigger the demand the higher the salary.  There just isn't that much demand for unskilled labor, because everybody can do it.  Would you pay someone who takes out your trash the same amount as someone who welds wrought iron railings together or fixes your air conditioner?

  That's why you institute a cultural rule against talking about salary. Making it seem rude and gauche just to talk about things.

You've been in the military too long. Corporate America and much of work in other countries is quite different from what you are used to.   And what's the incentive to be manager if you get paid the same?

Better title and the ability to schedule yourself for the good hours - if you need just two potential reasons.

[fishy999]

Talking salary was very frowned upon in my day- but these days with all of the websites it is becoming more transparent and I think that is a good thing.

As far as paying the high wage- so what?  I would rather be the 'stock manager' than the stock worker pay being equal- and this is nothing new- there are countless industries where the staff make more than their bosses- sales comes to mind.  I judge my pay by market value- what other companies are willing to pay for me- not by what the janitor makes.  Even if janitor boss and janitor pays the exact same- there is ample reason to be the boss- it is improving yourself and learning new skills that will probably pay off down the road.

Would anyone in this world rather make french fries than what they do now if McDonalds is offering the same package?

[msventoux]

For those of us who aren't career-driven and get tired of keeping on top of our profession and the stress that having the career entails, we'd most likely jump at the chance to do something more mundane for the same pay. 

If I could be a bookkeeper or payroll clerk and make what I make now I'd be perfectly happy.  I don't find work fulfilling, even when it's interesting and I feel valued by my supervisors, peers, and clients.  I find fulfillment in my personal life.  And if work wasn't so stressful and demanding I'd have more energy and time to devote to my personal life.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I think what Rush was saying is that the silly idea- which didn't work by the way, I mean look at what's happened- the guy is a loser, his company is floundering, his own brother (co-founder) is suing him, and he's talking out of both sides of his mouth- He wasn’t thinking about the current political clamor over low wages or the growing gap between rich and poor, he said, but then saying “Income inequality has been racing in the wrong direction,” he said. “I want to fight for the idea that if someone is intelligent, hard-working and does a good job, then they are entitled to live a middle-class lifestyle.”

Entitled to live a middle class lifestyle? Um, no- you aspire to earn a middle class lifestyle. You are entitled to nothing that comes as a result of the product of another person's labor. You have only a right to the product of your own labor. And if you can find an idiot willing to pay you $70K to walk through the front door as an admin-- hey, more power to you.  But you're not entitled.

Anyway- the guy's a jerk, his company is a mess, he's being sued- nothing to learn here except another idiot idealist who knows more about his product than he does about running a business has made a catastrophically stupid decision.  It seems everyone who experiences sudden success at their first venture learns the hard way that they don't quite have the money they think they do.  His shiny new sports car, yacht, and mansion just came in the form $70K a year for all.  There's literally no difference financially speaking.  Both bleed their businesses dry.

[djAdvocate]

i believe i posted at least two other companies that have higher wages than the OP.  they seem to be doing fine.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 12, 2015 10:22:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i believe i posted at least two other companies that have higher wages than the OP.  they seem to be doing fine.

Which two companies were they again? I'll give you the 10 year prognosis.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 10, 2015 23:33:38 GMT -5 msventoux said:

For those of us who aren't career-driven and get tired of keeping on top of our profession and the stress that having the career entails, we'd most likely jump at the chance to do something more mundane for the same pay. 

If I could be a bookkeeper or payroll clerk and make what I make now I'd be perfectly happy.  I don't find work fulfilling, even when it's interesting and I feel valued by my supervisors, peers, and clients.  I find fulfillment in my personal life.  And if work wasn't so stressful and demanding I'd have more energy and time to devote to my personal life.

Right. This is the problem this move represents.  If you have someone able and willing to work diligently in their chosen profession making $75K or $80K might just as soon do the other lower stress jobs for $70K, and might resent the fact that they worked this hard essentially for nothing because the newest arrival to the mail room is "entitled" to what they struggled for, and now they're busting balls coming in early, staying late while the guy in the mail room is making just a bit less and going home at 5 every day.  You see the problem.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 12, 2015 10:31:44 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 12, 2015 10:22:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i believe i posted at least two other companies that have higher wages than the OP.  they seem to be doing fine.

Which two companies were they again? I'll give you the 10 year prognosis.

not sure.  back on the earlier part of this thread.  i'd go look right now, but i have to leave in a few mins.

edit: here you go:

Barclay's average STARTING SALARY is $78k. they have over 100,000 employes- which is a bit more than 100.
Apogee Medical pays every employee over $100k. but they only have 750 employees. still more than 100.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 12, 2015 10:36:26 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 10, 2015 23:33:38 GMT -5 msventoux said:

For those of us who aren't career-driven and get tired of keeping on top of our profession and the stress that having the career entails, we'd most likely jump at the chance to do something more mundane for the same pay. 

