|
BrandorKP posted:Lol you think employers give overtime anymore. A grocery / liqour lead with 30-40 years experience might get OT. Regular highers probably not. I am not familiar with US work man rights. Is it really the case the individual employer gets to decide whether they pay overtime or not? Because that is hosed up.
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 07:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
doverhog posted:I am not familiar with US work man rights. Is it really the case the individual employer gets to decide whether they pay overtime or not? Because that is hosed up. I think it's more that rostering is scheduled tightly thanks to computerised time management and corporate edicts that overtime never be offered, so if overtime absolutely must be done, it goes to an old timer/pet.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I would argue that a lot of part time employees are either college or high school students, supplemental income to a household, and people with other forms of income (disability, social security, etc), who don't need to or can't work full time (benefits for those who can't is a different discussion), which drive down those averages, so that number is misleading in its own way. Hold up there chief
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:A lot of good research quoted in your post. I enjoyed looking through it. I think you are mingling two concepts that it would be better to disentangle. Individual people are not statistics. Within every group there's variation in outcome and what I'm proposing here is that whatever the economic or social headwinds an individual faces, they should do what they can to maximize their good outcomes. That means if a person's looking for more money, they should (IMO) go out and play the game and try to get it - and even figure out how to be better at that skill. On a societal level many people won't do that, or will try and not be successful, but that doesn't make it bad individual advice. It's not the solution to everyone's labor problems or to any big picture problems. So I think it would be good to talk about individual strategies separately from these big societal statistical considerations - which are real and valid - rather than treating the statistics as reasons for people to decide advancing in life is impossible. It's not bad advice in the sense that having a skill is generally better than not having a skill. However it is bad advice in that you're telling people to spend time learning a skill that will at best only get them what they deserve to be paid anyway and in most cases will have no effect. Pretty much the only people who have a real ability to negotiate their wages in their favour are people with high demand jobs, people who are likely already quite comfortable and don't need the advice. Every employer knows what the position they're trying to fill is worth to them and they're never going start a negotiation thinking they're going to end up paying the employee more. So any company that wants to negotiate wages is always looking to pay less than what they think the work is worth (which is already less than it's worth because capitalism.) The only thing you can get out of a wage negotiation is what you should be getting in the first place and generally if you refuse an offer you just won't get the job, a company can handle a position being unfilled for far longer than most people can handle being unemployed. The only real leverage you can have on your employer is "you literally can't replace me" which is a rare position to be in and doesn't require great oratory skills to argue.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 07:26
|
|
|
Dire Lemming posted:It's not bad advice in the sense that having a skill is generally better than not having a skill. However it is bad advice in that you're telling people to spend time learning a skill that will at best only get them what they deserve to be paid anyway and in most cases will have no effect. Pretty much the only people who have a real ability to negotiate their wages in their favour are people with high demand jobs, people who are likely already quite comfortable and don't need the advice. This. A negotiating position requires leverage and in the vast majority of these negotiations, even in my line of work, the leverage is heavily skewed with the employer not the employee. This is how neoliberal capitalism works; there are intentionally fewer jobs than there are people capable of working them to exploit the most desperate with the least leverage into working for less. It's the exact opposite of a full employment policy and the entire point is to have as many people in poverty as possible, allowing for a middle class to shoulder the tax burden just enough to support the working class just enough to avoid outright revolt, maximising the monies of the top earners. So, if you're an employer willingly complicit in this system: you're a scumbag and gently caress you. NinpoEspiritoSanto fucked around with this message at 08:19 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 08:15
|
|
|
Well sure living on minimum wage sucks but if we just assume minimum wage earners find a suitcase full of cash every month...
