Employers deprive workers of a life

[cynic]

Beginning the third paragraph it should read “What kind…”

 

[BamaRider]

Right, I’m powerless because my boss doesn’t have the right to pay me less than I can live on.

Well heck lets raise the MW to 15 an hour? Well if that is good lets meake it 20 and EVERYBODY can be happy, from the guy flipping burgers to the guys at the car wash.

Cynic- do youi feel like people should be ENTITLED to be paid a livable wage? How are we gonna determine “livable?” Mine would be big screen tv, equipped with 200 channels of digital cable, my motorcycles, eatin out 2-3 nights a week, broadband internet, 2 pretty good cars, and taking road trips. If I can’t do any 2 of those things I’m gonna storm my employers office and demand more money, because I ain’t making it.

I am NOT disconnecting my internet, they should pay ME enough to take care of that, and they don’t, gonna push for law.

I don’t know much, but nobody EVER got rich in a union. They serve their purpose I guess, but I was never one to tie my destiny to the collective. In a union I’ll have job security and a decent wage, but I can’t do any better for myself then what the contract says my job is worth, no matter how hard I work. I can be at work everyday, and meet my quota of widgets, not gonna matter if I made 20 more the ole Fred, we’re both gonna be paid the same wage, or whatever is in the contract allows.

It is not a bad system for some, but for those ambitious to go to the next level, first things he’s gotta do is get out of the union, and find someplace that *will *let him dominate.

 

[cynic]

Well heck lets raise the MW to 15 an hour? Well if that is good lets meake it 20 and EVERYBODY can be happy, from the guy flipping burgers to the guys at the car wash.

Cynic- do youi feel like people should be ENTITLED to be paid a livable wage? How are we gonna determine “livable?” Mine would be big screen tv, equipped with 200 channels of digital cable, my motorcycles, eatin out 2-3 nights a week, broadband internet, 2 pretty good cars, and taking road trips. If I can’t do any 2 of those things I’m gonna storm my employers office and demand more money, because I ain’t making it.

I am NOT disconnecting my internet, they should pay ME enough to take care of that, and they don’t, gonna push for law.

I don’t know much, but nobody EVER got rich in a union. They serve their purpose I guess, but I was never one to tie my destiny to the collective. In a union I’ll have job security and a decent wage, but I can’t do any better for myself then what the contract says my job is worth, no matter how hard I work. I can be at work everyday, and meet my quota of widgets, not gonna matter if I made 20 more the ole Fred, we’re both gonna be paid the same wage, or whatever is in the contract allows.

It is not a bad system for some, but for those ambitious to go to the next level, first things he’s gotta do is get out of the union, and find someplace that *will *let him dominate.

Yes I do think people are entitle to be paid a livable wage - livable meaning enough to pay rent on modest accomodation and a grocery bill, but I didn’t I just say that?

Beyond that pay should be based on responsibility and performance.

To me, unions are there mainly to protect the lowest paid first and foremost, not to negotiate across the board pay rises for everyone.

I don’t mean to be offensive, but these statements are unbelievable considering you worked as a civil servant, probably with the same set hours and salary as the next guy, and probably with pay rises according to time in service.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Yes I do think people are entitle to be paid a livable wage - livable meaning enough to pay rent on modest accomodation and a grocery bill, but I didn’t I just say that?

Beyond that pay should be based on responsibility and performance.

Wow- I could see myself writing something close to what you just said…

This makes me laugh because when I have made very similar comments in the past, I am attacked pretty quickly with the following comments from people who share many of your positions on these kinds of topics…

…so as far as you’re concerned, if a person lives in a meager hut, and has enough beans and rice to keep from starving, then their employer can do with them as they see fit?
…so a living wage is enough to survive, but don’t all people have a right to enjoy their lives and thrive? how is that any kind of life?
…so a living wage shouldn’t include transportation costs?
…what about healthcare?
…don’t people need to be able afford a variety of leisure activies? (I think that’s somewhat related to how this thread started…)
…it is unfair to base a person’s wage on responsibility and performance because it punishes those workers who, though no fault of their own, can’t improve their level of responsibility or performance
…it is also unfair to base a person’s wage on responsiblity and performance because it just gives the employer an opportunity to set arbitrary standards for those measures, like working excessive hours or doing unscrupulous things.

I think that you actually responded to me with something similar to that last comment in this very thread…

I said: “Is it fair for an employer to reward workers for being more productive?”

You responded: “Usually, yes. But, this is very easily subject to abuse - as in subjectively defining productive and stripping others of pay and benefits.”

And here’s a question I’d like to ask that I actually agree with…

I think that we would both agree that, all other things being equal, the living wage required to provide adequate food and shelter for a single mother with three children would be higher than the living wage for a single person with no dependents.

So, in your opinion, what is the best way for the government to assure that every worker earns a living wage?

