Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dan-price-gravity-payments-employees-leave-2015-7

I'm not sure what this douche was thinking. "Let's give everyone equal pay regardless of skill, experience, and time involved." It's that kind of naivete that frustrates me. Stupid liberals trying to be different for difference sake.

Despicable. That's the direction we're headed though with the socialist Obama at the Helm.

Yes, let's look at one extreme outlier where people are getting paid too much and ignore the much more common phenomena of people getting paid slave wages. I'm sure the first is a much more pressing socioeconomic problem.

Why would anyone with a college degree who is highly skilled worked for someone who pays, for example, a high school drop-out the same amount of money as they pay them? If it was me I'd tell the boss to go phuck himself and go find somebody to work for who would appreciate my skills and pay me what I deserve which would be much more than some kid who just came from a job flipping burgers or some other garbage job.

Originally posted by Star428
Why would anyone with a college degree who is highly skilled worked for someone who pays, for example, a high school drop-out the same amount of money as they pay them? If it was me I'd tell the boss to go phuck himself and go find somebody to work for who would appreciate my skills and pay me what I deserve which would be much more than some kid who just came from a job flipping burgers or some other garbage job.



Pretty soon we won't even be able to recognize our country as the same one our founding fathers fought for and won the independence of. If that old bag Hillary gets elected it'll get even worse. She'll make Obama look like an amateur in Socialism. Hell, some democrats (like Bernie Sanders) even admit that they're socialists. As if that's something to actually be proud of or something. LOL. At least they're honest about it (being socialists) though. Unlike Hillary and Obama.

Be careful. I agree his decision lacked foresight. But macroeconomics are vastly different than anything on an individual-company level. The number of variables involved are astronomically higher.

I'm a Friedman-ian free market adherent. Proof. So this isn't a defense of socialism. But this is me saying that this story says nothing about the viability of socialism, or lack thereof.

...

On the story itself, the approach was rather hamfisted. Take Costco. It pays its employees a lot, comparatively speaking. After a year doing ANYTHING there, you make something like $19/hr., give or take. That may be a lot or a little to you personally, but it's a great wage for the industry. And the underlying thought process is the same; they're legitimately trying to give back some corporate profits to some of the lowest paid employees. A single adult can't live on the wage of, say, some of its competitors (usually ~$10 indefinitely, unless promoted), much less one with debts or children. So it has done a ton for Costco's corporate culture and employee morale and retention rate.

But look at how it was handled compared to Gravity. Gravity's change was sudden and total, and incredibly public. He lacked the infrastructure to handle the change, and the data to predict and account for increased costs of business. Basically, he bit off more than he could chew. Meanwhile, Costco, in a more traditional corporate structure, has the national infrastructure to continue making a profit without generating too much attention or angering key employees that threaten the business's stability.

So I see Gravity's failure as more an indictment of his research (or lack thereof) into the machinations of pay scales and how it affects a company, and also his execution of the concept. Less sweeping, but still significant, raises would have likely worked. And he undoubtedly made it harder on himself by calling such attention to it. Not all publicity, as it turns out, is a good thing, as evidenced by his business-owning peers turning on him for upstaging them, and higher ranking employees turning rank for devaluing their jobs compared to entry-level positions. His heart was in the right place, but his execution was tragically flawed.

Originally posted by Star428
Why would anyone with a college degree who is highly skilled worked for someone who pays, for example, a high school drop-out the same amount of money as they pay them? If it was me I'd tell the boss to go phuck himself and go find somebody to work for who would appreciate my skills and pay me what I deserve which would be much more than some kid who just came from a job flipping burgers or some other garbage job.

This is one of the problems he encountered at Gravity, yes. But there's a slight strawman here, bc I highly doubt anyone was hired at Gravity with less than a bachelor's degree in a relevant field. The educational contrast between new hires and management is almost assuredly not as stark as you're making it out to be. I agree paying everyone the same is an issue, though, regardless of education level.

This isn't socialism, this is idiocy. I come from ye olde socialist Europe and we don't have crap like this over here.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yes, let's look at one extreme outlier where people are getting paid too much and ignore the much more common phenomena of people getting paid slave wages. I'm sure the first is a much more pressing socioeconomic problem.