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
tbh volkerball i feel as though the position that it's possible to make a living in a low-paying job if you disregard the eight-hour workday and get a permanent contract is perhaps not illustrating the point that you would like it to
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 09:22
|
|
|
I feel like I wanna say something about my job (hard manual labour) in this thread but since I live in socialist Finland it really wouldn't be applicable so keep arguing about your American hell holes.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 10:05
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I feel like I wanna say something about my job (hard manual labour) in this thread but since I live in socialist Finland it really wouldn't be applicable so keep arguing about your American hell holes. just post imo
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 10:09
|
|
|
JBP posted:I think it's more that rostering is scheduled tightly thanks to computerised time management and corporate edicts that overtime never be offered, so if overtime absolutely must be done, it goes to an old timer/pet. Or alternatively they just don't pay you extra for it. What are you gonna do, leave and find somewhere else that also doesn't pay extra for it?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 11:49
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:30% is the perfectly ideal situation in which you have enough disposable income to be choosy. It's fairly common for 30% to not cover the cost of rent if you have a lower income, but it's not like the second you cross over 30% you're automatically hosed and you die. 35% isn't ideal and 40% is starting to get a bit extreme, but you can go over 30% without being in a dire financial situation. The $1,000 figure was for a multiple bedroom home in the 2 adults making $14 and a child scenario, and the $1,000 is actually less demanding as a percentage of the household income in that scenario relative to the single individuals $650. Sorry, let me be more clear. Rent is the biggest fixed cost in most people's lives, and the only people who think it's "affordable" for low-income people to pay 40% or 50% of their income toward housing are the real estate agents selling them that housing. You're talking about $1k a month like it's no big deal, but if you're making $14 an hour then that's literally half your monthly after-tax income. That $650 rent you're so proud of is only barely under the 30% affordability threshold. Volkerball posted:This is a more useful metric. 14x40x52= 29,120, which clears this living wage figure by more than $5,000 annually in 31 states. All but 8 states have a living wage that is lower than this wage figure by $3,000 or more. It would fall short in only 4 states. $3000 above the living wage? Wow, that means that after taking care of their most basic and critical needs, they have a whopping $250 a month left over! Invest that poo poo and they'll be millionaires in no time! Volkerball posted:I would not argue that working less than 40 hours a week is likely not going to provide someone a comfortable margin over a living wage. But there are plenty of full time positions out there, and the math still comes out the same if you're working multiple part time jobs that add up to 40 hours a week. I would argue that a lot of part time employees are either college or high school students, supplemental income to a household, and people with other forms of income (disability, social security, etc), who don't need to or can't work full time (benefits for those who can't is a different discussion), which drive down those averages, so that number is misleading in its own way. So have you just given up on data completely? Because I'm pretty sure the only source you have for any of these claims is your own rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 12:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or alternatively they just don't pay you extra for it. What are you gonna do, leave and find somewhere else that also doesn't pay extra for it? Oh yeah but I guess we're talking in the realm of the rules. Most places roster hard enough to kill overtime and run split shifts and poo poo so they don't need to screw anyone illegally. It's all above board.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 13:27
|
|
|
JBP posted:Oh yeah but I guess we're talking in the realm of the rules. Most places roster hard enough to kill overtime and run split shifts and poo poo so they don't need to screw anyone illegally. It's all above board. Plus weekly shift reallocation because gently caress the idea of you having a schedule
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I would not argue that working less than 40 hours a week is likely not going to provide someone a comfortable margin over a living wage. But there are plenty of full time positions out there, and the math still comes out the same if you're working multiple part time jobs that add up to 40 hours a week. I would argue that a lot of part time employees are either college or high school students, supplemental income to a household, and people with other forms of income (disability, social security, etc), who don't need to or can't work full time (benefits for those who can't is a different discussion), which drive down those averages, so that number is misleading in its own way. The vast majority of jobs created since 2005 are not in fact full-time. They're precarious labor in the form of part-time, contract or gig economy jobs: https://qz.com/851066/almost-all-the-10-million-jobs-created-since-2005-are-temporary/ There are very few full-time, well-paying jobs left that are accessible to people who aren't very smart or very wealthy (or white). The big issue with NAFTA was that it basically put the nail in the coffin of well-paying blue-collar jobs for people with a high-school education. Things have only gotten worse since then. The number of people working multiple part-time jobs and still ending up on the streets is also rising, incidentally: https://www.redding.com/story/news/2017/11/07/working-full-time-but-homeless-anyway/841100001/ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/nyregion/in-new-york-having-a-job-or-2-doesnt-mean-having-a-home.html https://madison.com/wsj/news/specia...50e4532963.html This is like arguing with a Fox News grandpa who keeps telling you about the economy of the 50s.