You might want to consider the following…

If you scale the living wage to adjust for the number of dependents supported by the worker, you (A) encourage employers to hire workers who have no children, because these workers require a lower living wage, which means that people with dependents will have a much harder time finding a job. (B) Once they do get a job, scaled wage laws risk giving workers an incentive to have children in order to earn more money, as is common in our welfare system.

On the other hand, no matter where you set a standardized living wage, there will always be people who genuinely require more than that standard to achieve the same quality of life.]
For example, if you set the wage to accommodate a single mother of 4, then single mothers with 5 or more children are at a disadvantage, and people with fewer than 4 children are getting more than the government says they “need.”

Good luck with this…

 

[cynic]

Wow- I could see myself writing something close to what you just said…

This makes me laugh because when I have made very similar comments in the past, I am attacked pretty quickly with the following comments from people who share many of your positions on these kinds of topics…

…so as far as you’re concerned, if a person lives in a meager hut, and has enough beans and rice to keep from starving, then their employer can do with them as they see fit?
…so a living wage is enough to survive, but don’t all people have a right to enjoy their lives and thrive? how is that any kind of life?
…so a living wage shouldn’t include transportation costs?
…what about healthcare?
…don’t people need to be able afford a variety of leisure activies? (I think that’s somewhat related to how this thread started…)
…it is unfair to base a person’s wage on responsibility and performance because it punishes those workers who, though no fault of their own, can’t improve their level of responsibility or performance
…it is also unfair to base a person’s wage on responsiblity and performance because it just gives the employer an opportunity to set arbitrary standards for those measures, like working excessive hours or doing unscrupulous things.
…

A livable wage would obviously have to be enough to cover bus tickets, and hopefully basic health insurance for one person (what is it “disaster health insurance”? I’m not American).

It would be stupid to say people are owed a comfortable existence with disposable income for unskilled work (if that were even possible) There’d be too few people willing to do the tougher jobs.

I think that you actually responded to me with something similar to that last comment in this very thread…

that was different poster

So, in your opinion, what is the best way for the government to assure that every worker earns a living wage?

You might want to consider the following…

If you scale the living wage to adjust for the number of dependents supported by the worker, you (A) encourage employers to hire workers who have no children, because these workers require a lower living wage, which means that people with dependents will have a much harder time finding a job. (B) Once they do get a job, scaled wage laws risk giving workers an incentive to have children in order to earn more money, as is common in our welfare system.
…

Regarding that example, IMP she should not get paid any more for doing to same work as the next person. Instead, if the father has abandoned them, that’s a genuine case, and she should receive welfare payments to cover the cost of supporting her children, on condition that she continues to work (doing that provides a good example for them) and doesn’t have any more.

On the other hand, no matter where you set a standardized living wage, there will always be people who genuinely require more than that standard to achieve the same quality of life…

So the government should instead top up the earnings of those people, and not try and force employers to pay individuals differently for the same thing, which stops them finding jobs.

 

[BamaRider]

don’t mean to be offensive, but these statements are unbelievable considering you worked as a civil servant, probably with the same set hours and salary as the next guy, and probably with pay rises according to time in service.

The fire dept is NOT making widgets It is a service. Some fire depts are unionized, some not. I don’t wanna be offensive, but you do see the difference in making widgets, and service oriented jobs?

Union contracts are what they are, the job description pay is this and anyone in that job will get it. Doesn’t really matter what kind of employee he is.

What is unbelivable about not wanting to be in the collective? If I’m making widgets I wanna be the best doggone widget maker I can be, and because I’m the best, I’ll be paid accordingly not what the contract says I’m worth. Like I said it is not a bad system, just like being a civil servant. I was never going to make 200k a year, but I was gonna have excellent benefits, job security, and self satisfaction.

Now contrast that with the guy working at the local paper mill in a union job. He’ll have most of those things, but its not gonna matter how good a employee he is, or how much paper he makes. He can bust his chops all day every day, and he’s gonna make the same as the slacker, becuase the union is NOT gonna allow the company to single out and reward the single employee.

I don’t want much part of that system, and the UAW is the reason why Detroit collapased, as unions bargained for and got more and more pay for less work. I think unions served their puropse way back when, but now they cost more jobs, then the protect. But if you’re one of the lucky ones that still has a job at Ford, I guess you look past that.

The bottom line is you give up a shot at the bigtime to join the collective for sercurity, and probably a good wage, but you’re never gonna get into the corner office, and thats a fact.

In a non union company top notch employess can be plucked outta the collective and rewarded for good work by the boss given a tie and put in the office with a big raise. That is NEVER gonna happen in union shop. The union reps would be ALL over that, with the cry of seniority heard loud and far.

When a guy interviews for a job in Cynics’ company bring the following paperwork-

How much you will spend on bus fare to and from work.

-ave of the last 3 months grocery bill

-amount of your mortgage payment

• how much you plan to spend on lunch each day

So the government should instead top up the earnings of those people, and not try and force employers to pay individuals differently for the same thing, which stops them finding jobs.

Sheesh you want the govt meddling in wages to this extent?