Oh yes, everyone making the same for different skill levels and then getting pissed is an outlier, NOT the norm. Lol


Ditto

Originally posted by psmith81992
Ditto

Cool, but I'd love to see an acknowledgement of my other points, because I think it's unfair to use this story as a sweeping political or economic statement.

Originally posted by Digi
Cool, but I'd love to see an acknowledgement of my other points, because I think it's unfair to use this story as a sweeping political or economic statement.

The only point I'm making is paying everyone the same salary regardless of skills, experience, or amount of work put in, is idiotic on any level.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The only point I'm making is paying everyone the same salary regardless of skills, experience, or amount of work put in, is idiotic on any level.

That line about liberals in your OP says otherwise, but ok. If this really is your only point, it's a fair one.

Originally posted by Star428
Why would anyone with a college degree who is highly skilled worked for someone who pays, for example, a high school drop-out the same amount of money as they pay them? If it was me I'd tell the boss to go phuck himself and go find somebody to work for who would appreciate my skills and pay me what I deserve which would be much more than some kid who just came from a job flipping burgers or some other garbage job.

Not for the first time- could you please stop with the bad language?

Originally posted by Digi
That line about liberals in your OP says otherwise, but ok. If this really is your only point, it's a fair one.

It is

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
This isn't socialism


I know he put "Socialist" in quotes, but the title is quite misleading. What he describes isn't actually socialism, and pretending like there isn't room for individual achievement in a socialist system is hilarious.
Originally posted by Star428
Pretty soon we won't even be able to recognize our country as the same one our founding fathers fought for and won the independence of. If that old bag Hillary gets elected it'll get even worse. She'll make Obama look like an amateur in Socialism. Hell, some democrats (like Bernie Sanders) even admit that they're socialists. As if that's something to actually be proud of or something. LOL. At least they're honest about it (being socialists) though. Unlike Hillary and Obama.
If we find something that works better, we'd make the founding fathers proud by fixing a problem. Sticking to tradition simply because it's tradition is stupid.

Socialism isn't a dirty word.

The title is also misleading by saying 'downs', as if the company has folded. The company's only real trouble right now, in fact, is an unrelated lawsuit. In terms of sheer business, the long-term outlook for the company has improved due to publicity

Meanwhile, the problem with issuing the statement "paying everyone the same salary regardless of skills, experience, or amount of work put in is idiotic " is twofold:

1. It's so obvious that everyone would agree with it
2. It's not what's happening here.

This company is not paying everyone the same- the company has drastically improved its minimum wage offer. There is an argument that they've not raised the intermediate wages enough in balance, but to try and make this 'company pays everyone the same regardless' is misleading.

The biggest issue with this plan is mentioned by one of those who left- the principle here may have merit but it's no good as an isolated case. Because no-one else is doing the same thing, trying to get promoted to a different company probably means taking a pay cut, and in a broad sense that's not viable for an economy. There has to be decent incentive to get promoted in the economy as a whole, not just in the company you are in.

I'm glad you backed this up, lol.


We did. It's called capitalism which, through all of its faults, is still infinitely better.


Yea I wrote that in a rush and was unable to change the title, so it does make it misleading.


Wait what? Why would those more qualified or have been around longer agree to the same pay as their less experienced coworkers?

Sorry, I meant that your statement was one that everyone would agree with- that paying everyone the same regardless is silly. It's a very non-contentious statement

Like Ush said, this is a very misleading title, the bigger article that business insider copied from is this New York Time piece http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/business/a-company-copes-with-backlash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?_r=0 which is much more nuanced and discusses both the pros and cons of the situation, as well as positive and negative reactions towards it.

The company, btw, almost doubled its monthly sign ups, so it's actually far from being in trouble because of this action (although an unrelated lawsuit seems to be an issue).

At any rate, this has absolutely nothing to do with socialism, the very opposite really, this businessman wants to run his own business in a way to provide a good (perhaps even great) minimum wage for his employees, because he sees advantages from it, and believes in the good old American conservative mantra of a honest day's pay for a honest day's work...