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Plus weekly shift reallocation because gently caress the idea of you having a schedule In Australia a massive number of people work casual or labour hire. In the case of labour hire you get a text message at 7pm for a shift at 6am and if you miss one you stop getting text messages! Incredible! E: I'm sure this happens elsewhere, but it's a massive blind spot for the majority of people here because it's only the very, very poor and immigrants generally working this way. Most developed countries don't allow you to engage people this way (i assume this is fine in the US) JBP fucked around with this message at 14:12 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:08
|
|
|
JBP posted:Oh yeah but I guess we're talking in the realm of the rules. Most places roster hard enough to kill overtime and run split shifts and poo poo so they don't need to screw anyone illegally. It's all above board. I might be confusing the concept of overtime but I'm pretty sure a lot of the people I work with just don't have a contract that stipulates overtime involves a higher pay rate. You can either take the extra shifts or not, at the normal rate. My job of course has zero contracted hours so the concept is a bit alien to me anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:13
|
|
|
As a full-time UK computer toucher I just don't get paid for overtime, even if I have to do it to get the job done. Not sure of the legality of it all, but apparently it is? Then again I'm not exactly starving I suppose, even if the money is nowhere near as great as in the US.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
I always figured it was just part of your contract, not that I've ever had one that involved overtime or a salaried position, but afaik they can just put it in your contract that you can be expected to do X amount of overtime on whatever conditions and strongly encourage you to sign that thing that makes you exempt from EU working hour limits.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:As a full-time UK computer toucher I just don't get paid for overtime, even if I have to do it to get the job done. Only management should be salary and even then maybe not. My standing agreement with my employer is I'm non exempt meaning i log hours, but i get comp time, meaning i get to take time and a half off later. Then i actually take time off. This is why i always advocate for what I have being what everyone should get, because the standard work culture doesnt allow people to be compensated for their extra work, or take time off or not have anyone get grumpy with you over it. Reminder that I work in local government.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:59
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:There are serious issues with self-reported works hours generally being overestimated (there have been several studies on this, I'll dig up some links tomorrow) anyway I said I would do this today, so here it is: People Who Claim to Work 75-Hour Weeks Usually Only Work About 50 Hours quote:The BLS study found respondents in the ATUS tend to give an estimate of typical working time that is 5 to 10 percent higher than what shows up in their diaries. But the divergence was not uniform across the population. The largest overestimates came from the people providing the highest estimates: People who said they typically worked 75 or more hours per week tended to provide diaries reflecting 25 hours’ less work per week than they estimated. People claiming to typically work between 65 and 74 hours weekly tended to be overestimating by 18 hours. You're going to have to do some digging to see more analysis, but this is all based on BLS comparing their own data to census data. The takeaway is that people tend to overestimate hours worked (thanks, toxic work culture) and most Americans are probably not actually working more than 40 hours. Data like that provided by the Gallup poll that shows American full-time workers averaging close to 50 hours per week is extremely suspect and almost certainly does not represent reality for hourly workers. BLS data for hours worked is based on their establishment survey rather than household survey, which is a good justification for using their average of 34.4. Realistically, if we're judging the overall state of hourly workers, then you probably want to use the average of 33.7 for production/non-supervisory employees.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Transportation. lol have you seen Southern California dude it takes me 30-40 minutes one way to get to and from work and I live literally 4 freeway exits away. There is no public transit. I've done the math. Living farther away is pointless as I'd save at most a $200-$300/mo which is quickly washed away by increased gas costs and insurance costs, not to mention literally extra hours every day sitting in my car. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 15:40 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
JBP posted:I think it's more that rostering is scheduled tightly thanks to computerised time management and corporate edicts that overtime never be offered, so if overtime absolutely must be done, it goes to an old timer/pet. Because things take longer if you send the forklift driver home LOL.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