This line of thinking is precisely what is wrong in some parts of this country. It does NOT inspire people to go out and excel. I’ve never met ANYONE on govt dole that felt good about themselves or were optimistic, and full of life. Instead they call to the govt to give them those things, and are always dissappointed because the govt can’t.

But you’re a guy that believes you are entitled to a livable wage, as you define it, but dismiss what my idea of livable wage is.

The thing is-no caste system in this country. You can be whatever you wanna be, job not pay enough? Go elsewhere. Wanna change careers, no one to stop you. Go to school, get training many things you can do to better youself, instead of calling for some kind of law. But that’s just me.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

Ya know, everytime I see the title of this thread, it occurs to me that we could say the opposite:
“Employers provide workers with a life”, or more accurately the means to sustain life.

The social contract between labor and management has evolved. I don’t think the demonizing of one side or the other, or this kind of blanket generalization is really fair, accurate, or productive in first world countries.

 

[Julianna]

The fire dept is NOT making widgets It is a service. Some fire depts are unionized, some not. I don’t wanna be offensive, but you do see the difference in making widgets, and service oriented jobs?

Union contracts are what they are, the job description pay is this and anyone in that job will get it. Doesn’t really matter what kind of employee he is.

What is unbelivable about not wanting to be in the collective? If I’m making widgets I wanna be the best doggone widget maker I can be, and because I’m the best, I’ll be paid accordingly not what the contract says I’m worth. Like I said it is not a bad system, just like being a civil servant. I was never going to make 200k a year, but I was gonna have excellent benefits, job security, and self satisfaction.

Now contrast that with the guy working at the local paper mill in a union job. He’ll have most of those things, but its not gonna matter how good a employee he is, or how much paper he makes. He can bust his chops all day every day, and he’s gonna make the same as the slacker, becuase the union is NOT gonna allow the company to single out and reward the single employee.

I don’t want much part of that system, and the UAW is the reason why Detroit collapased, as unions bargained for and got more and more pay for less work. I think unions served their puropse way back when, but now they cost more jobs, then the protect. But if you’re one of the lucky ones that still has a job at Ford, I guess you look past that.

The bottom line is you give up a shot at the bigtime to join the collective for sercurity, and probably a good wage, but you’re never gonna get into the corner office, and thats a fact.Why would a skilled laborer want a corner office…unless she/he spent nights and weekends working on a degree? Unions are mostly for skilled labor…not white collar. Yes there is the teachers union…but not even close to the membership of the skilled labor force.

In a non union company top notch employess can be plucked outta the collective and rewarded for good work by the boss given a tie and put in the office with a big raise. **Most skilled laborers I know would never even think of getting nor wanting a corner office and trading their blue coveralls for a suit and tie. My DH has 1 suit, for weddings, funerals and other special occasions. that’s it.**That is NEVER gonna happen in union shop. The union reps would be ALL over that, with the cry of seniority heard loud and far.It’s not the union…it is what “management” agreed upon as far as the terms of work.

When a guy interviews for a job in Cynics’ company bring the following paperwork-

How much you will spend on bus fare to and from work.

-ave of the last 3 months grocery bill

-amount of your mortgage payment

• how much you plan to spend on lunch each day

Sheesh you want the govt meddling in wages to this extent?

This line of thinking is precisely what is wrong in some parts of this country. It does NOT inspire people to go out and excel. I’ve never met ANYONE on govt dole that felt good about themselves or were optimistic, and full of life. Instead they call to the govt to give them those things, and are always dissappointed because the govt can’t.

But you’re a guy that believes you are entitled to a livable wage, as you define it, but dismiss what my idea of livable wage is.

The thing is-no caste system in this country. You can be whatever you wanna be, job not pay enough? Go elsewhere. Wanna change careers, no one to stop you. Go to school, get training many things you can do to better youself, instead of calling for some kind of law. But that’s just me.

You also have the right not to be taken advantage of by management. Otherwise we would still work for whatever the boss decided to pay us and when. I don’t ever want to see textile mills and auto assemblies run like they were back in the day. Everyone in this country is not “college bound”. If that were the case…who would fix your car…your toilet…your roof…your A/C and heat system?

Those who are usually “plucked” for the corner office got that way because
a. they were a fishing or hunting buddy
b. his wife’s brother, cousin…
c. or she was sleeping with the boss

The Labor Movement…the folks who brought you the weekend.

Proud wife of a shop steward and union delgate Machinists Union:thumbsup:

 

[cynic]

The fire dept is NOT making widgets It is a service. Some fire depts are unionized, some not. I don’t wanna be offensive, but you do see the difference in making widgets, and service oriented jobs?
.

You still haven’t described how your job is any different. Did you get raises according to how many fires you put out? I’d say your more likely to have gotten raises by time spent in service (subject to satisfactory performance). You are paid as long you provide the service, which on any given day might involve a lot of work, or very little. You are not paid by some measurable ‘output’

Union contracts are what they are, the job description pay is this and anyone in that job will get it. Doesn’t really matter what kind of employee he is.

