There is a meeting of conservative luminaries visiting my city this week, discussing how terrible the liberals are. Prime target is the fact that we still have an income tax in this state, despite neighboring states dropping theirs. They demand that our state should be more Business Friendly.
Dropping taxes is not the only thing we can do, and I am sure they have a list, to make our state more competitive against those evil people in other states. So I thought why waste time dropping tax rates a percent at a time, or dropping minimum wages and child labor laws or removing government oversight one law at a time. Lets beat everyone to the bottom with this--the Most Business Friendly State of Ever!
The 10 Rules to make your state truly Job Friendly.
Rule 1--Each company receives 1 Get Out Of Jail Free card, per year, per 1000 employees.
Rule 2-- Forget the minimum wage--we will have a $15/hr Maximum Wage for all non-salaried employees.
Rule 3-- Employees will take turns, 1 per day, giving their C Level employers back rubs or face mandatory jail time.
Rule 4 -- Pollution effects the lives of individuals, not corporations. Therefore the ones responsible for the clean up of any pollution, or the costs of limiting pollution, should be the people, not the company.
Rule 5 -- The 40 hour work week is the standard and the norm in this great country. So from now on our state will implement the 120 minute hour--hence doubling the productivity and halving the costs of employing our great workers.
Rule 6 -- The reason for and goal of Welfare, Food Stamps, and Health Care for the poor shall be officially stated--To keep a large, healthy, and cheap pool of labor available for Job Providers.
Rule 7 -- The goal of Education in this state shall be the production of useful and trained cheap labor for the job providers--as well as football players for the Job Providers diversion. Unnecessary courses such as critical thinking, history, arts and music shall be available at added expense to the student or their family. Taking such courses will go on your permanent record and are grounds for not being hired.
Rule 8 -- The life of an animal is cheap, the life of an entire species is not worth the profit of a single quarter. If a species is in the way of production, profit, or jobs, no law or legal justification will be allowed to save that species.
Rule 9 -- Religion shall once again find a central place in our schools, government, and laws--making sure that all the people know their place and know that God gives wealth to those God favors, and gives poverty to the evil, the lazy, and the damned.
Rule 10 -- All politicians must conform to the Golden Rule--Those who have the Gold Rule. When in doubt, check with those with the checks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think they already do all this in Texas.
It's a good topic to bring up. Most states aren't competing globally for jobs, or create jobs, they merely fight to take jobs from other states. Companies are laughing their way to the bank as people fight for jobs that are worse and worse while public tax revenue drops, so more public jobs are lost, so services declined.
We're slowly rolling back to the1910's
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Race to... not quite sure but we’re racing there!
The 10 Rules to make your state truly employee friendly
Rule 1 -- Companies are evil by design. Every year a lottery will be held with the names of all C-Level executives and board members. The winner will go to jail for 30 years since we all know they are lying, cheating, scumbags anyway.
Rule 2 -- Even $15 minimum wage isn't a sufficient living wage. Minimum wage is now $25/hour.
Rule 3 -- Banks are the cause of all major problems with the country. All banks will hereby be disbanded and replaced by the Federal Bank of the United States.
Rule 4 -- Corporations are the ones with all the money in this country and should therefore be tasked with fixing all the countries problems. Within 1 year all companies must reduce their carbon footprint to 0 or all C-Level executives and board members will face jail time.
Rule 5 -- We all know that the less hours one works the more productive they are. So to increase productivity of a 40 hour work week we are defining one hour as 30 minutes. Now employees will be twice as productive!
Rule 6 -- Your success is due to gov’t funded schools, roads, and buildings. We ask you just give a little bit back, not much just a little. All income over 1 million dollars will be taxed at 95%.
Rule 7 -- Education is valuable for the sake of education. The earning potential of one field of study over another shall not be mentioned or considered. Children should be encouraged to express themselves through their field of study. Especially if that field is in the liberal arts.
Rule 8 -- Plant and Animal life and comfort is priceless, however since infinity is impractical to work with the relocation of an animal’s habitat shall incur a cost of $100,000 dollars per creature and $50,000 per plant species. Each business shall relocate all plants and animals in the space needed to build any buildings at their own cost on top of the fine per creature/plant species.
Rule 9 -- The word “God” in any language or reference shall be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, all currency, and all public/government buildings. Christmas shall no longer be recognized as a holiday to be replaced by Winter Solstice. Traditional Christmas decorations shall not be allowed in any public space.
Rule 10 -- Affirmative Action is ineffective. All minority applicants must be hired before a white applicant may be considered.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
All snark aside...What exactly do you think those businesses are doing with the money they save on taxes by moving to a new state? Do you have any evidence to support that idea beyond hyperbole and assumption? And here's a very important question you should consider...for what reason should any business give you a job?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Rule 9 -- The word “God” in any language or reference shall be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, all currency, and all public/government buildings.
Yes please.
(I'd be vaguely in favor of renaming the nationally recognized holiday to something generic, but its not something I'd actually care about. Banning the mostly pagan/secular decorations just seems silly.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What exactly do you think those businesses are doing with the money they save on taxes by moving to a new state?
Evidence strongly suggests that they are giving it to their executives.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think they already do all this in Texas.
It's a good topic to bring up. Most states aren't competing globally for jobs, or create jobs, they merely fight to take jobs from other states. Companies are laughing their way to the bank as people fight for jobs that are worse and worse while public tax revenue drops, so more public jobs are lost, so services declined.
We're slowly rolling back to the1910's
Yeah Colorado had its own little microcosmic version of this national theater, the kind where Rick Perry went to other states and said "ur state bad at jobs, come 2 texas, land of lower taxes" and claiming things like that 'every engine manufacturer in the country resides in texas'
in our little mini-version, the Springs liked to hype up its good fiscal governance and lower tax overhead. it would say you'd pay more in a place like Loveland or Boulder or Denver or even Pueblo. Hooray! Some companies sure did go there for the lower regulatory and tax overhead. Of course, at the same time, their bog-standard american fiscal cutting spree resulted in a city where they struggled to afford keeping streetlights on at night (or just started turning them off forever), the roads and bridges are aggressively going to crap, and they didn't even support a firefighting force even remotely sized or qualified to protect them from the fires that ruined whole neighborhoods, and fire teams poured in from the north to try to save their bacon — yes, they were effectively subsidizing their disaster protection from adequately covered counties.
Have they fared well in their little faustian bargain? hahahahaha nope, it's a great place to LEAVE and land values don't react well to roads becoming dungheaps, but at least the meth is plentiful and relatively cheap down there, like it's a little colorado experiment in them emulating the south.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What exactly do you think those businesses are doing with the money they save on taxes by moving to a new state?
Evidence strongly suggests that they are giving it to their executives.
What evidence? Where did you get this evidence? What businesses are doing this? How do you know they aren't using the extra money to expand their operations?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Stiles, I like your list, but mine is a bit more--select. See mine is all about giving corporate interests more than what they want, which is what some Business-Republicans are demanding. You list is more--liberal agenda gone amok.
For example your takes as one of its extreme positions--removing the church from all aspects of the state. Mine does something far worse--it is the forcing of faith to meet the desires of the business elites. Those who want a non-religious state are saying "I am not Christian so why is the state forcing Christian symbols on me." What I portray is much darker. It is, "There is no wall between Church and State and Business. Business rules all."
Or, and Boris-- the proof is the high profits of investors, many C-Level executives, and many big companies and the lack of jobs, growth, or new production they are offering resulting in still high unemployment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What exactly do you think those businesses are doing with the money they save on taxes by moving to a new state?
Evidence strongly suggests that they are giving it to their executives.
What evidence? Where did you get this evidence? What businesses are doing this? How do you know they aren't using the extra money to expand their operations?
Expand their operations where? In the US, because that's very common for the largest corporations today, to expand their operations in the US as much as possible? Or if in the US, to expand their operations in states with lower standards of living, education, life expectancy, and public services?
Because I forgot-the motivating force behind capitalism is enlightened self interest, so the theory goes...and this means that it's somehow unreasonable to suspect high end executives to be lining their own pockets as much as possible...for some reason. I guess. *That* needs to be proven somehow, as though there were proof you would even accept. But your assertion-that they're using these extra bucks only to expand an thus make things better for everyone...well, that's just something we need to take on faith. Right?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What exactly do you think those businesses are doing with the money they save on taxes by moving to a new state?
Evidence strongly suggests that they are giving it to their executives.
What evidence? Where did you get this evidence? What businesses are doing this? How do you know they aren't using the extra money to expand their operations?