Guys real wages are less than what they were 50 years ago while worker productivity has only continued to go up. What's the fuckin' argument here? We can argue paragraphs back and forth about details of how much money someone *really* needs to live all day long but it is clear that the working class as a whole has been shafted. People aren't being paid enough. 95% of income gains since 2009 went to the top 1% of households. It's ridiculous. Millennials aren't "killing" industries, not getting married, and not having kids just because "weirdo young generation." We're all fuckin' broke and even the people keeping their head above water would quickly drown if you added childcare costs into the mix. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 15:43 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Millennials aren't "killing" industries, not getting married, and not having kids just because "weirdo young generation." We're all fuckin' broke and even the people keeping their head above water would quickly drown if you added childcare costs into the mix. Having more money statistically leads to less children, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Having more money statistically leads to less children, not the other way around. Welcome to the quirks of human psychology. This excuses nothing of what this worthless system causes.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
I got a manual labour job got hired for mainly through luck I guess, for a short part time gig. Kept the job and work more or less full time now. Finland has strong labour unions, and although I'm not technically a regular employee I still get all the benefits because the union negotiated them, and everyone who works there has union negotiated pay. That is how ít should be. Unionize. doverhog fucked around with this message at 14:10 on May 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Plus weekly shift reallocation because gently caress the idea of you having a schedule This is my life. I can’t plan anything or make friends outside of work because I don’t find out my schedule until Thursday night and I work all three shifts.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Finland has strong labour unions, and although I'm not technically a regular employee I still get all the benefits because the union negotiated them, and everyone who works there has union negotiated pay. That is how ít should be. Unionize. Solidarity forever.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:tbh volkerball i feel as though the position that it's possible to make a living in a low-paying job if you disregard the eight-hour workday and get a permanent contract is perhaps not illustrating the point that you would like it to Moridin920 posted:Guys real wages are less than what they were 50 years ago while worker productivity has only continued to go up. What's the fuckin' argument here? We can argue paragraphs back and forth about details of how much money someone *really* needs to live all day long but it is clear that the working class as a whole has been shafted. People aren't being paid enough. 95% of income gains since 2009 went to the top 1% of households. It's ridiculous. The argument I'm making boils down to "if you are 30 or younger working at a grocery store and not getting by, there are doors open to you to change your situation to one where you are doing well financially." It's getting much harder than it has any right to be because wages aren't growing relative to GDP and haven't in a long loving time, but not that many people literally have no recourse. Few of us are inherently a statistic. I started posting about the $14 an hour for 40 hours thing to point out that even at that level you can get by with some extra cash, simply to make the case that there are attainable goals that can see you have a good life. It wasn't my intention to get bogged down in the minutiae of that exact figure. $14 an hour is not a goal that should be the end goal of your life plan. It's a poo poo wage, and you can do a lot better than that, particularly when you get more experience and get older and further down your career path. A lot of people arguing with me here are doing better than that, and are just trying to make the case that the most amount of people possible will fail. But if you aren't doing well and don't see a way out, and wallow around in these sorts of talking points, you 100% will fail, which doesn't need to be the case. Take the pell grant and go to community college, and get into a better field. If you've learned everything you're going to learn at your current job, start exploring a lateral move to another company where you can leverage your current income into a higher wage, and have the luxury of being able to turn down the position if it doesn't pay better or offer a significant increase to your future value by giving you more valuable experience. If you live in a city that is getting overtaken by finance and tech sectors, where cost of living is the highest and is only going to get worse, make it a long term goal to leave and go to a place where your dollar will go further. I'm right there with the vast majority of you guys when it comes to the sorts of policies we need to be pushing for when it comes to the social floor and the wage scale, but the reasons why those policies need to come about do not necessitate defeatism. I started off on in manufacturing at $11 an hour with 0 experience and only a high school degree at a lovely shop, pushing a green button and developing few skills. I leveraged that experience into a $14 an hour position in a bigger city that had community colleges, so I was able to work that job while I was going to community college for a relevant certificate. I leveraged that certificate and my additional experience into a position