Sure, if you ignore the whole issue with "lets pay our employees $70k regardless of skill and experience" thing.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Sure, if you ignore the whole issue with "lets pay our employees $70k regardless of skill and experience" thing. What is the problem with that if you can afford it?

Originally posted by Newjak
What is the problem with that if you can afford it?

You're seriously asking me what the problem is with someone who lacks your experience and skill making as much as you? Really? You don't get to determine what one can afford either.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Sure, if you ignore the whole issue with "lets pay our employees $70k regardless of skill and experience" thing.

Lets pay them a minimum of 70k....some earn more than that

He's just making it the way it was 50 years ago. That people that work full time can be confident in starting a family, that they can pay off their student loans, that they can build up some wealth of their own...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lets pay them a minimum of 70k....some earn more than that

He's just making it the way it was 50 years ago. That people that work full time can be confident in starting a family, that they can pay off their student loans, that they can build up some wealth of their own...

1. At the expense of what exactly? As stated, there were already fights between more qualified people earning the same as their inferiors. Your rebuttal is just an appeal to emotions. And really, making it like it was 50 years ago? What exactly was 50 years ago? A stronger dollar, minimal price inflation, etc?

1. At the expense of the owners salary and profits.
2. If the people that previously earned more are unhappy they can quit, which a few did.
3. The answer is less income inequality

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're seriously asking me what the problem is with someone who lacks your experience and skill making as much as you? Really? You don't get to determine what one can afford either. That's not what you said though. You said what is the problem with paying an employee regardless of skill and experience.

There were employees that were still making more.

Originally posted by Newjak
That's not what you said though. You said what is the problem with paying an employee regardless of skill and experience.

There were employees that were still making more.

You clearly missed the point, again.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You clearly missed the point, again. What's the point again?

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm glad you backed this up, lol.


We did. It's called capitalism which, through all of its faults, is still infinitely better.

Wait, the individual achievement part? I figured that was obvious if you weren't arguing against a caricature of socialism. If you want an example we can look at public schools, one of the biggest socialist institutions in the country. Students may still "stand out" through things like grades, sports, or other extra curriculars. These assist in getting into better schools and, hopefully, better jobs. The socialist nature of the institution attempts to give everyone the same opportunity to do so, by having everyone contribute.

We aren't strictly capitalist, so....no.

Psmith, I think you might be looking the wrong way at this. I don't think the takeaway from this story should be "wow, socialism sure is bad" but "this guy wanted to give his workers a decent living but went about it in a hamfisted way--how can we learn from this and strive for his goals more realistically and with more care?"

If you gave me a choice between working in a company where everyone was paid a decent wage regardless of their performance and a company where you had to work 10 years before you even received payment that would let you live comfortably, I'd choose the first one any day. But that's a false choice because we don't need one or the other. It shouldn't be difficult for every major company in America to offer comfortable wages to their entry level workers while still incentivizing good performance.

That high wages are the enemy of business growth is a lie concocted by corporations like Walmart and McDonalds to protect their exploitative business models. As Digi pointed out, Costco is booming and they pay rather high wages to their employees.

Noble intentions and pitiful execution. Getting rid of income inequality just for inequality sake is ignorant. There are those who deserve to make more than others. What he did was essentially allow the less talented to piggy back off the more talented. There's always going to be better and worse. It's like giving participation trophies at a soccer tournament instead of 1st and 2nd place. Competition breeds ingenuity, innovation, etc.


When you phrase it like that with 2 opposite extremes of the same spectrum, fine. But if I had a choice of working at a place that would pay me the same for my 5 year experience and a new employee, as opposed to a normal place with proper advancement, I would choose door #2 any day.

Legitimate minimum wages and "equal pay" are not the same thing though.

But that's the thing, "equal pay" for all positions regardless of experience or performance is basically a non-concept. No one seriously advocates it except in extreme cases, but it serves as a strawman for those who have an interest to avoid increasing minimum wage or who are simply viscerally opposed to anything resembling socialism such that they'll always side with the needs and welfare of the management over that of the workers.