Expand their operations where? In the US, because that's very common for the largest corporations today, to expand their operations in the US as much as possible? Or if in the US, to expand their operations in states with lower standards of living, education, life expectancy, and public services?
Because I forgot-the motivating force behind capitalism is enlightened self interest, so the theory goes...and this means that it's somehow unreasonable to suspect high end executives to be lining their own pockets as much as possible...for some reason. I guess. *That* needs to be proven somehow, as though there were proof you would even accept. But your assertion-that they're using these extra bucks only to expand an thus make things better for everyone...well, that's just something we need to take on faith. Right?
I'd appreciate it if you would not start responses to me with snark and attitude when I'm being completely reasonable and doing nothing more than asking questions in this thread. I asked some simple questions. If you can't answer them with facts or objective evidence to support your view, rather than hyperbole and attitude, please refrain from commenting.
There are more businesses out there than the large megacorporations that you're talking about. There are smaller businesses that are competing for customers, building themselves to be able to handle more customers, and doing other things that smaller businesses do.
It costs money to increase a company's business potential. It costs money for marketing, inventory, office space, electricity, equipment, IT infrastructure, not to mention employee pay and benefits. Every time a company makes an attempt to expand, they take a major risk that can take them from being profitable to being completely bankrupt in no time.
But no one has even tried to answer the really important question. Why should any company give you a job? For what reason should business owners give you more pay? Why do you deserve to get more money for the work you do?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Darth Mauve,
Yeah I got side tracked on a couple of them. I think most of stayed on task with what is being demanded of businesses.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:But no one has even tried to answer the really important question. Why should any company give you a job? For what reason should business owners give you more pay? Why do you deserve to get more money for the work you do?
Why is this question relevant?
Hobbes Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
There is something to be said about taxes. I have a client that recently moved their entire operation from California to Las Vegas. Their primary reason for moving was because Nevada is more business friendly when it comes to taxes. They let all of their employees keep their jobs, and the three employees who chose to stay in California are provided air fare, hotel rooms, and rental cars during the work week so they can come to the office in Vegas to work.
Since moving to Las Vegas, they have gone from 23 employees to 46, and are busy expanding their office since they are growing at such a rapid pace. All of their employees are very well paid, (I believe the receptionist is the lowest paid employee at $17 / hour) and they told me they can afford to pay so well because they do not have the high tax burden they did in California.
We are starting to see a lot of businesses move from California to Las Vegas to escape the massive tax burdens. Take-Two Interactive is another company that just moved their entire QA operation to Las Vegas. They were able to create an extra 150 jobs due to the lower tax burden.
California has an 8.8% tax rate, compared to Nevada's 0%. Even Apple has seen the benefit of a lower tax rate, and is opening a new data center in Reno that sits on 345 acres of land.
Generalizing all companies and their CEO's by saying that they are all money grubbing, power hungry, jerks is not fair. There ARE companies who care about their employees and want them taken care of. I think the majority of businesses want what is best for their employees. Many companies that open branches or move their their businesses to lower tax states don't always squander the savings - They reinvest it in their employees and their business. I'm not saying that is always the case, I know there are businesses that take advantage and scummy CEO's as well. There good ones too!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The Apple data center probably only employs a handful of people and does not generate any revenue. It's more likely they put it in NV because it was cheap land and could support their plans for solar power than for any tax reasons.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:But no one has even tried to answer the really important question. Why should any company give you a job? For what reason should business owners give you more pay? Why do you deserve to get more money for the work you do?
Why is this question relevant?
Hobbes
How isn't it relevant? Inside every complaint that executives make too much or are crapping on their employees or whatever is an assumption that those employees somehow *deserve* to be making more money than they do now, but no one seems to be able to give a reason for that belief other than just because. Why? Why should you be making more money than you are?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm absolutely fine believing there are good ones, too. The problem I personally run into, and when I start rolling my eyes, is when it's proposed that it's a general good rule of thumb that 'companies want what's best for their employees'. It sounds very nice but it's actually a complicated constant negotiation of limited resources, and it simply doesn't stand to reason that 'what's best for their employees' is going to be the primary concern for nearly anyone-because that would be sacrificing some of 'what's best for the company', and operating at a disadvantage with respect to those who would be keeping that at the front.
What I would be much more amenable to, much less dismissive of, is if it were said 'I believe most companies aren't out to screw their employees'. It would have the advantage of probably being true, as well as not romanticizing business..,unless someone, somewhere, can find me a company started with founding vision of 'helping our employees'.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
How would you set employee salary, Boris?
I'm employed by a very large company: about 30,000 employees in total. If I was the executive and I wanted to line my pockets a bit, I could scrape about $33 from everyone's salary and give myself a million dollar bonus. What are the consequences for me if I do so? The company is employee owned, but the executives and board own enough stock to make the typical employee's vote meaningless so we can't wield power that way. So what's the recourse? We can quit of course. But is that reasonable? Changing jobs is not an easy or cheap thing to do, would you quit for $33 taken from your salary? Do you think it's fair if the CEO were to do this?
And what's actually happened is much more sinister. We weren't all docked $33 a year, we had our benefits slashed. I, a single man with no dependents and the lowest allowed health-care options (and thus least impacted) am now charged about $50 a month more. The excuse given was poor decision making up top and Obama care (a year and a half before it's enacted so that's a pretty ballsy claim). Yet some how the executives making these decisions get raises and massive bonuses while we get cuts. I'm afraid someone will have to explain to me why that's reasonable before I explain why I think I didn't deserve to have my benefits cut.
And in our current system: what are the consequences for them for acting this way? Do you think that's moral?
Hobbes Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why should you be making more money than you are?
Me? I shouldn't. I make plenty. But in general I don't believe that the market is the best way to decide this because the market doesn't care about obviously horrible extremes.
If the market is such that a huge number of people are looking for work then corporations have the power to pay very little to hire people meaning that a lot of people will be on subsistence salaries or below regardless of the profitability of their employer. And indeed this is currently happening. A huge number of the new jobs in the last few years are low paying and part-time despite record levels of corporate profits.
Is this a desirable state - a shrinking group of elites with an extraordinary share of total wealth and a growing group of people that barely get by with growing gap between those two extremes? That's what's been happening for the past couple decades. So while I'm doing just fine, there are plenty of people who should be paid more just because the alternative is an unhealthy and unnecessary class divide.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: How would you set employee salary, Boris?
I'm employed by a very large company: about 30,000 employees in total. If I was the executive and I wanted to line my pockets a bit, I could scrape about $33 from everyone's salary and give myself a million dollar bonus.
Actually, you could probably line it with more than that, since you wouldn't have to do payroll taxes for a million dollars worth of employee pay.
quote: What are the consequences for me if I do so?
You have significantly decreased employee moral, and risk losing skilled employees to a competitor, who then can provide your competitor with information about your operations, weaknesses, etc.
quote: So what's the recourse? We can quit of course. But is that reasonable? Changing jobs is not an easy or cheap thing to do, would you quit for $33 taken from your salary?
I would start looking for another job, personally. But you're assuming that losing employees is free. A long time employee is always going to be more efficient at a job than a new employee. The costs in revenue, efficiency, and employee cohesiveness are significantly greater than you might imagine. Every time someone leaves a company, they take vital knowledge, information, and skills with them. Smart executives know this and will usually refrain from cutting employee pay just to line their pockets. Suggesting that *any* company does this as a matter of course without evidence to support is ignorance.
quote: I'm afraid someone will have to explain to me why that's reasonable before I explain why I think I didn't deserve to have my benefits cut.
Earlier in your post you suggested that it would be wrong for someone to cut your pay to line their pockets. You also mentioned that you have an option to leave if you want to in response to that cut. What do you think would happen if your company failed to maintain the pay of the executives that run the company? Considering those individuals probably have a much more intimate understanding of the business than you do, probably have extremely unique skill sets, and an executive moving to a competitor could result in significant losses for the company you work for...who do you think the business is going to focus its funds on? After all, executives are still people who can still make choices. In fact, their choices have a much bigger impact on the business than yours do.
But there's something you're ignoring here. The fact that you've basically stated that it's wrong to take money out of your pocket to line the pockets of an executive, but you're demanding you take money from the executive's pocket to line yours. But you haven't given a justification for this beyond "They can afford for me to do that." How is *that* morally acceptable?
quote: in our current system: what are the consequences for them for acting this way? Do you think that's moral?