making $21 an hour, with overtime often available, and where I have a ton of freedom to learn. A co-worker 6 or 7 years ahead of me is leveraging his experience at this shop in his job search and is fielding offers in the $30 an hour range. I fully intend to follow suit after my 401k is 100% vested. If I would've just sat at that first poo poo job getting incremental raises from $11 an hour, doing nothing to increase my value, learning nothing, and wallowing in how bad my life was, how hosed up the economy was, and how stupid the government is, my future 40 year old self would probably be making half of what I am actually primed to make when I turn 40. Obviously not everyone can follow my exact trajectory in this field because it would flood the labor market and drive down wages, but there is definitely a surplus of positions relative to the labor force, because people are retiring exponentially faster than new employees are coming in to this industry. There's similar doors elsewhere in different trades if you look for them. Not everyone has the ability, the means, or the freedom to open those doors, and that, and the solutions, are always going to be worth discussing. But things aren't so bad that it's not worth your time to take a step back from the extremely online discourse we have in D&D and honestly ask yourself why YOU can't. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 18:11 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The argument I'm making boils down to "if you are 30 or younger working at a grocery store and not getting by, there are doors open to you to change your situation to one where you are doing well financially." It's getting much harder than it has any right to be because wages aren't growing relative to GDP and haven't in a long loving time, but not that many people literally have no recourse. Few of us are inherently a statistic. I started posting about the $14 an hour for 40 hours thing to point out that even at that level you can get by with some extra cash, simply to make the case that there are attainable goals that can see you have a good life. It wasn't my intention to get bogged down in the minutiae of that exact figure. $14 an hour is not a goal that should be the end goal of your life plan. It's a poo poo wage, and you can do a lot better than that, particularly when you get more experience and get older and further down your career path. A lot of people arguing with me here are doing better than that, and are just trying to make the case that the most amount of people possible will fail. But if you aren't doing well and don't see a way out, and wallow around in these sorts of talking points, you 100% will fail, which doesn't need to be the case. Hey do me a favor will you? When you get back to the mid-1990s please look me up and recommend I start rogaine as soon as the hair loss starts? Thanks a bunch.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
The data doesn't support anything I want to believe so let me fall back on personal anecdotes and bootstraps to avoid analyzing my worldview at all.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
Everyone who is poor could choose not to be poor. Simple.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Having more money statistically leads to less children, not the other way around. you're missing a confounding factor. more education leads to having less children. when you control for education, higher income generally leads to having more children up to a point where it tapers off.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:you're missing a confounding factor. more education leads to having less children. when you control for education, higher income generally leads to having more children up to a point where it tapers off. Does it? Not even arguing, never seen that part before.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Everyone who is poor could choose not to be poor. Simple. Incredibly telling that this isn't even reductio ad absurdum.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I would not argue that working less than 40 hours a week is likely not going to provide someone a comfortable margin over a living wage. But there are plenty of full time positions out there, Citation needed Volkerball posted:and the math still comes out the same if you're working multiple part time jobs that add up to 40 hours a week. Citation needed Volkerball posted:I would argue that a lot of part time employees are either college or high school students, supplemental income to a household, and people with other forms of income (disability, social security, etc), who don't need to or can't work full time (benefits for those who can't is a different discussion) Citation needed Look, I work in Social Services, I know what people make and how much they work, and I've got a basic idea of how Disability works. Everything you've said is just wrong. People often work part-time because that is literally all that's available to them. If they could get a full-time job that pays well enough to not need Medicaid or SNAP, they would take it in a heartbeat. As for your "just get a Pell Grant and go to community college," motherfucker, people still don't make enough money if they have skills. EMT's, nurses, day care workers, cooks: nobody is getting rich from these jobs. And you can't argue that EMT's and nurses don't have valuable skills or serve an important need. This country has a nasty bias against the service industry and loves to praise manufacturing as the be-all and end-all of the economy. "Service" just means people who don't work in manufacturing, like teachers, firemen, etc., not just waiters, store clerks, and line cooks. I'm sure that your expertise in working in a factory makes you an invaluable member of society, but people who do things instead of making things are also important. They shouldn't have abandon their job field to work in a factory instead in order to find decent-paying work.