Also, no one disagrees that competition leads to harder work, but there should be a reasonable baseline. You shouldn't have to work your ass off on overtime and forgo vacation just to make ends meet, but that's exactly what lots of American workers have to do because of cutthroat business practices.

Originally posted by Digi
Take Costco. It pays its employees a lot, comparatively speaking. After a year doing ANYTHING there, you make something like $19/hr., give or take.

Damn...I was going to use Costco as an example.


Anyway, nice post.

Unskilled labor pays what it pays. If you have to work your ass off on overtime and forego vacations, you're in the wrong job. While I advocate a higher minimum wage, I also advocate it to be partially performance based. Nobody "deserves" to make money. You have to earn money. I know that's not what you are saying but it comes off like that when you're saying "you shouldn't have to work overtime and forego vacations." Like you said, there's a reasonable baseline but neither one of are approaching that.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Unskilled labor pays what it pays. If you have to work your ass off on overtime and forego vacations, you're in the wrong job. While I advocate a higher minimum wage, I also advocate it to be partially performance based. Nobody "deserves" to make money. You have to earn money. I know that's not what you are saying but it comes off like that when you're saying "you shouldn't have to work overtime and forego vacations." Like you said, there's a reasonable baseline but neither one of are approaching that. What should unskilled labor get paid?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Unskilled labor pays what it pays. If you have to work your ass off on overtime and forego vacations, you're in the wrong job. While I advocate a higher minimum wage, I also advocate it to be partially performance based. Nobody "deserves" to make money. You have to earn money. I know that's not what you are saying but it comes off like that when you're saying "you shouldn't have to work overtime and forego vacations." Like you said, there's a reasonable baseline but neither one of are approaching that.
"You're in the wrong job," as if the average worker is spoiled for choice? What if every potential job pays peanuts and has shit for benefits? This is an underlying problem with the American economy--it simply doesn't care about what you call "unskilled labor" and pretends it isn't a problem as long as *some people* are making decent money.

Yes, you have to earn money, but the amount of money you earn should be enough to live off of without working obscene hours.

But then you get into the issue of how much people need? What if your average joe wants marble counter tops and a pool? What is "reasonable"?

Originally posted by psmith81992
But then you get into the issue of how much people need? What if your average joe wants marble counter tops and a pool? What is "reasonable"?

I'm not sure what a good wage is, but I know the whole 7.50 some places have (my area changed it literally like 3 months ago) is much to low. And makes it almost impossible to even afford the means to attempt to get better jobs for the kind of people who had no options in their area.

Originally posted by psmith81992
But then you get into the issue of how much people need? What if your average joe wants marble counter tops and a pool? What is "reasonable"? I don't think most people are advocating a minimum wage that allows people to buy ridiculous luxury items like marble counter tops or gold toilets regularly.

It seems like an extreme point to make on the subject to try and discourage the idea of a living wage.

Yet you can't tell me a legitimate wage. I think 7.50 is too low and 15 is too high

Well as Newjak has mentioned 'living wage', let's take the wiki definition for the UK idea of that concept:

"A person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, transport, health care, minimal recreation, one course a year to upgrade their education, and childcare"

I don't know what that number is for the US. or any particular state in the US, but it seems like a good baseline.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well as Newjak has mentioned 'living wage', let's take the wiki definition for the UK idea of that concept:

"A person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, transport, health care, minimal recreation, one course a year to upgrade their education, and childcare"

I don't know what that number is for the US. or any particular state in the US, but it seems like a good baseline.

"Living wage" is one of those terms that seems to be very nebulously defined in discussions.

That's a ****ing good definition and one that I'm stealing for conversations like these, in the future. But, yes, I agree with that definition...basically, it means "Hey, let a human be able to live like a human but without much luxury."

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yet you can't tell me a legitimate wage. I think 7.50 is too low and 15 is too high

I agree and that wage should vary by state. I think something closer to 16.50 for Manhattan is necessary and 9.50 for places like Arkansas is more accurate.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yet you can't tell me a legitimate wage. I think 7.50 is too low and 15 is too high

Why is 15 too high?

It's only a 31200 dollar a year salary. 15 dollars times 40 hours/week times 52 weeks. Keep in mind that is before taxes.