As I mentioned, the consequences are losses to employee motivation and efficiency. Not to mention that stressed employees are usually not as good at their jobs. The consequences are not immediate, but they most certainly exist. Product quality drops, efficiency drops, eventually the company runs into a situation where those decisions to make cuts cost them more than they saved. Those things are most definitely consequences.
quote: ,unless someone, somewhere, can find me a company started with founding vision of 'helping our employees'.
Google?
[ September 26, 2013, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And in our current system: what are the consequences for them for acting this way?
A pretty large pool, an aston martin, and a couple of trips to Moorea
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Inside every complaint that executives make too much or are crapping on their employees or whatever is an assumption that those employees somehow *deserve* to be making more money than they do now, but no one seems to be able to give a reason for that belief other than just because. Why?
Because they do indeed deserve to make more money. Because executives make too much and do too little and do not contribute to the bottom lines of their companies or the quality of the products produced by those companies, whereas the laborers actually making things and providing services are grossly underpaid as a percentage of capital moved; large business in particular has become an exercise in moving capital from one shell to another and skimming off a bit every time it moves, and the actual production of the company is neither rewarded nor recognized.
-------
quote:You have significantly decreased employee moral, and risk losing skilled employees to a competitor, who then can provide your competitor with information about your operations, weaknesses, etc.
I think you grossly overestimate the mobility of the modern workforce and the perceived effects of a single $33 reduction in pay.
-------
quote:Smart executives know this and will usually refrain from cutting employee pay just to line their pockets.
The idea that we hire and reward executives for being smart -- or at least smart and actually invested in the success of their companies -- is amusing to me in its naivete.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Even supposing that Google's *primary*, founding motive was 'to help our employees'...a rather large assumption to make...what, Google is a model of standard corporate behavior?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What exactly do you think those businesses are doing with the money they save on taxes by moving to a new state?
Evidence strongly suggests that they are giving it to their executives.
"Strongly suggests," is a little mealy-mouthed. "Positively confirms," might be more appropriate.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Boris, apart from totally skipping over the relevant parts of my post: you seem to be unable to grasp the concept that just because we're operating in an economy that's based on free market ideals, that doesn't mean that all employee's salaries are set by free market principles. Your response to me having my benefits raided so that those who have been losing the company money can make six-figure bonuses is that they deserve that amount of money for the simple reason that they're higher-up the company food-chain. Apart from the ridiculousness of this assertion, let me ask you: why do you think they should make so much more than the bottom-line worker to being with?
And before you respond with "they know more" or "have a more unique skill set", remember that if you start defending that pay disparity with actual, monetary value they bring to the company: that opens up doing the same in reverse. And since, in my company, the low-line engineers both produce the revenue-generating product and sell, negotiate, plan and deliver that product, this will put you in a very weak position. The only substantial contribution that has impacted my regional office in the last 10 years that didn't come from my regional office was a series of directives that ended up costing us tens of millions of dollars. For which the executives in charge got bonuses.
It isn't free market setting pay because these people are setting their own salary. And as your response admits: they can set as high as they want it until the employees are so fed up that they abandon ship. Imagine you have a house, a spouse and kids and they all depend on you (and have presumably all put down roots where you live, as have you). Now tell me what you think it will take to convince you to quite your job? From experience, executives taking away over $50 a month in benefits to pad their own pockets while they decrease the companies value isn't enough to make anyone leave.
That is not efficient markets at work.
Hobbes
[ September 27, 2013, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Furthermore, it is not the worker who should have to justify their pay, it is the executive who should have to be able to justify their incredible rise in pay.
Hobbes Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Justify to whom? If the owner shouldn't be able to set his or her own pay, who should?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If we're talking about publicly traded corporations, then shareholders are the owners, not the CEOs or the Board of Directors.
We're not really talking about Ma and Pa Grocery store tyoe businesses.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Hobbes said that the executives set their own pay. So, therefore, it must be a private business.
If it's a publicly-traded corporation, as you said, the shareholders set the executive pay. Not the executives.
In either case, the owners of the business set the pay (at all levels). I'm not exactly sure what the objection is. Who would you like to set it?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Hobbes said that the executives set their own pay. So, therefore, it must be a private business.
That's not true. The board members set pay and the board generally includes the highest level executives. Shareholders have some voting rights in aggregate but do not directly set pay.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Yeah, exactly, MattP.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Just to clarify, the executives are on the board, but they are not the board. The majority shareholders constitute most of the board. If they aren't happy with the executive pay, they can change the pay or the executive. Shareholders who aren't happy with the executive and/or his/her pay can sell their shares.
It's not fair that executives get paid so much (maybe, probably). It's not fair that a whole lot of other people get paid so much either. But any system that tries to enforce its sense of fairness on others is only going to make things worse. That is, for example, how we got ourselves in our current health care insurance mess. Or how executive pay is such a bizarre mix of bonuses and etc.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Just to clarify, the executives are on the board, but they are not the board. The majority shareholders constitute most of the board. If they aren't happy with the executive pay, they can change the pay or the executive. Shareholders who aren't happy with the executive and/or his/her pay can sell their shares.
It's not fair that executives get paid so much (maybe, probably). It's not fair that a whole lot of other people get paid so much either. But any system that tries to enforce its sense of fairness on others is only going to make things worse. That is, for example, how we got ourselves in our current health care insurance mess. Or how executive pay is such a bizarre mix of bonuses and etc.
The largest shareholders, and therefore the ones who will pass the 'vote' are generally Executives themselves. Whether they are on their own board or at another company is really immaterial. They're pretty round-robin. There are many executives that are large shareholders/board members for other corporations. Why would they vote to lower their pay, or their friends pay, or not buy the stock?
The common stock investor (Me) doesn't have any power to change what the executives get paid. Sure I could 'not invest' and therefore only take the money I make and put it in a savings account. But that's not going to get a very large return. Also my low amount of shares is never going to add up to anything 'meaningful' to the corporation. I can also guarantee there is about Zero chance I can convince 1,000,000+ 'little people' to get together and force a chance in executive pay.
The argument that "Common Shareholders" hold the blame for ballooning executive pay is asinine.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
'The argument that "Common Shareholders" hold the blame for ballooning executive pay is asinine."' Absolutely agree. But who should care about executive pay but the shareholders? It doesn't affect anyone else. So if it is really important to you that a company has low executive pay, then find a company that pays their executives less. If enough shareholders do that, especially the bigger ones, then executive pay should go down.
I suspect, however, that what will happen is that the company that has lower executive pay (or probably, actually, lower executive compensation as a whole), will not be able to attract top talent. And therefore, will suffer.
As for the argument that the largest shareholders are the executives, I really don't know if that is true or not. But let's assume for a moment that it is. Ok, then if they are the largest shareholders, then they should be able to set their salaries. Right?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the executives are on the board, but they are not the board
No, but their friends are on the board, and they are on the boards that determine their friends' pay.
quote:But who should care about executive pay but the shareholders? It doesn't affect anyone else.
It affects everyone else at that company, who is being paid less for their work. On a broader scale, it also affects the entire country by creating a ruling class of insulated, insular, and altogether stupid royalty.
quote:I suspect, however, that what will happen is that the company that has lower executive pay (or probably, actually, lower executive compensation as a whole), will not be able to attract top talent. And therefore, will suffer.
This is the argument frequently used by executives and boards to justify grossly exorbitant executive pay. But no study anywhere has ever found anything but a negative correlation between executive compensation and corporate performance.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What would happen if we tried to actually do a breakdown of the value each employee adds or subtracts from his company?
That doesn't seem to be how we currently value work. Especially in a poor economy, companies have all the power in the world to reduce wages because the value of their work is irrelevant when they are easily replaceable. There's clearly a disconnect between the value of work and compensation for work, or the people who actually form the cogs in the machine would make more.
That's why the strike (and in times past the boycott) is the most powerful weapon a worker will ever have, and why attempts to erode the power of the strike are so incredibly damaging. All a person has is her or her labor.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Lyr, how do you figure the value of someone's work is unrelated to how replaceable they are?
Isn't there a relationship there?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Lyr, how do you figure the value of someone's work is unrelated to how replaceable they are?
Isn't there a relationship there?
A person could be doing very valuable work, but there could also be thousands of equally capable people out there that are unemployed or underemployed and thus are easily replaceable.
A specialist doctor and foremost expert in his field does valuable work and may very well be irreplaceable while a delivery driver for a profitable medical supply company is also doing valuable work but could be replaced quite easily.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Lyr, how do you figure the value of someone's work is unrelated to how replaceable they are?