What is unbelivable about not wanting to be in the collective? If I’m making widgets I wanna be the best doggone widget maker I can be, and because I’m the best, I’ll be paid accordingly not what the contract says I’m worth.
.

If an employee does not meet the base level of productivity then an employer has the right fire them. An employer also has the responsibility to make clear what level of output is expected, and this should be ‘reasonable’. That’s my ideal anyway. If unions get in the way. then they act immorally.

Like I said it is not a bad system, just like being a civil servant. I was never going to make 200k a year, but I was gonna have excellent benefits, job security, and self satisfaction.
.

Yeah at the expense of the taxpayer, and as long as you put out the fires, noone was ever going to question your benefits and job security. Nice for you huh? As long you did what was expected, you’d never have to worry about the rent. But you’d like to take this safety net away from others. Incredible.

Now contrast that with the guy working at the local paper mill in a union job. He’ll have most of those things, but its not gonna matter how good a employee he is, or how much paper he makes. He can bust his chops all day every day, and he’s gonna make the same as the slacker, becuase the union is NOT gonna allow the company to single out and reward the single employee.
.

Tell that to people making ‘widgets’ for 16 hours a day in South East Asia. Their wages are definately not scaled to productivity. It’s supply and demand, no matter how hard working these people are, they earn very little, even in their own currency, because the labour is easy to find. And they live in dorms and have to cook food collectively just to survive.

When a guy interviews for a job in Cynics’ company bring the following paperwork-

How much you will spend on bus fare to and from work.

-ave of the last 3 months grocery bill

-amount of your mortgage payment

• how much you plan to spend on lunch each day

The government should determine what the basic bare bones cost of living for one person in an area. Emplyoyers will have to work around that. I doubt very much that their are jobs out there where employee contribution to turnover is worth less than that.

Sheesh you want the govt meddling in wages to this extent?

No, :yawn:, beyond and bare bones minimum wage, a government would not meddle in what employers pay. They would ‘top up’ an income if the individual has other living costs that are out of their control, for eg dependants. It’s less expensive than welfare.

This line of thinking is precisely what is wrong in some parts of this country. It does NOT inspire people to go out and excel.

So the possibility of starving, *while working *is what will inspire people?

I’ve never met ANYONE on govt dole that felt good about themselves or were optimistic, and full of life.

What I’ve described is not the dole. In fact it’s an idea Ronald Reagan thought was preferable to simply paying people not to work. It involves no cost to employers, only the taxpayer (but then much less than what welfare currently does).

The only question is when to cut the supplement off, so as to insure people want to get promoted and earn more.

But you’re a guy that believes you are entitled to a livable wage, as you define it, but dismiss what my idea of livable wage is.

Are you crazy? You’re idea of livable should mean others shouldn’t be able to afford to eat while still doing what their job requires of them?

The thing is-no caste system in this country. You can be whatever you wanna be, job not pay enough? Go elsewhere.

Yeah and I’ve said this several times, until every employer on non-skilled labour offers the same pay and conditions.

Wanna change careers, no one to stop you. Go to school, get training many things you can do to better youself, instead of calling for some kind of law. But that’s just me.

And who’s going to pay for it?

 

[BamaRider]

Yeah at the expense of the taxpayer, and as long as you put out the fires, noone was ever going to question your benefits and job security. Nice for you huh? As long you did what was expected, you’d never have to worry about the rent. But you’d like to take this safety net away from others. Incredible.

You have it wrong. I took the job not for the pay or benefits, how can I say this?? I just liked fighting fires and going to wrecks for the adrenaline rush, no job like it, I woulda done if for free. Just so happened most fire depts are govt run.

But to answer your question, now matter how good my evals were, I was only eligible for X amount come raise time. But when it came to promotions the system was pretty fair, we were tested and past evals came into play.

All I’m telling you, if you wanna work with a safety net get YOU a govt job, or a union one, whose stopping ya? But if you want to go the next level, you better go elsewhere. A govt accountant is gonna have security, gonna have benefits, but his salary is NOT gonna scratch what a full partner in a firm is gonna make.

So the possibility of starving, while working is what will inspire people?

Nobody in *this *country with a job is starving. I challenge you to point one out. I’ll be waiting.

Now you speak of Asia and other parts of the world. I dunno about them. My suggestion those cesspools need freedom from dictators to prosper. NOT a union.

Are you crazy? You’re idea of livable should mean others shouldn’t be able to afford to eat while still doing what their job requires of them?

AGAIN you make this statement. And again I challenge you find me even ONE of these starving people. If you’re job is NOT paying you enough, then time to make a move.

Yeah and I’ve said this several times, until every employer on non-skilled labour offers the same pay and conditions.

So where you come from, the non skilled have no chance of becoming skilled? Who is holding them back? Are you living in a place where this takes place? Doesn’t happen here in the good ole USA. If you’re sweeping floors, and not educated, I’d learn some kind of trade that improved MY situtation and not depend on the govt twisting the arms of employers, which in turn is gonna make my life a little worse, in the cost of products and goods.