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Dire Lemming posted:It's not bad advice in the sense that having a skill is generally better than not having a skill. However it is bad advice in that you're telling people to spend time learning a skill that will at best only get them what they deserve to be paid anyway and in most cases will have no effect. Pretty much the only people who have a real ability to negotiate their wages in their favour are people with high demand jobs, people who are likely already quite comfortable and don't need the advice. People make points like this and it makes me think they are the ones who believe in a Just World. Why do you believe that what a worker deserves corresponds to absolutely as much as an employer will pay? You wouldn't view any other economic transaction that way. If you personally hire a plumber or a landscaper or whatever else you're not going to volunteer to pay them extra, at least most likely not, just because you happen to have that amount available. You'd probably (again, idk you, but I would hope) quote around and try to keep the price down so that when other things come up for you that require you to spend money, you have more available. I think we'd probably all recognize that as normal and a good practice? Why is it any different when you're receiving the check instead of writing it? Dire Lemming posted:The only thing you can get out of a wage negotiation is what you should be getting in the first place and generally if you refuse an offer you just won't get the job, a company can handle a position being unfilled for far longer than most people can handle being unemployed. The only real leverage you can have on your employer is "you literally can't replace me" which is a rare position to be in and doesn't require great oratory skills to argue. This is true for certain values of true but also wrong and unhelpful. If you're currently employed and you're not a gently caress-up your employer by and large does NOT want to replace you. Not-a-gently caress-up can actually be a hard quality to find. So if you have that quality you have some leverage. Maybe not a lot, depending on exactly what you're doing. But some leverage. Also you might be kind of a gently caress-up but not think you are, so make sure to do a realistic self appraisal. People seem to fall into that trap a lot. But if you're genuinely good you have some leverage to tactfully make demands. The way you do that is first go out and research your other options. Yes, that is some extra work. Yes, you've already worked long and hard and you have a zillion things to do and etc but do it anyway. Once you've found out if there's greener grass somewhere and that it's grass you can actually get to you go to your boss and tactfully tell them you've grown in your job and feel ready for more responsibility (or whatever bullshit. Tact is key) and that you also want more of a role and more money by X amount. Then depending on what they say you either succeed or you bounce. Either way you succeed. D&D would have you believe that this is literally impossible but people do it all the time and people who approach it as part of the game instead of a ridiculous imposition because their employer should just pay them more are going to make more.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:People make points like this and it makes me think they are the ones who believe in a Just World. Why do you believe that what a worker deserves corresponds to absolutely as much as an employer will pay? You wouldn't view any other economic transaction that way. If you personally hire a plumber or a landscaper or whatever else you're not going to volunteer to pay them extra, at least most likely not, just because you happen to have that amount available. You'd probably (again, idk you, but I would hope) quote around and try to keep the price down so that when other things come up for you that require you to spend money, you have more available. I think we'd probably all recognize that as normal and a good practice? Why is it any different when you're receiving the check instead of writing it? You are saying this literally as the operator of a company, and the "skill" you're advocating for is people arguing with you about money. Your position is that if people do not argue well enough you should not have to pay them what they are worth, regardless of whether arguing has anything to do with their actual job. This is an extremely flimsy attempt to shift the burden of paying people properly off your shoulders, as the one with 100% of the power in this situation, onto your prospective employees who are dependent on you, as the capital holder, for their employment, and who are doing you a favour by working for you to enrich you. This is the sole purpose of the "game" as you call it, to obfuscate your role in the process, your responsibility, your choice to underpay people, in service only of a practice which exists to do that.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You are saying this literally as the operator of a company, and the "skill" you're advocating for is people arguing with you about money. Why is someone's labor worth X and and not 0.5*X? If you want to say that a worker should be paid what they're worth then at the very least there has to be some objective way to measure what that is. So what is it, in your opinion?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Why is someone's labor worth X and and not 0.5*X? If you want to say that a worker should be paid what they're worth then at the very least there has to be some objective way to measure what that is. So what is it, in your opinion? How much money do they make you? That's how much they're worth.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 19:52
|
|