Isn't there a relationship there?
You may want to reread my post. There IS a relationship, but it's a negative one. My argument is that there's not a fair relationship between the value of a person's work and their COMPENSATION, because their replaceability puts severe downward pressure on their wages.
Workers are not paid with respect to the level of value they add to a company. But higher level executives are paid more disproportionate to the level of value they add or subtract from a company, when the quality of their work seems to play little value in compensation valuation. They can run a company into the ground and still get paid a princely sum. I'm rarely convinced that the work of these higher level executives isn't easily replaceable as well. Perhaps not as much as a line worker, but they aren't one of a kind.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:But no one has even tried to answer the really important question. Why should any company give you a job? For what reason should business owners give you more pay? Why do you deserve to get more money for the work you do?
Why is this question relevant?
Hobbes
How isn't it relevant? Inside every complaint that executives make too much or are crapping on their employees or whatever is an assumption that those employees somehow *deserve* to be making more money than they do now, but no one seems to be able to give a reason for that belief other than just because. Why? Why should you be making more money than you are?
Because if they don't, they'll hang from the inoperable street lamps with piano wire made in china?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Top left.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Lyr, how do you figure the value of someone's work is unrelated to how replaceable they are?
Isn't there a relationship there?
You may want to reread my post. There IS a relationship, but it's a negative one. My argument is that there's not a fair relationship between the value of a person's work and their COMPENSATION, because their replaceability puts severe downward pressure on their wages.
Workers are not paid with respect to the level of value they add to a company. But higher level executives are paid more disproportionate to the level of value they add or subtract from a company, when the quality of their work seems to play little value in compensation valuation. They can run a company into the ground and still get paid a princely sum. I'm rarely convinced that the work of these higher level executives isn't easily replaceable as well. Perhaps not as much as a line worker, but they aren't one of a kind.
No, you sidestepped my question. Forget execs for a second, lets focus on the people you think are being paid less than the value they bring because they are replaceable.
So you don't think that being easily replaceable is a reflection of the lower value of your work. But this is false on the face of things.
If you are readily replaceable, because anyone could do your job, because it is a low skill job, then you don't get special credit just because the work you're doing brings in a lot money. Your labor, personally, isn't what's worth a lot of money, the company your work for is.
If your job is to watch a machine and press a red button when you see a red light, and in so doing you ensure the machine makes the company ten million dollars a day, you aren't actually providing ten million in value to the company. You're providing whatever amount is reasonable to pay someone to sit there and watch for a light.
If failure to push the light would result in their losing that money, then sure they're likely to pay you more than the company whose red light machine only brings in a thousand bucks a day... But still only enough as is needed to find a largely incompetent person who isn't colorblind and can be entrusted with this task.
To say that you're being underpaid because your job makes money for the company is asinine. You're easily replaceable. Anyone could make that money for the company. Why pay you much?
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Lyr, how do you figure the value of someone's work is unrelated to how replaceable they are?
Isn't there a relationship there?
A person could be doing very valuable work, but there could also be thousands of equally capable people out there that are unemployed or underemployed and thus are easily replaceable.
A specialist doctor and foremost expert in his field does valuable work and may very well be irreplaceable while a delivery driver for a profitable medical supply company is also doing valuable work but could be replaced quite easily.
Right. So the delivery driver is less valuable to his company.
This is just baffling. What do you guys think value means? Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't sidestep your question, I answered it directly.
Why do you think people should not be paid with consideration to how much value they create for a company? What's to stop us from valuing labor that way, and what problems do you see with that?
And, for that matter, if you don't believe compensation should be tied to value, then I suppose you would support cutting CEO pay by like 90%? Or do you think they should get paid whatever since it doesn't matter if they actually are successful or if they drive a company into the ground?
I do in fact think that replaceability should play a role in compensation. Just not to the extreme it currently does. I also believe in putting a floor under a certain standard of living, and I think that makes society as a whole more wealthy, raises everyone's standard of living, and in general makes things better.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Why do you think people should not be paid with consideration to how much value they create for a company?
Because, firstly, how do you measure it? You can't. You can make up a bunch of just-so stories; that's not the same thing.
Secondly, suppose you have a company of three people. The company makes, let's say, 3 million a year. If any one of the three employees were not there, the company would fail and make 0 a year. Clearly, therefore, each of the three employees is "creating" three million dollars; and the total wages paid by the company should therefore be nine million. Right? I trust you see the problem.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Why do you think people should not be paid with consideration to how much value they create for a company?
Because, firstly, how do you measure it? You can't. You can make up a bunch of just-so stories; that's not the same thing.
Secondly, suppose you have a company of three people. The company makes, let's say, 3 million a year. If any one of the three employees were not there, the company would fail and make 0 a year. Clearly, therefore, each of the three employees is "creating" three million dollars; and the total wages paid by the company should therefore be nine million. Right? I trust you see the problem.
Why would each of them be creating three million and not take a share? Even if I grant you your point, that really doesn't make any sense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think perhaps he means that, because the absence of any means total failure-so in a sense, at least by some economic thinking, each are responsible for making $3m. If that's what he means, it does make sense to me, although it required a conscious shifting of my American thinking for a moment.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
How can their contributed value be greater than the sum total of value created? If each of them is equally necessary to create the three million, then each has an equal share in the three million. They each get a third.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Right. So the delivery driver is less valuable to his company.
This is just baffling. What do you guys think value means?
I suspect what they mean is to strip away some of the moralizing that's usually (in the US) attached to these sorts of questions. The traditional American line goes, an employer will pay a fair wage based on the value an employee brings to the company. Which is technically true, but it's also incomplete. The delivery driver's services are vital to the company's success-but he is more easily replaced, which leads to the second component of the true and often ignored economic adage-that an employer will compensate an employee based on the value they bring and at the lowest level they can get away with to maintain and improve their business.
That second part doesn't get talked about much-the Invisible Hand is morphed into not just a competitive, evolutionary influence but somehow a morally just one as well when it seems to me that it's entirely separate from questions of morality.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's absolutely nothing moral or fair about how a free market economy works. The only morality and fairness are that which we inject into it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
KoM was using your metic, Lyr. Without any one of them, the company loses three million. So they're worth three million each, aren't they?
Anyway...
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I didn't sidestep your question, I answered it directly.
Why do you think people should not be paid with consideration to how much value they create for a company? What's to stop us from valuing labor that way, and what problems do you see with that?
If someone wants to do it, sure. I'm not saying it's somehow anathema. But.... What's the argument for why it is a good method? Why isn't it the norm? Why does it make more sense than paying people based on how much value that individual person brings? That would, necessarily, include a realistic assessment of whether or not they are replaceable. If they are, their individual contribution is definitionally less.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And, for that matter, if you don't believe compensation should be tied to value, then I suppose you would support cutting CEO pay by like 90%? Or do you think they should get paid whatever since it doesn't matter if they actually are successful or if they drive a company into the ground?
Sure. I'm not stopping any company from doing that. So... Why aren't they? What's the advantage of doing so?
Do you think you're in a good position to dictate the pay of people at companies you have no stake in? Why?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The free market is basically warmed over rational egoism. When a corporation or private business owner is confronted with an opportunity to profit, no matter how small the profit and no matter how great the humanitarian cost of their practice, the right decision is whatever the hell they decide to do for their next Maserati. Even if I'm dicking over hundreds of millions of people and leaving the economy a complete wreck for the entire next generation of people just to secure myself a slightly more posh retirement, even if I am doing so cruelly and callously and with full and complete knowledge of the outcome for the world, the 'moral and fair' decision is whatever I choose for me, and any system that would keep a person or a collective of aggregated large corporate powers from being able to fleece the world into poverty for the benefit of an excruciatingly tiny percentage of already advantaged is immoral and unfair.
It's seriously a system in which it's Moral for me to open up a store selling every hard drug in existence across the street from a school but Immoral to pass a law saying even that I should not be allowed to sell to the 5th graders or lower (which would require at least carding them, you filthy regulation-imposing statists)
I seriously wish there was a way to peer into universes where copies of earth are allowed to test-run inane crap like the Free Market just so that we could watch the result and go "haha wow, turns out it really was exactly as conceited and implausible an idea as it seemed! lol!"
we will never have the opportunity because even though this world has been dumb enough to try things like communism we at least have the barest minimum of good sense necessary to have prevented any country from trying out a free market, so all the strapping lil' freemarketeers of this world can idolize the system without ever having to face down or discuss any real life analogue demonstrating the failure of the theory when put into practice, like the communists do.