And who’s going to pay for it?

I dunno about where you are, but there are so many options here in Alabama for a guy that wants to get better I can’t list them all. Student loans., grants, trade schools, company sponsored etc. Hundreds of ways for a floor sweeper to get better. But coming up with some kind of “livable wage” law is gonna do just one thing-KEEP HIM A FLOOR SWEEPER FROM NOW ON.

No, , beyond and bare bones minimum wage, a government would not meddle in what employers pay. They would ‘top up’ an income if the individual has other living costs that are out of their control, for eg dependants. It’s less expensive than welfare.

LOL you just happen to overlook what “livabe wage” mandate is- GOVT MEDDLING LOL.

You still haven’t described how your job is any different. Did you get raises according to how many fires you put out? I’d say your more likely to have gotten raises by time spent in service (subject to satisfactory performance). You are paid as long you provide the service, which on any given day might involve a lot of work, or very little. You are not paid by some measurable ‘output’

No, raises are doled at the whim of the city. Sometimes ya got COLAs some years no. They could freeze the merit system at anytime. If revenues declined a few years in a row, they’d freeze all raises till it got better. In the 80s we went a stretch of no raises (merit or COLA) for 4 years.

The merit raised was tied to a annual eval. Something unions DONT like. They want raises given to folks for no other reason then they stayed alive for a year. The only gripe I had with our system you were only gonna get one pay bracket, no matter how much above average you were, you got one bracket. True excellence was not rewarded, but that was ok for me because I loved the job so much. I knew that going in.

But if I’m making widgets I wanna be paid by the widget, the more I make the more $$$. Not gonna have that in a govt job or union job. Like I said, neither is bad, you have security and decent pay, but you give up other things. Now I dunno about YOU, but if I want one of those jobs, I’m gonna put myself in a position to get one.

Instead of inspiring the floor sweeper to excel, you wanna make him dependent of the govt by subsdize his salary, how you say “top it off?” Pay him just enough and buy his vote.

 

[BamaRider]

Those who are usually “plucked” for the corner office got that way because
a. they were a fishing or hunting buddy
b. his wife’s brother, cousin…
c. or she was sleeping with the boss

Sheeesh, I can’t tell ya those things never happen, for sure lots of office politics go on. But a union member is NOT gonna get plucked outt the collective, and inserted into a staff position. He could have 4 degrees, but as long as he’s in the collective, he’s fate is sealed.

I’m not agruing unions do not have a place. They have done good things, and helped alot of people. But always a tipping point.

I recall back in the 80s, the guys that cleaned subway cars in NYC made big money. The contract said they only had to clean 1car a day. They had 20 year retirement, 6 weeks vacaton, and all kinds of benefits. For sure it was a good contract. They supported the mayor in his run for office, and they were rewarded.

Things were good for several years, but now the city had to hire more and more to clean cars because nothing was getting done. All the exta labor costs bankrupted the city, and many of those folks with less then 10 years on the job were let go. Those that remained had to make a lot of concessions next contract. And so it goes.

Why would a skilled laborer want a corner office…unless she/he spent nights and weekends working on a degree? Unions are mostly for skilled labor…not white collar. Yes there is the teachers union…but not even close to the membership of the skilled labor force.

I agree with this. I’m just pointing out if a guy wants to get where the big money is, where the decesions are made on what actually goes on, he has to leave the union.

There is certainly nothing wrong with skilled union labor. It is a honorable profession. My father was bricklayer/waterproofer in a union.

Most skilled laborers I know would never even think of getting nor wanting a corner office and trading their blue coveralls for a suit and tie. My DH has 1 suit, for weddings, funerals and other special occasions. that’s it.T

Yeah, but thats just the ones YOU know. Every once in a while you might find a guy out there sweeping floors that dreams BIG, and does WANT to move up, judged by his OWN merits, not what someone else can bargain for him.

 

[cynic]

You have it wrong. I took the job not for the pay or benefits, how can I say this?? I just liked fighting fires and going to wrecks for the adrenaline rush, no job like it, I woulda done if for free. Just so happened most fire depts are govt run.

But to answer your question, now matter how good my evals were, I was only eligible for X amount come raise time. But when it came to promotions the system was pretty fair, we were tested and past evals came into play.
.

My point still stands, as long as you put effort in, you never had to worry about surviving.

Nobody in *this *country with a job is starving. I challenge you to point one out. I’ll be waiting.
.

Well there are plenty working 2 or 3 jobs just to meet their basic living costs. But then, you didn’t have to do that…

Now you speak of Asia and other parts of the world. I dunno about them. My suggestion those cesspools need freedom from dictators to prosper. NOT a union.
.

Take your socks off and read the label. They were made in Asia through sweatshops, many of which are under contract to American clothing suppliers. The wages of those people could be doubled, and your socks would need cost no more. It’s just greed.

So where you come from, the non skilled have no chance of becoming skilled?
.

Actually there is, tertiary training paid for in part by government, student loans, apprentiship schemes again susidized by government. But I’m guessing you disagree with all that.