If I could be a bookkeeper or payroll clerk and make what I make now I'd be perfectly happy.  I don't find work fulfilling, even when it's interesting and I feel valued by my supervisors, peers, and clients.  I find fulfillment in my personal life.  And if work wasn't so stressful and demanding I'd have more energy and time to devote to my personal life.

Right. This is the problem this move represents.  If you have someone able and willing to work diligently in their chosen profession making $75K or $80K might just as soon do the other lower stress jobs for $70K, and might resent the fact that they worked this hard essentially for nothing because the newest arrival to the mail room is "entitled" to what they struggled for, and now they're busting balls coming in early, staying late while the guy in the mail room is making just a bit less and going home at 5 every day.  You see the problem.

i don't really understand the mentality of doing a job you don't want to do for less money.  but SO MANY PEOPLE here have made this case that it MUST be a factor.  i just can't relate to it at all.  i have always done what i wanted to do, and ignored the pay.  you can't pay me enough to do work i don't want to do, and i will accept quite little to do what i want.  the pay has always come second for me.

[jkapp]

Aug 12, 2015 11:07:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 12, 2015 10:36:26 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Right. This is the problem this move represents.  If you have someone able and willing to work diligently in their chosen profession making $75K or $80K might just as soon do the other lower stress jobs for $70K, and might resent the fact that they worked this hard essentially for nothing because the newest arrival to the mail room is "entitled" to what they struggled for, and now they're busting balls coming in early, staying late while the guy in the mail room is making just a bit less and going home at 5 every day.  You see the problem.

i don't really understand the mentality of doing a job you don't want to do for less money.  but SO MANY PEOPLE here have made this case that it MUST be a factor.  i just can't relate to it at all.  i have always done what i wanted to do, and ignored the pay.  you can't pay me enough to do work i don't want to do, and i will accept quite little to do what i want.  the pay has always come second for me.

I don't think it's that they don't like the work, its just the higher paying jobs come with more stress, responsibility, etc.  If I could go back to making pizzas for the pay I am getting as an accountant, well shit yeah, I would take to making pizzas.  Its not that I don't like accounting, its just there is more stress, dealing with government entities, dealing with auditors, etc, whereas when I was making pizzas, it was just me, some order tickets, and the pizza fixin's  

[fairlycrazy23]

Aug 12, 2015 11:04:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 12, 2015 10:31:44 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Which two companies were they again? I'll give you the 10 year prognosis.

not sure.  back on the earlier part of this thread.  i'd go look right now, but i have to leave in a few mins.

edit: here you go:

Barclay's average STARTING SALARY is $78k. they have over 100,000 employes- which is a bit more than 100.
Apogee Medical pays every employee over $100k. but they only have 750 employees. still more than 100.

I suspect, but may be wrong, that both of these companies outsource janitorial services. The problem with the OP is not that the salaries are high, but the way they where raised.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 12, 2015 19:25:11 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Aug 12, 2015 11:07:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i don't really understand the mentality of doing a job you don't want to do for less money.  but SO MANY PEOPLE here have made this case that it MUST be a factor.  i just can't relate to it at all.  i have always done what i wanted to do, and ignored the pay.  you can't pay me enough to do work i don't want to do, and i will accept quite little to do what i want.  the pay has always come second for me.

I don't think it's that they don't like the work, its just the higher paying jobs come with more stress, responsibility, etc.  If I could go back to making pizzas for the pay I am getting as an accountant, well shit yeah, I would take to making pizzas.  Its not that I don't like accounting, its just there is more stress, dealing with government entities, dealing with auditors, etc, whereas when I was making pizzas, it was just me, some order tickets, and the pizza fixin's  

i love the stress.  no kidding.  i really do.

[fishy999]

I think some of you are all full of shit- in a nice way.   If you think, for example, that leading a top company requires 400 times the skill of the people that are making the money for you......

Papa John shitheel thought that the increasing the price of a pizza by 25 cents in order to provide healthcare to the people that made him a rich asshole was a dealbreaker.......

Voting for the Donald- it is about time America showed the world what it is all about- A big fat disgusting slag that feels it doesn't have to pay the cover charge

[djAdvocate]

Aug 15, 2015 6:19:18 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

To be honest I think the military got it right on the salary thing - I know you may not be a fan of the military, but it's just an opinion - everybody gets paid this much for this rank.

I hated it. It's most of the reason I separated after one enlistment. The military works like a giant union. For those that don't know, to advance to the next rank you need more points than the cutoff score during the promotion cycle. Only a small percentage of those points are based on your performance reviews. There are lots of points for time in service and time in grade. Some points for your physical score. And some points from a written test. If you've only been in a few years but are really good at your job you get passed over for promotion because Sergeant Slackass who's the same rank as you but has been in twice as long has way more points from time in service and time in grade even though his performance reviews and job performance are mediocre. The first time or two you're "eligible" to advance to a particular rank it can be mathematically impossible to get it because you can only get so many points from your performance reviews and test scores so without enough time in service and rank you can't reach the point cutoff.