All this is profoundly relevant to when we are living in the real world where we haven't decided that the value of an executive is whatever they would be able to take for themselves if the system wasn't constraining them and/or what they get away with in today's system.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan_Frank -
quote:KoM was using your metic, Lyr. Without any one of them, the company loses three million. So they're worth three million each, aren't they?
That's certainly not a metric I established. Even if you're putting somewhat loose or arbitrary values on what someone contributes to a company that value can't exceed the actual sum total the company is worth. So no, they are not each worth three million, but if they all bring equal value to the table, then they're each worth an equal portion of what is available. So they're each worth a million. I think you have to engage in a fair amount of reductio ad absurdum to get from my point to his.
quote:Sure. I'm not stopping any company from doing that. So... Why aren't they? What's the advantage of doing so?
Because they're greedy and they don't have to.
If you can set your own pay, why wouldn't you set it as high as humanly possible? And why would you want to pay your workers more when you don't have to?
Why give away money you don't absolutely have to give away, especially when you live in a society where you've conditioned people to be thankful whatever small bit of remuneration for their service you deign to give them? Just fire them and let someone else do the job for the lowest possible wage. It doesn't even matter if they die, really, someone will replace them, and someone will replace that one. Any restrictions placed upon such a system are done for moral reasons from an outside force, such as a government regulation imposing a minimum wage. But without those forces? It doesn't matter if they die, if they can afford food, shelter or clothing, or any of that. That's their problem. And human beings in a very poor society will actually fight each other even to sustain THAT poor standard of living. Because living in a hovel with tattered clothes and scraps of wilted lettuce to eat is still better than the guy who no hovel, who is naked and starving. And that's what it takes to totally maximize profits for the few.
The advantage of paying people more is twofold. 1. More money in the hands of regular people is circulated more and creates more wealth for everyone, including that company. 2. It's the moral thing to do.
The first force might get a company to alter their behavior, as in the case of Henry Ford, who certainly didn't do it to be a nice guy. He did it to control people's lives by dictating their behavior to an extreme degree and he did it to gain them as customers.
The second force must be applied externally. The bottom line has no allowances for morality. We must enforce it as a society.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
We have a good test case for an unregulated free market.
It's called China.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Unsurprisingly, it's showing us what we would expect of a free market under spotty, limited regulation: rampant corruption, public health problems, rampant pollution, quickly amassed fortunes, brisk growth, questions about its long-term sustainability...
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Unsurprisingly, it's showing us what we would expect of a free market under spotty, limited regulation: rampant corruption, public health problems, rampant pollution, quickly amassed fortunes, brisk growth, questions about its long-term sustainability...
So in other words, early industrial America. Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
I honestly could care less what "Executives" make as long as their employees are getting a living wage, and not having to live on food stamps, etc.
They should also have health coverage and other basic necessities. BEFORE the Executives get their "Top talent pay" ...
Example: Wal-mart.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's more or less where I'm at too. Targeting CEO pay is useless if you don't also fix pay at the lower end of the scale.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
china isn't an unregulated free market. it's a "free" market regulated and commanded by an autocratic one-party state and forced to abide by an increasingly kleptocratic maze of favoritism and nepotism and service of the party.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Industrial America wasn't a free market either. It was controlled by a cabal of business tycoons.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: How can their contributed value be greater than the sum total of value created? If each of them is equally necessary to create the three million, then each has an equal share in the three million. They each get a third.
Ok. Now, what if it's the case that Alice and Beatrice are genuinely that important to the company, but Charlene isn't so crucial as all that? If Charlene quits, the company revenue dips until they can hire Darla; so they make 2.5 million that year instead of three million. Now, how much should Charlene and Darla be paid?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Wait, KoM, not so fast.
Are the three individuals necessary for the three million, or are their roles necessary for it?
Alice is the engineer who came up with the design for the Improved Widget and knows how to make them. Beatrice is the marketing person who acquires the startup capital for the venture and maintains the relationships with investors and clients. Charlene is the delivery driver who ensures the Improved Widgets make it to those clients. .
Without any one of them their entire revenue is lost. So they all share it equally? Even though each of them have very different individual value to the company? Why?
What is the argument for this sort of system? I'm still not getting how anyone can genuinely think this is reasonable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think we're in danger of losing the principle by quibbling over the details.
We agree that large modern corporations pay their executives too much, yes, and that this pay does not correspond to executive performance or direct value to the company?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Industrial America wasn't a free market either. It was controlled by a cabal of business tycoons.
It was controlled by a brutally overbearing regulatory state enforced by laughably corrupt government officials.
I'm always really baffled by conservatives and leftists who view the industrial revolution as a wonderful/terrible example of a more free market. It wasn't more free than ours. Some areas were. Many more weren't. The government backed cartels, the so-ridiculous-they're-hard-to-believe railroad regulations, the lack of basic rights for all citizens... Things are unequivocally better, and more free, today.
It's bizarre that this is a myth both sides largely accept. I guess it serves their respective purposes well and that's their primary concern.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think you're missing the part where it wasn't government that got that ball rolling, it was those cartels themselves-the point of that 'myth' is that that's what *happens* in an unrestrained or even limited-restrained free market.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think we're in danger of losing the principle by quibbling over the details.
We agree that large modern corporations pay their executives too much, yes, and that this pay does not correspond to executive performance or direct value to the company?
Eh. I think the example is interesting. I'd like to see what Lyr thinks. Anyway, as to your question...
I'm confident that many people might be paid too much for the work they do, at every level of income. Different reasons. At low wage levels, despite what some people have said here, I think most companies tend to set any given wage low enough to get a reasonable profit margin, and not worry much if the particular person they hired would be willing to work for less. Especially in mass employment situations. Same way they typically set prices of goods high enough to get a decent profit margin and not worry if maybe a significant subset of customers would happily pay more. These things are often not extremely precise.
At the high end I wouldn't be surprised if many CEOs were also overpaid, for different reasons.
But in both cases... So what? Why is it our problem or responsibility to screw with what free people consent to?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Industrial America wasn't a free market either. It was controlled by a cabal of business tycoons.
It was controlled by a brutally overbearing regulatory state enforced by laughably corrupt government officials.
I'm always really baffled by conservatives and leftists who view the industrial revolution as a wonderful/terrible example of a more free market. It wasn't more free than ours. Some areas were. Many more weren't. The government backed cartels, the so-ridiculous-they're-hard-to-believe railroad regulations, the lack of basic rights for all citizens... Things are unequivocally better, and more free, today.
It's bizarre that this is a myth both sides largely accept. I guess it serves their respective purposes well and that's their primary concern.
It was a nightmare for workers and a time of historic inequality unrivaled by any period except what we're approaching today. "Brutal regulatory state" seems melodramatic for the railroads considering all the giveaways they got from the government.
And it doesn't at all reflect the relationship between big business and government in most major industrial areas.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think the example is interesting. I'd like to see what Lyr thinks.
I don't think the example is interesting, because I think a huge reason for the pay disparity is that executives do not think of their line workers as peers, or even coworkers; they think of them as obstacles to perfect productivity, necessary labor devices that, in an ideal world, could be eliminated. In our hypothetical three-person company, this is less likely to happen -- although if either Alice or Beatrice is a sociopath, they might well recognize that they can optimize personal profit by not rehiring the third position.
quote: Why is it our problem or responsibility to screw with what free people consent to?
Because protecting free people from the consequences of "consent" under duress -- which is basically what low-level employment is, Dan -- is one of the functions of society.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: although if either Alice or Beatrice is a sociopath, they might well recognize that they can optimize personal profit by not rehiring the third position.
No; the 2.5 million is contingent on hiring Darla as soon as possible. If they don't hire anyone, the company collapses and profit goes to zero.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think the example is interesting. I'd like to see what Lyr thinks.
I don't think the example is interesting, because I think a huge reason for the pay disparity is that executives do not think of their line workers as peers, or even coworkers; they think of them as obstacles to perfect productivity, necessary labor devices that, in an ideal world, could be eliminated.
Well, yeah. That's an accurate description of most low-skill jobs. As society improves, these jobs have been and will be replaced by automation. The best jobs are the ones that can't be automated, and require human creativity. Is this a controversial idea?
But the idea that executives dehumanize their employees to this extent, that they think of them as if the job has already been automated, is silly. Is there some evidence of this?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Why is it our problem or responsibility to screw with what free people consent to?
Because protecting free people from the consequences of "consent" under duress -- which is basically what low-level employment is, Dan -- is one of the functions of society.