I dunno about where you are, but there are so many options here in Alabama for a guy that wants to get better I can’t list them all. Student loans., grants, trade schools, company sponsored etc. Hundreds of ways for a floor sweeper to get better.
.

Yeah with help from government

LOL back at ya.

But coming up with some kind of “livable wage” law is gonna do just one thing-KEEP HIM A FLOOR SWEEPER FROM NOW ON.
.

Instead of inspiring the floor sweeper to excel, you wanna make him dependent of the govt by subsdize his salary, how you say “top it off?” Pay him just enough and buy his vote.

The subsidy would occur if there were other expenses. I threw that out there because another poster asked how a single mother could support her children on a universal minimum wage tied to the cost of living for one person (by the way, do YOU have an answer for that)

I don’t see how ensuring someone can survive on 40-50 hours of work a week stops them from wanting to do better.

LOL you just happen to overlook what “livabe wage” mandate is- GOVT MEDDLING LOL.
.

It is, but the top-up idea doesn’t meddle in the economy.

.

But if I’m making widgets I wanna be paid by the widget, the more I make the more $$$.
.

And what if you were paid so little per ‘widget’ that you needed to make as many as you could just to live? That fair?

Sheeesh, I can’t tell ya those things never happen, for sure lots of office politics go on. But a union member is NOT gonna get plucked outt the collective, and inserted into a staff position. He could have 4 degrees, but as long as he’s in the collective, he’s fate is sealed.

So you’re saying anyone who happens to belong to a union is not going to be picked by management for promotion. Big statement there…

 

[BamaRider]

So you’re saying anyone who happens to belong to a union is not going to be picked by management for promotion. Big statement there…

Yes. In my 40 years of working, a union member, on the floor is NOT gonna be plucked out of the collective and placed in the position where the real money and decesion making takes place.

I’m sure some have been moved up the ladder, but they left the union to make it happen.

They can be moved in leadmen or foreman positions, but those are not staff positions.

Take the lathe operator in a union shop. He’s going to college at night operates his machine by day. He finishes school and applies for mgt position. He’s gonna have to leave the union if he wants a staff position.

Now take the same operator, 20 years on the job with his machine. He could be the best of all time, but unless he changes the dynamics, by education, or leaving the union, all he’s gonna be. Now there is nothing wrong with that, he performs a valuable job, but it is what it is.

My point still stands, as long as you put effort in, you never had to worry about surviving.

This is true. I made good money, I had/have excellent private healthcare, I took advantage of a lucrative 25 year retirement plan, I had edcuation incentives, the fire dept fed me when I was on duty, they provided me state of the art equipment, bought my uniforms down to my socks, and paid to have them dry cleaned for me, I worked 1 day off 2. I not only had my private doctor I also had a team of other medical specialists on call to the fire dept. for whatever we needed. I had 6 weeks vacation, and 12 holidays.

But I also had to pass strict physical fitness testing, had to maintain a unblemished driving record in MY OWN car. A couple of tickets or accidents, no matter who was at fault were grounds for punishment or dismissal. I was subject to random and non random drug testing, and I was constantly being graded and evaluated. But I didn’t mind any of that stuff. The city realized to have good people that can do all that, you had to PAY them, and take care of them, and the federal govt didn’t twist arms for us to have all that.

To move into the officer ranks you pretty much had to be college educated, because the people you test against will be and thats extra points.

But you don’t walk off the streets into those kind of jobs, and thats what you want.

 

[graceandglory]

Some of us don’t care about pulling down 6 figures. Some of us feel that the best work environment is the home. Some of us would like to spend time in other productive pursuits (such as volunteering, or gardening, or taking care of a loved one).

Even within a career area, some people can finish their work faster than others. Slower people have to take their work home with them. That’s just common sense.
I look forward to my own “retirement” so that I can spend more time volunteering. I work five days a week as it is, care for my loved ones on the off hours, and then volunteer on weekends.

Nope, I’m not interested in the six figures. But some people can earn six figures working for salary the same number of hours as me. One only has to be out there volunteering to find that to be true.

Being generous with your time isn’t limited by income.

 

[cynic]

This is true. I made good money, I had/have excellent private healthcare, I took advantage of a lucrative 25 year retirement plan, I had edcuation incentives, the fire dept fed me when I was on duty, they provided me state of the art equipment, bought my uniforms down to my socks, and paid to have them dry cleaned for me, I worked 1 day off 2. I not only had my private doctor I also had a team of other medical specialists on call to the fire dept. for whatever we needed. I had 6 weeks vacation, and 12 holidays.

But I also had to pass strict physical fitness testing, had to maintain a unblemished driving record in MY OWN car. A couple of tickets or accidents, no matter who was at fault were grounds for punishment or dismissal. I was subject to random and non random drug testing, and I was constantly being graded and evaluated. But I didn’t mind any of that stuff. The city realized to have good people that can do all that, you had to PAY them, and take care of them, and the federal govt didn’t twist arms for us to have all that.
.