As for the average cost of living it depends on where you are looking at but I've seen statistics it could be 20K a year.
http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Cost_of_Living

To 56K for the cost a family with three children
http://cost-of-living.startclass.com/l/615/National-Average

I'm sure you can find other statistics as well.

Originally posted by Newjak
Why is 15 too high?

It's only a 31200 dollar a year salary. 15 dollars times 40 hours/week times 52 weeks. Keep in mind that is before taxes.

As for the average cost of living it depends on where you are looking at but I've seen statistics it could be 20K a year.
http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Cost_of_Living

To 56K for the cost a family with three children
http://cost-of-living.startclass.com/l/615/National-Average

I'm sure you can find other statistics as well.

Oh, yeah, I forgot about children. Yeah, children make living much more expensive.

Part of living beyond your means is thinking about a family. I'm not going to feel sorry for someone making $11 an hour while having 6 kids. You should have thought of that before you started creating more in the way people.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Part of living beyond your means is thinking about a family. I'm not going to feel sorry for someone making $11 an hour while having 6 kids. You should have thought of that before you started creating more in the way people.

So what should we do about those millions of people that have children when they took reasonable precautions with things like birth control and condoms?


For your information:

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm



Should we tell people to just stop having sex? 6-12% failure rates seem quite high...lots of babies made that people don't want to be made.

Granted, many of the people with children don't use contraceptives but there are still tons who do. It is just not as easy as you make it seem: we can't punish those who have babies when they can't afford it.

And what do you propose? Reward those with many children by "increasing" their wages?

What this particular business owner has tried to do is not to provide a "living wage" but further than that, to provide a wage where beyond which increased wages don't increase the overall well being (as I'm sure everyone here has read in their local pop sci publication as well)...to me it seems like a very interesting philosophy, of course it's also nice that it gives him some publicity

Originally posted by psmith81992
And what do you propose? Reward those with many children by "increasing" their wages?
It's not rewarding them, but it's also not punishing them for having children, which is often the case now.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What this particular business owner has tried to do is not to provide a "living wage" but further than that, to provide a wage where beyond which increased wages don't increase the overall well being (as I'm sure everyone here has read in their local pop sci publication as well)...to me it seems like a very interesting philosophy, of course it's also nice that it gives him some publicity

How is it interesting? Look at the problems it caused. There's nothing interesting about paying someone less deserving the same salary.

Originally posted by psmith81992
We did. It's called capitalism which, through all of its faults, is still infinitely better.

Originally posted by psmith81992
How is it interesting? Look at the problems it caused. There's nothing interesting about paying someone less deserving the same salary. So it has caused problems but the company in question in this thread is still alive.

I know it has been mentioned in this thread before about the company not being dead yet. To truly know how this particular company will fair through all this we should probably wait for a little bit.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Part of living beyond your means is thinking about a family. I'm not going to feel sorry for someone making $11 an hour while having 6 kids. You should have thought of that before you started creating more in the way people.



Precisely. My thoughts exactly. Those are most of the people who depend on Welfare. Then they wanna have more kids so they can get even more.

I'm going to get a job with this company and latch on to the tities.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm going to get a job with this company and latch on to the tities.

I doubt you could get hired.




I would hardly call a living wage a reward.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I doubt you could get hired.




I would hardly call a living wage a reward.

I'm pretty sure a MBA in finance is enough to get hired at a credit card processing company. But thanks for you vote of confidence double d.

I love that definition of living wage that Ush posted. I had never seen it before.

Originally posted by Star428
Precisely. My thoughts exactly. Those are most of the people who depend on Welfare. Then they wanna have more kids so they can get even more.

This gets trickier when you take a less extreme case. Say, someone making $11/hr. who wants a family, but realizes they can't afford it on such wages. Should such a person not have children?

Also, "getting even more" is a bit of a misnomer. The cost of raising a child is astronomical. They're certainly not "getting more,' relative to the cost, as their number of children increases.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm going to get a job with this company and latch on to the tities.

You know they've received a flood of applications, yeah? They're probably turning down highly qualified candidates with master's degrees left and right. Yes, under normal circumstances, you could probably get hired or at least have a decent chance. But when you're up against 1,000 other applicants?