I don't agree at all. Instead of just asserting that low-level employment is not real consent, could you offer an argument for why that might be the case? Because I've never seen an argument for this that wasn't seriously flawed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Because the alternative is to not work and die of starvation. You are compelled to take what is offered to survive. It's not a free choice unless choosing to die is something we consider to be a viable choice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Or, you know, malnutrition, suffering, terrible schools for one's children as well. But I expect the free market philosophy will pivot back to 'become more employable'.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Because the alternative is to not work and die of starvation. You are compelled to take what is offered to survive. It's not a free choice unless choosing to die is something we consider to be a viable choice.
It's not as though people in this country are in constant threat of starvation. Chrissake, you're talking about a place where the big health epidemic among the very poor is that they get too many calories for too cheap and their lives don't require enough exhausting physical labor.
Even if starvation was an actual concern here, it's also not as if there's just one factory you can either work at or die. Not all low-skill, low-wage jobs are the same. You have options.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The best jobs are the ones that can't be automated, and require human creativity. Is this a controversial idea?
Not at all. But are we now positing that people should have only the best jobs?
quote:But the idea that executives dehumanize their employees to this extent, that they think of them as if the job has already been automated, is silly. Is there some evidence of this?
It seems to me, based on both the executives I have known and the ample statistical evidence out there, that either this is true or most executives are sociopaths.
quote:Not all low-skill, low-wage jobs are the same. You have options.
Like...? Bear in mind that executives are strongly incentivized to make all low-skill, low-wage jobs the same, since as you've noted the replacement cost of workers is largely incidental. Actually caring about these employees is a luxury that corporate thinking has been trained to believe it cannot afford.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The best jobs are the ones that can't be automated, and require human creativity. Is this a controversial idea?
Not at all. But are we now positing that people should have only the best jobs?
Well... yes. Or at least, that should be their goal.
You're in IT, Tom, aren't you? So I suspect you may be familiar with the idea of figuring out how to automate yourself out of a job. That's a good thing! And it requires improving your skillset and value to the company, so it doesn't typically result in you getting canned.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But the idea that executives dehumanize their employees to this extent, that they think of them as if the job has already been automated, is silly. Is there some evidence of this?
It seems to me, based on both the executives I have known and the ample statistical evidence out there, that either this is true or most executives are sociopaths.
Since I don't share your anecdotes, what's an example of the statistical evidence you're referring to?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Not all low-skill, low-wage jobs are the same. You have options.
Like...? Bear in mind that executives are strongly incentivized to make all low-skill, low-wage jobs the same, since as you've noted the replacement cost of workers is largely incidental. Actually caring about these employees is a luxury that corporate thinking has been trained to believe it cannot afford.
I noted that they often pay the same. The jobs themselves aren't the same. They have different requirements, different perks, and teach different skills.
Working your way up Wal-Mart is different than working your way up a fast-food joint, or a pet-store. They are different in significant ways, especially if you approach them with some of that human creativity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Or at least, that should be their goal.
So on one hand we shouldn't be telling free people how much to pay other ostensibly free people, but we should be telling them to pass up paying work in favor of jobs with more self-determination?
quote:what's an example of the statistical evidence you're referring to
I'll actually refer you to any study of corporate pay structures since the late '80s. Concern for employees is clearly not a priority; nor do I find it credible that someone making 300x the income of another individual -- who is contingent upon the other's whims for his entire pitiable livelihood -- considers the latter a peer.
quote:The jobs themselves aren't the same. They have different requirements, different perks, and teach different skills.
I have absolutely no idea why you find the idea that some people might pick a path with a slightly better prospect and thus win what amounts to a real-life game of Chutes and Ladders to be redemptive of the joke that is our myth of personal responsibility.
I also think it's horribly irresponsible of you to suggest that people consider working their way up Wal-Mart, pet stores, or fast food chains. Hell, "working your way up" is a sucker's game in the modern economy, and once you find yourself doing it you've already conceded the loss.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Or at least, that should be their goal.
So on one hand we shouldn't be telling free people how much to pay other ostensibly free people, but we should be telling them to pass up paying work in favor of jobs with more self-determination?
This is a really fascinating interpretation.
Can you guess what might be the difference between what I meant here by "should" and what Lyr or (presumably) you mean by it?
To be clear: I have zero problem with you telling people they should pay their replaceable, low-skill workers more than they are currently paying them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The jobs themselves aren't the same. They have different requirements, different perks, and teach different skills.
I have absolutely no idea why you find the idea that some people might pick a path with a slightly better prospect and thus win what amounts to a real-life game of Chutes and Ladders to be redemptive of the joke that is our myth of personal responsibility.
Wait, I'm confused. Chutes and Ladders is a game of chance. So did they pick the path, as you just said? Or did they win real-life Chutes and Ladders?
Why are you so upset by the idea of people using their agency to make decisions for themselves that you disagree with?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I also think it's horribly irresponsible of you to suggest that people consider working their way up Wal-Mart, pet stores, or fast food chains. Hell, "working your way up" is a sucker's game in the modern economy, and once you find yourself doing it you've already conceded the loss.
I don't care if you "work your way up" that particular job. But working any of those jobs gives you skills that you can use to acquire better jobs. And it is certainly possible to "work your way up" across multiple jobs in multiple sectors using previous job experience.
Regardless, though, I already said I think all of those jobs ought to be automated and no human should be doing them. But in the mean time, there are lots of people out there without a lot of skill or ambition. And there are people who'd rather pay someone with low skill and ambition to do these jobs than pay for someone to design and implement an automation structure. These people have interests that coincide. Why stand between them?
If everyone stopped being willing to take such jobs because they had better things to do; because they valued their time more highly; the demand for automation in these jobs would go up. Great. But they haven't done that. Do you want to force this change? Can you force them to value their time more? In a meaningful way, where they value their time more because they actually have better things to do?
I'm pretty sure that's something they have to decide for themselves.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"If everyone stopped being willing to take such jobs because they had better things to do; because they valued their time more highly; the demand for automation in these jobs would go up. Great. But they haven't done that. Do you want to force this change? Can you force them to value their time more? In a meaningful way, where they value their time more because they actually have better things to do?"
I can value my time as highly as I want, but if no one is willing to pay me that number, it's a pretty useless thought exercise. At the end of the day I dont have the luxury of judging a job as beneath me or less than I'm worth when I needyco buy groceries and pay the rent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm struggling to think which Wal-Mart jobs one could 'work their way up in' that would confer skills that would be useful to any sort of upward mobility. Having worked there when I was younger, mind, in my experience the *only* way it could be done was if one was single with student loans and utilizing the job only to cover some expenses while gong to school-not the job itself. Hell, you won't even learn to do an inventory at most Wal-Mart jobs since that's automated.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: "If everyone stopped being willing to take such jobs because they had better things to do; because they valued their time more highly; the demand for automation in these jobs would go up. Great. But they haven't done that. Do you want to force this change? Can you force them to value their time more? In a meaningful way, where they value their time more because they actually have better things to do?"
I can value my time as highly as I want, but if no one is willing to pay me that number, it's a pretty useless thought exercise. At the end of the day I dont have the luxury of judging a job as beneath me or less than I'm worth when I needyco buy groceries and pay the rent.
... If no one is willing to pay you that number, you don't actually have better things to do. It seems like you misunderstood the text you quoted.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
In an ideal world, as automation replaces old jobs en mass, the government is funding a comprehensive education system and unemployment benefits to allow the work force to retrain-reeducate itself to respond to the new market forces (Ala 1980's Japan).
As opposed to the current model espoused by conversatives that makes for a large uneducated illierate underclass that is forced into near slave wages to increase profits that extra 1%.
quote: If everyone stopped being willing to take such jobs because they had better things to do; because they valued their time more highly; the demand for automation in these jobs would go up. Great. But they haven't done that. Do you want to force this change? Can you force them to value their time more? In a meaningful way, where they value their time more because they actually have better things to do?
This is called "unionizing" which you are against and think is actually theft and unlawful coercion of the CEO's liberty to make money?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The jobs themselves aren't the same. They have different requirements, different perks, and teach different skills.
I have absolutely no idea why you find the idea that some people might pick a path with a slightly better prospect and thus win what amounts to a real-life game of Chutes and Ladders to be redemptive of the joke that is our myth of personal responsibility.
Wait, I'm confused. Chutes and Ladders is a game of chance.
replace it with Monopoly if you find the analogy more apt
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm struggling to think which Wal-Mart jobs one could 'work their way up in' that would confer skills that would be useful to any sort of upward mobility.