Let me undertand this, your employer paid you well, your food on duty, subsidized any further education, gave you access to a retirement plan, gave you 6 weeks vacation - all care of the taxpayer - and all you had to do was keep fit, drive carefully and stay off drugs. After all that you can smugly dismiss other workers as lazy for wanting a wage they can barely survive on.

 

[Oscarthecat]

No, :yawn:, beyond and bare bones minimum wage, a government would not meddle in what employers pay. They would ‘top up’ an income if the individual has other living costs that are out of their control, for eg dependants. It’s less expensive than welfare.

You are drifting into classic bureaucratic overkill. Rather than simply accept that government interventions just don’t work and should be stopped, you just keep adding new government programs to compensate for the problems caused by the old government programs.

But before you start melting down another keyboard, just think this through for a minute–

Say that under your system, two minimum wage workers are identical in every way- both have 2 kids, both are single, both are equally skilled, etc.

Based on your comments, these min wage workers get benefits from the government to supplement their income in order to provide them the things they cannot pay for on their income alone.

After a few months, one’s performance has been completely average- so she stays in her position with her min. wage pay, and keeps her gov’t benefits.

The other, however, has demonstrated skill and a good work ethic. This one has been rewarded with a small raise.

Unfortunately, according to your statement “beyond and bare bones minimum wage, a government would not meddle in what employers pay,” she is no longer eligible for the benefits she earned previously, and as a result, she can’t afford the lifestyle she had been accustomed to when making less money.

Well, that’s just not fair, is it? It isn’t right to trap people in the space between qualifying for benefits and being able to be self-sufficient, right? Isn’t that the classic definition of “falling through the cracks?”

So, to keep from punishing people for success, you’re going to have to continue to “top-up” her income a little bit less to account for her new wage, this is going to happen each time she gets a little raise, until she can afford to maintain the lifestyle she’s had all along. Kind of like a sliding scale, right?

If you’re just going to have everyone on welfare until they reach a certain income, why not just set THAT income as the minimum wage?

Or, if you’re going to supplement everybody’s wage to get them all to some arbitrary living wage income, then why bother setting a minimum wage at all?

Regardless of the fact that you and I disagree on whether either of those interventions are good in the first place, can you at least see that having multiple, overlapping interventions makes even less sense?

 

[cynic]

You are drifting into classic bureaucratic overkill. Rather than simply accept that government interventions just don’t work and should be stopped, you just keep adding new government programs to compensate for the problems caused by the old government programs.

Not so much new as a substitute for what’s currently on offer ie paying people to stay home.

Say that under your system, two minimum wage workers are identical in every way- both have 2 kids, both are single, both are equally skilled, etc. Based on your comments, these min wage workers get benefits from the government to supplement their income in order to provide them the things they cannot pay for on their income alone. After a few months, one’s performance has been completely average- so she stays in her position with her min. wage pay, and keeps her gov’t benefits. The other, however, has demonstrated skill and a good work ethic. This one has been rewarded with a small raise.Unfortunately, according to your statement “beyond and bare bones minimum wage, a government would not meddle in what employers pay,” she is no longer eligible for the benefits she earned previously, and as a result, she can’t afford the lifestyle she had been accustomed to when making less money.

…

So, to keep from punishing people for success, you’re going to have to continue to “top-up” her income a little bit less to account for her new wage, this is going to happen each time she gets a little raise, until she can afford to maintain the lifestyle she’s had all along. Kind of like a sliding scale, right?

Yes there’s a problem with it.

I still think people will seek pay rises and new responsibility, because it puts them in line for further promotions (and a more comfortable life)

What’s your solution for a single mother anyway? Rely on charity on top of her wage? Assuming such charity is available, it could have the same effect ; when her income goes up she would no longer be considered a valid case for financial aid (perhaps on a sliding scale aswell)

If you’re just going to have everyone on welfare until they reach a certain income, why not just set THAT income as the minimum wage?

Or, if you’re going to supplement everybody’s wage to get them all to some arbitrary living wage income, then why bother setting a minimum wage at all?

The supplement would be for people with other costs, as per your example. The minimum wage should cover the living costs of one person, so most would not need or qualify for any “top-up”.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Not so much new as a substitute for what’s currently on offer ie paying people to stay home.

Uh…not so much a “substitute for” but a “bandaid over…”

…not just one bandaid, but several multi-million/billion dollar bandaids

…and you’re not paying them to stay at home, you’re just paying them to be mediocre workers who won’t ever be punished with a pay raise.

I still think people will seek pay rises and new responsibility, because it puts them in line for further promotions (and a more comfortable life)

Are you forgetting that their promotion and a pay raise might result in a net income loss because it doesn’t cover the loss of their welfare benefits?

Or do you think that people are actually willing to endure hardship in the hope that they might become self-sufficient and make a life for themselves?

That almost sounds like something a conservative might say…

Pretty soon you’re going to say that if people are willing to endure adversity in order to become self-sufficient, then maybe we’re actually inhibiting that process by making this safety net so soft and warm.