You also have the issue of having twenty guys in a unit and being the go to guy for everything, including getting calls at home when you aren't on call because you know the job better, but making the exact same pay as the other 7 guys your rank even if a couple of them are total morons that can barely be trusted with sharp objects.

It's a straight up union, which from my experience is a really good deal for mediocre employees and a really bad one for good employees.

the military is perhaps the most socialist thing about the US. 

[djAdvocate]

still waiting for those 10 year projections, Paul.

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2015 0:26:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

still waiting for those 10 year projections, Paul.

Hold your breath... maybe you'll turn plaid. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2015 18:08:02 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 16, 2015 0:26:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

still waiting for those 10 year projections, Paul.

Hold your breath... maybe you'll turn plaid. 

i just tossed my last two plaid shirts. 

[fishy999]

Aug 15, 2015 1:19:24 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Aug 9, 2015 14:35:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is actually a very serious issue in anarchism.  the least desirable professions end up being the most highly compensated in those systems, NO MATTER WHAT THE SKILL LEVEL.  therefore, it is possible in an anarchistic society to see a CEO getting paid LESS than a trash collector, and that makes perfect sense (if you are a libertarian socialist).  i think this dilemma is so well studied it even has a name, but i don't know what it is.

I don't know what anarchism is, but it doesn't sound like much. I'm sure the libertarian socialist likes it, but in reality the folks who go to medical school make more money because they do operations and stuff and the unskilled jobs make less money because more people can do them...I know this from doing "unskilled labor" for a lot of years man, they give reenlistment bonuses to the trades who are in demand and not to the ones who are not in demand. It doesn't mean anyone is a bad person or anything, it's just about supply and demand...and I don't think the libertarian socialist point of view will ever overcome that.

They make more money because the cost of being a doctor is much higher than a butcher in a grocery store and entry into that profession is protected by the government.

SKILL has jack to do with it- and it is quite anti-free market.

In the true free market I can hang my hat out as a dentist, lawyer, doctor, etc. and I will win or lose based on my performance.

As alluded to- the hardest jobs would pay the best in a true free market- the "CEO" job is just not that hard.

[fairlycrazy23]

Aug 16, 2015 20:28:53 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Aug 15, 2015 1:19:24 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

I don't know what anarchism is, but it doesn't sound like much. I'm sure the libertarian socialist likes it, but in reality the folks who go to medical school make more money because they do operations and stuff and the unskilled jobs make less money because more people can do them...I know this from doing "unskilled labor" for a lot of years man, they give reenlistment bonuses to the trades who are in demand and not to the ones who are not in demand. It doesn't mean anyone is a bad person or anything, it's just about supply and demand...and I don't think the libertarian socialist point of view will ever overcome that.

They make more money because the cost of being a doctor is much higher than a butcher in a grocery store and entry into that profession is protected by the government.

SKILL has jack to do with it- and it is quite anti-free market.

In the true free market I can hang my hat out as a dentist, lawyer, doctor, etc. and I will win or lose based on my performance.

As alluded to- the hardest jobs would pay the best in a true free market- the "CEO" job is just not that hard.

The cost of entry does enter into it, but in general it is based on the number of people who can perform the job and want to do the job. So low skilled undesirable jobs will pay more than low skilled more desirable jobs, but there is going to be some balance, it is unlikely a garbage collector will ever pay more than a doctor. 
And I agree in a true free market insurance companies, companies like UL and services like Yelp would enable consumers to be well protected.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 17, 2015 7:41:58 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Aug 16, 2015 20:28:53 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

They make more money because the cost of being a doctor is much higher than a butcher in a grocery store and entry into that profession is protected by the government.

SKILL has jack to do with it- and it is quite anti-free market.

In the true free market I can hang my hat out as a dentist, lawyer, doctor, etc. and I will win or lose based on my performance.

As alluded to- the hardest jobs would pay the best in a true free market- the "CEO" job is just not that hard.

The cost of entry does enter into it, but in general it is based on the number of people who can perform the job and want to do the job. So low skilled undesirable jobs will pay more than low skilled more desirable jobs, but there is going to be some balance, it is unlikely a garbage collector will ever pay more than a doctor. 
And I agree in a true free market insurance companies, companies like UL and services like Yelp would enable consumers to be well protected.

there are over 1M CEO's in the US.  most of them could do the job as well, or better, than say- Carly Fiorina.  it would be a good exercise for you to think about why they will never get the chance- but don't think for a second it has anything to do with ABILITY.

[fishy999]

Exactly true- in many cases some random student with a mere BS in business could step into the shoes of a CEO and make the proper decisions- the only thing they do not have is the connections- they are not a member of the club.