Be born a Walton
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Why is it our problem or responsibility to screw with what free people consent to?
Because protecting free people from the consequences of "consent" under duress -- which is basically what low-level employment is, Dan -- is one of the functions of society.
I don't agree at all. Instead of just asserting that low-level employment is not real consent, could you offer an argument for why that might be the case? Because I've never seen an argument for this that wasn't seriously flawed.
In our system (the last in the developed world which does not wholly or near wholly provide coverage for a person's emergency care) where a person is on the hook to pay for emergency services rendered, the prices and the pricing system represent the same issues of "consent" .. under duress. If I'm having chest pains, I'm not going to shop around and get quotes at different ER's, though I might be compelled based off of personal economics to gamble with or dither without an ambulance ride that could add multiple thousands of dollars to the tab, and possibly die in traffic as a result (this literally happens). Similarly if I find out that if I have to take a drug to live: if it's 4 bucks for a month, I'll pay it. If it's 400, I'll still do my goddamnest to pay it. The ER services, the lifesaving pills, they all represent extremely inelastic demand because having Rational Economic Actor Playtime Theories™ is subverted by dramatic real-world concerns like our objective needs for food, water, shelter, etc, when we are playpretending our rational economic actordom in deciding whether mickey d's, dunkin donuts, or wal-mart would be the best place to pretend we were going to work our way up to a real career with all the valuable skills we now have in fields populated by throwaway labor and turnover. It is consent under duress unless there's a sufficient safety net.
[ October 01, 2013, 03:09 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So people are under "duress" to be (at least a little) productive with their time. In some way, in order to earn money, in order to live at a quality of life they find acceptable.
This is not an argument that they are under any duress to take any specific job.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This is not an argument that they are under any duress to take any specific job.
Wrong. They are under duress to take the first job for which they are hired. Sometimes -- rarely -- an unskilled worker will get offers from two or more of the ten or fifteen places he's applied, and then he gets to decide whether he'd rather learn to flip burgers or fold shirts. But it's not usually that tough of a choice.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Just some really rough math here. Last year McDonald's made 5.46 billion in income. They have 1.7 million employees globally. The low end McDonald's worker makes $7.75/hour-ish. If we took all of McDonald's profits and distributed it among all 1.7 million workers the yearly increase would be about $3033 per worker. Or an hourly increase from $7.75 to $9.21.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
An article on a book by a scientist that argues that CEOs tend to rate very high on tests for psychopathy:
For some reason, Stiles, you're assuming that the only way to raise low end pay is to take the current profits-maintained in the current system-change nothing else at all, and just give the remainder to them.
McDonald's being a franchise is a tricky example anyway, but even in this case that's a bizarre notion.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:This is not an argument that they are under any duress to take any specific job.
Wrong. They are under duress to take the first job for which they are hired. Sometimes -- rarely -- an unskilled worker will get offers from two or more of the ten or fifteen places he's applied, and then he gets to decide whether he'd rather learn to flip burgers or fold shirts. But it's not usually that tough of a choice.
They under duress to take the first job available? And keep it? Why?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:They under duress to take the first job available? And keep it? Why?
Is that a serious question to which you don't already anticipate the answer that there are more people in search of work than jobs that they can fill?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Dan seems to be ignoring that if you are low skilled and can only apply for fast food/Walmart jobs. You have to take the first job you can get to pay this months bill.
Other people seem to ignore the fact that once you have a job it's a harder to search for a new one but not an insurmountable obstacle.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: For some reason, Stiles, you're assuming that the only way to raise low end pay is to take the current profits-maintained in the current system-change nothing else at all, and just give the remainder to them.
McDonald's being a franchise is a tricky example anyway, but even in this case that's a bizarre notion.
Yeah, some franchises maintain razor thin profit margins as it is. You're essentially looking at various companies, with various success and profit. Forcibly changing McDonald's pay structure would cause the less successful (but, in the curren system, still marginally successful) shops to simply close.
I get the feeling Tom might say "good riddance" to that, since such jobs are so far beneath him. But they aren't beneath some of us. For some people that's the best thing available. But just because it's the best opportunity for them right now doesn't change the fact that, objectively, it is a lousy job a machine could do. The solution isn't to pay inflated prices for low-skill labor. It's for people to get their labor to be worth more than that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So people are under "duress" to be (at least a little) productive with their time.
... they are under duress to not starve or get evicted in the winter or be unable to afford insulin or be unable to feed their child or insert any number of real and legitimate real world issues related to objective personal needs. You keep acting and using language about this as if the economic exercise of 'opting to be at least a little productive with their time' is just in a disconnected vacuum from poverty and bodily needs, like it's levels in an economic MMO that you can pursue if you feel like it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It's for people to get their labor to be worth more than that.
In an environment where there are many more people than jobs how does this do anything but shuffle around which people have those jobs?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So people are under "duress" to be (at least a little) productive with their time.
... they are under duress to not starve or get evicted in the winter or be unable to afford insulin or be unable to feed their child or insert any number of real and legitimate real world issues related to objective personal needs. You keep acting and using language about this as if the economic exercise of 'opting to be at least a little productive with their time' is just in a disconnected vacuum from poverty and bodily needs, like it's levels in an economic MMO that you can pursue if you feel like it.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: In an environment where there are many more people than jobs how does this do anything but shuffle around which people have those jobs?
I'm not sure how increasing minimum wage would do anything but exacerbate that problem.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it tends to create more demand for goods and services which tends to also drive demand for labor?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Increasing minimum wage allows workers to meet more immediate needs. If at least critical ones (food, shelter, utilities) are met, and in less hours, they now have free time to use as they wish.
This permits everything from just wasting time, which lowers stress, to actively creating, which at best means a new industry is born.
People who spend 16 hours a day going to and from work and doing errands, have only time to sleep, and none to improve their circumstances. They are essentially trapped.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Dan seems to be ignoring that if you are low skilled and can only apply for fast food/Walmart jobs. You have to take the first job you can get to pay this months bill.
Other people seem to ignore the fact that once you have a job it's a harder to search for a new one but not an insurmountable obstacle.
Okay, sure, but that's a feature of living paycheck to paycheck. Lots of people making well above poverty level still live paycheck to paycheck because they increase their expenses. Some people in poverty manage to save. It's harder, sure.
So if you're living paycheck to paycheck and suddenly lose your job you have a strong incentive to take the first available job, at leas temporarily. Regardless of your skill set, in fact.
So? That's duress?
As you said, you can also keep looking for a job while employed. So what's the problem?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If you were looking for a new job full-time so say 8-hours a day. And say it took you a month to find a new job.
So you start a job, and now you have one hour per day to search for a new job. If it takes the same number of hours to succeed, it will take you 240 days before you find one. That's a long time.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I've been out of work a lot recently. In fact, I'm out of work right now until my Captains License shows up but I have never spent 8 hours a day looking for a job. I can exhaust pretty much every job forum on the net in an hour.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
To survive on minimum wage the majority of people over 18 years of age take two or three or more jobs. If they were able to live on the minimum wage they get from one job A) They would not require 2 or 3 and those jobs would be open to others, and B)Instead of working 60-80 hours a week at 3-4 different jobs at 20 hours a week, they can have a bit of free time to spend acquiring better jobs, or acquiring the skills needed to get those better jobs.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If you were looking for a new job full-time so say 8-hours a day. And say it took you a month to find a new job.
So you start a job, and now you have one hour per day to search for a new job. If it takes the same number of hours to succeed, it will take you 240 days before you find one. That's a long time.
I think this is faulty logic. I would say most of the reason it took you a month to find a job is because it took a month for that position to open up. Had you started your job search on that day you would have found it with maybe an hour's work.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: it tends to create more demand for goods and services which tends to also drive demand for labor?
I suspect this is true to a point. Evidence seems to imply that minimum wage increases haven't affected unemployment. But the studies look at the small increases in minimum wage that are mostly there to correct for inflation. I suspect that doubling minimum wage to $15 would be much more troubling for low-skilled workers.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: In an environment where there are many more people than jobs how does this do anything but shuffle around which people have those jobs?
I'm not sure how increasing minimum wage would do anything but exacerbate that problem.
I was only addressing the duress question. If there are fewer jobs than people then some portion of those people are going to be forced to take a job they otherwise wouldn't take because their personal circumstances are so dire. That sets "dire circumstances" as the baseline that everyone must compete with regardless of their own circumstances.