The supplement would be for people with other costs, as per your example. The minimum wage should cover the living costs of one person, so most would not need or qualify for any “top-up”.

Are you saying that most adult minimum wage workers are single and don’t have any dependents?

Might want to check your facts on that- because I think that the legions of lobbyists, special interest groups, and US politicians who just recently lobbied for a nation-wide increase in the minimum wage might disagree with you.

What’s your solution for a single mother anyway? Rely on charity on top of her wage? Assuming such charity is available, it could have the same effect ; when her income goes up she would no longer be considered a valid case for financial aid (perhaps on a sliding scale aswell)

My solution certainly doesn’t involve creating more government bureaucracies to make up for other inept bureaucracies.

There are plenty of examples of people who have endured hardship for a period of time in order to build a sustainable, self-sufficient life for themselves and their dependents. It may be hard to believe, but there are even mass market movies about real people who actually did crazy things like that.

In fact, many Americans, myself included, are descended from people who immigrated to this country and did exactly that- and all during the period of american history when there was no safety net.

But rather than learn from the past, today people hold to the hope that poor people will stop being poor if the rest of us just keep stuffing more padding in their government safety nets.

 

[cynic]

Uh…not so much a “substitute for” but a “bandaid over…”

…not just one bandaid, but several multi-million/billion dollar bandaids

…and you’re not paying them to stay at home, you’re just paying them to be mediocre workers who won’t ever be punished with a pay raise.
.

It’s a substitute for the DPB and the dole. Not an addition to them. Only people who are physically unable work would receive welfare in it’s current form.

It’s like you’re suggesting the only way such people will advance is if they (or their family) are starving.

Fine then, but don’t give to charity either, because you don’t want to allow people to live through being mediocre.

Are you forgetting that their promotion and a pay raise might result in a net income loss because it doesn’t cover the loss of their welfare benefits?
.

Wasn’t it you who mentioned a sliding scale, or did you forget?

Their wages would remain the same, until they got promoted to the point where they earn more than the combination of the two.

Or do you think that people are actually willing to endure hardship in the hope that they might become self-sufficient and make a life for themselves?

Endure hardship as in cannot get enough to eat or have adequate shelter, or wash… yeah, great circumstances to move forward from…

In fact the idea of topping up incomes instead of handing out the DPB is a conservative idea, although you won’t regard it as such.

There are plenty of examples of people who have endured hardship for a period of time in order to build a sustainable, self-sufficient life for themselves and their dependents. It may be hard to believe, but there are even mass market movies about real people who actually did crazy things like that.

In fact, many Americans, myself included, are descended from people who immigrated to this country and did exactly that- and all during the period of american history when there was no safety net.

So you want to use the 19th century as some benchmark, with low life-expenctancy, high infant mortality, low literacy and so on. Because hardship can produce good attitudes doesn’t mean that poverty as some sort of kick up the butt is the answer. The main reason being that there are innocents,like the malnourished children, who will have to suffer as collaterol damage. Nice one.

 

[Oscarthecat]

It’s like you’re suggesting the only way such people will advance is if they (or their family) are starving.

Who said anything about starving?
I just agreed with your theory that people should work harder to increase their quality of life.

Fine then, but don’t give to charity either, because you don’t want to allow people to live through being mediocre.

No, people can be mediocre if they choose to be. But I don’t want to contribute to a system that rewards mediocrity and punishes success.

Wasn’t it you who mentioned a sliding scale, or did you forget?

I did mention a sliding scale when I pointed out that welfare programs based on wage supplementation would punish success without some sort of sliding scale.

It was part of a larger criticism of your “top-up” welfare idea- which would inevitably have to grow to cover people who earn more and more money.

If you recall, one of my major points was that government programs inevitably grow and multiply in order to address their inherent faults.

Sliding scales are just one example of that.

Their wages would remain the same, until they got promoted to the point where they earn more than the combination of the two.

How do their wages stay the same, exactly? When they get a pay raise, they don’t get a pay raise?

Are you telling me that you want to set a wage CAP on minimum wage workers who are collecting welfare?

Endure hardship as in cannot get enough to eat or have adequate shelter, or wash… yeah, great circumstances to move forward from…

Yes, those are exactly the kinds of circumstances that people should want to move forward from.

What was your point, again?

In fact the idea of topping up incomes instead of handing out the DPB is a conservative idea, although you won’t regard it as such.

No, I don’t. And neither do any conservatives I know.

So you want to use the 19th century as some benchmark, with low life-expenctancy, high infant mortality, low literacy and so on. Because hardship can produce good attitudes doesn’t mean that poverty as some sort of kick up the butt is the answer. The main reason being that there are innocents,like the malnourished children, who will have to suffer as collaterol damage. Nice one.

Seems to me that the flaws you’re pointing to have nothing to do with the fact that people back then worked hard to overcome hardship, and it worked out for most of them…so I guess that for people with a sense of pride and self-determination, poverty can be a great motivator.