Maybe I've got three months of savings, but I still better take the first job I can get because who knows if there will be another with all these desperate people out there.
[ October 01, 2013, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If you were looking for a new job full-time so say 8-hours a day. And say it took you a month to find a new job.
So you start a job, and now you have one hour per day to search for a new job. If it takes the same number of hours to succeed, it will take you 240 days before you find one. That's a long time.
Where are these numbers coming from?
First of all, how does getting a job cut your available non work hours to 1 per day? Assuming its a full time job with, what, an hour commute? Even a terrible two hour commute each way and 7-8 hours of sleep, seems you have minimum 4 hours a day leftover.
But also, your numbers assume that job hunting for 8 hours a day is 8x as effective as job hunting 1 hour a day. It's not. Not even close.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Assuming, of course, that your search doesn't become known and end your employment or reduce its quality.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Hahaha what? Wait are we talking about low-skill, low-wage workers here or... something else?
What low-skill low-wage job punishes you for seeking another job? Didn't McDonald's recently get flak because their budgeting guide advises you to get a second job?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What low-skill low-wage job punishes you for seeking another job?
Um... many? My daughter works as a clerk with a grocery store and she's looking elsewhere but keeping it to herself so that she doesn't get passed over for potential promotions or other favorable treatment because she's considered to be on her way out. When I worked at a movie theater, your status was determined largely by how flexible your schedule was. Having a school schedule or another job limited your advancement options (such as they were). If I was looking for work I certainly would have kept it to myself.
Also the "budget journal" on the McD's web site was produced by an outside firm. I doubt local franchise owners had any input.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Wait, is being passed over for promotion what Rakeesh meant by "end your employment or reduce its quality" then? Because straightforwardly the two aren't at all the same. Even ignoring the "end" part, not getting an improvement (e.g. Promotion) is completely different than receiving reduced job quality.
Not sinking the transaction costs of a promotion into someone who doesn't want to stay seems reasonable. Why wouldn't it be? But do low-skill jobs typically fire or demote people who want a second job? That's way different. I've certainly never seen this. What's the rationale?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I mean getting canned outright, or not getting a good shift or overtime, or being denied enough hours for benefits (ha, as though that hasn't been standard practice for years where possible anyway). Basically I mean the many ways an employer can make their displeasure known with or without outright firing you.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Dan, if you were an employer, and you had a rational interest in retaining the most flexible workers who gave you the fewest scheduling headaches, what effect do you think that might have on the way you managed the least-flexible employees? If you were in an at-will employment state, especially.
Would you not look for opportunities to let the least-flexible workers go, so you could find a more flexible worker? Low-wage, low-skill employment means training a new hire is cheap.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But do low-skill jobs typically fire or demote people who want a second job? That's way different. I've certainly never seen this. What's the rationale?
Some do, yes.
Most of these low skilled jobs aren't 9-5, M-F kind of things. You are required to work a revolving door of hours and days. Try telling your boss at Wal-Mart or McDonalds that you need weekends off from now on. Doesn't matter that you need it for a second job instead of partying, you're still screwed.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Wait, is being passed over for promotion what Rakeesh meant by "end your employment or reduce its quality" then?
Man, you are being so nit-picky any hyper-literal today. I did say "or other favorable treatment" so that would include stuff like not being denied time-off requests, getting preferential scheduling, being allowed to trade shifts, and sure firing would be a possibility though unlikely at this particular job. It was a risk at my theater job.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If you were looking for a new job full-time so say 8-hours a day. And say it took you a month to find a new job.
So you start a job, and now you have one hour per day to search for a new job. If it takes the same number of hours to succeed, it will take you 240 days before you find one. That's a long time.
Where are these numbers coming from?
I made them up. My point wasn't to demonstrate actual numbers, but the principle that securing another job while employed is much hard than when you are unemployed. Scheduling interviews, being available to travel for said interview, time available to look, are all affected if you are underemployed.
And many people who are employed full-time are doing that to reduce how much in the hole they are paycheck to paycheck, they aren't actually climbing out.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Of course now we are just arguing for argument's sake. Are there any proposed solutions in this thread?
Basically in recap, CEO's are evil and get paid too much. McDonald's/Walmart workers don't get paid enough and Walmart is especially evil because Walmart.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dude, that's not where I come at it at all. I'm in business school now, even if you hate Walmart you sing its praises.
And I'm in business school because I wanted to become more valuable to businesses hiring people.
I guess what I'd like is that a person can do a job, and make enough to pay their standard bills. The facilities are in place to make sure they and their kids can get a solid education (top 5 in the world), and to come out of school without a mountain of debt. When you can no longer work, you are at least looked after by the state until you check out. If you are not financially solvent, it should be a result of bad choices, not bad circumstances.
That's where I'd like things.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Wait, is being passed over for promotion what Rakeesh meant by "end your employment or reduce its quality" then?
Man, you are being so nit-picky any hyper-literal today. I did say "or other favorable treatment" so that would include stuff like not being denied time-off requests, getting preferential scheduling, being allowed to trade shifts, and sure firing would be a possibility though unlikely at this particular job. It was a risk at my theater job.
Some would say I'm hyper literal and nitpicky every day. I'm not trying to be, though. Trying for clarity.
I still think you guys are conflating some different things, though. There are important differences between being on the market for a new job and already having lots of scheduling restrictions, for example. And between not getting a promotion and getting fired, or between getting fired and not getting as many hours as you'd like. Some of these are reasonable consequences for some of the example employee difficulties. But if you mix and match them at will, they no longer are.
Scifi: why fire someone if the hours they are available are hours you need covered, and they already know how to do the job? Yeah, if they have lots of annoying schedule restrictions and they're going to bitch about not getting enough hours during the windows they are available, that's one thing. A common thing, even. So is calling in sick a lot and then bitching about not getting enough hours. Many people in low-skill jobs are crappy employees. If a crappy employee is a headache, why keep him? But that's not true of all of them.
And that all seems a far cry from what we were talking about before.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: it tends to create more demand for goods and services which tends to also drive demand for labor?
I suspect this is true to a point. Evidence seems to imply that minimum wage increases haven't affected unemployment. But the studies look at the small increases in minimum wage that are mostly there to correct for inflation. I suspect that doubling minimum wage to $15 would be much more troubling for low-skilled workers.
There's kind of a neat summary here on a possible cut-off:
quote:So what have we learned from all this? * When minimum wages are 'low' - say, less than 40% of the average hourly wage - then moderate increases won't have a significant short-run effect on employment. * When minimum wages are around 45% of the average, they significantly reduce employment. * No-one has been able to find any evidence to suggest that increasing the minimum wage has a measurable effect on reducing poverty.
Should be easy to guess which threshold the US falls into, but there's a helpful picture in the article for confirmation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Scifi: why fire someone if the hours they are available are hours you need covered, and they already know how to do the job?
Because, as you have already noted, low-wage workers are disposable and interchangeable.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Wait, is being passed over for promotion what Rakeesh meant by "end your employment or reduce its quality" then?
Man, you are being so nit-picky any hyper-literal today. I did say "or other favorable treatment" so that would include stuff like not being denied time-off requests, getting preferential scheduling, being allowed to trade shifts, and sure firing would be a possibility though unlikely at this particular job. It was a risk at my theater job.
Some would say I'm hyper literal and nitpicky every day. I'm not trying to be, though. Trying for clarity.
I still think you guys are conflating some different things, though. There are important differences between being on the market for a new job and already having lots of scheduling restrictions, for example. And between not getting a promotion and getting fired, or between getting fired and not getting as many hours as you'd like. Some of these are reasonable consequences for some of the example employee difficulties. But if you mix and match them at will, they no longer are.
Scifi: why fire someone if the hours they are available are hours you need covered, and they already know how to do the job? Yeah, if they have lots of annoying schedule restrictions and they're going to bitch about not getting enough hours during the windows they are available, that's one thing. A common thing, even. So is calling in sick a lot and then bitching about not getting enough hours. Many people in low-skill jobs are crappy employees. If a crappy employee is a headache, why keep him? But that's not true of all of them.
And that all seems a far cry from what we were talking about before.
It's interesting how in Canada, I was able to turn down having to work for a restaurant due to an injured foot, because both my rent and University school fees were covered by the government; was able to wait until it healed and got a job doing Q&A Testing for a major Montreal company. Where I don't have to stand for 8 hours washing dishes running around?
But I guess Canadians hate liberty and freedom and are a communist totalitarian state where you aren't allowed guns? Huh.
Fair price to pay to not have to pay for a universal human right.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)