Yes, if his current situation doesn't allow for it. Is he "entitled" to have children? If his entitlement depends on someone else, then no. He needs to increase his skill in something and consider a family at a later date. Why should he make more simply because he wants a family?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yes, if his current situation doesn't allow for it. Is he "entitled" to have children? If his entitlement depends on someone else, then no. He needs to increase his skill in something and consider a family at a later date. Why should he make more simply because he wants a family? What happens if that person does have a child. Should the should the child grow up in a rough situation because the parent was not fortunate enough to earn the appropriate salary according to you?

Or are you saying it should be illegal for someone to have a child until they hit a certain wage minimum?

Are you trying to say something else?

Either way I think you're solutions lead to terrible conclusions. Basically you're trying to say who can and who can not procreate based solely on their economic status.

Originally posted by Digi
I love that definition of living wage that Ush posted. I had never seen it before.



This gets trickier when you take a less extreme case. Say, someone making $11/hr. who wants a family, but realizes they can't afford it on such wages. Should such a person not have children?

Also, "getting even more" is a bit of a misnomer. The cost of raising a child is astronomical. They're certainly not "getting more,' relative to the cost, as their number of children increases.



You know they've received a flood of applications, yeah? They're probably turning down highly qualified candidates with master's degrees left and right. Yes, under normal circumstances, you could probably get hired or at least have a decent chance. But when you're up against 1,000 other applicants?

When someone says they are going to latch on to the tities, they are joking.

As opposed to "Oh well, they screwed up, just pay them"?

@psmith81992: How would you enforce your idea?

Which idea?

Well, you seem to have a vague sense that people that can't afford to pay for their children shouldn't have them, or am I off with that summary? And if so, what do you think should happen to ensure that, or is this more of a "it annoys me when people that don't earn enough money have children" thing, in which case, okay, thanks for sharing...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you seem to have a vague sense that people that can't afford to pay for their children shouldn't have them, or am I off with that summary? And if so, what do you think should happen to ensure that, or is this more of a "it annoys me when people that don't earn enough money have children" thing, in which case, okay, thanks for sharing...

I wouldn't pay them more if that's what you're asking. I would set up some kind of mandatory skill training outside of work for a minimum of 12 months so the person's skills are updated and an increase in salary is justified. Sure beats the "just pay them more" philosophy.

Bardock, I noticed you took a few days off, were you recharging your socialist batteries?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm pretty sure a MBA in finance is enough to get hired at a credit card processing company. But thanks for you vote of confidence double d.




Originally posted by psmith81992
I wouldn't pay them more if that's what you're asking. I would set up some kind of mandatory skill training outside of work for a minimum of 12 months so the person's skills are updated and an increase in salary is justified. Sure beats the "just pay them more" philosophy.

Oh. Right. That's actually a good idea. So you'd have a safety net for parents to increase their income, right? But, unlike how it is now, you'd make the training or education mandatory or else they'd be fired?

I like it.

It forces new parents to not only earn more but get more education. But this does not ensure the money is used to support their children. Sadly...what happens with some...they are likely to just spend more money on themselves.


Regardless, mandatory training and education programs and THEN raises? Sounds fair and I want this idea to happen. Hell, I'd make kids if it was this easy to get a promotion.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I wouldn't pay them more if that's what you're asking. I would set up some kind of mandatory skill training outside of work for a minimum of 12 months so the person's skills are updated and an increase in salary is justified. Sure beats the "just pay them more" philosophy.
What if they don't have time for this skill training with their new responsibilities as parents?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bardock, I noticed you took a few days off, were you recharging your socialist batteries?

Find the time. I don't believe an appeal to emotions is a valid solution.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
What if they don't have time for this skill training with their new responsibilities as parents?


The vast majority of the time, that would be a bullshit excuse. Basically, you're suggesting that they don't have time to attend mandatory training (which they would be doing instead of their job) but, yet, they would still have time to do their job.

Meaning, that excuse wouldn't add up. If you're suggesting that they wouldn't have time to work or do their job, that's something I could agree to especially if their kid has special needs. In which case, then a robust maternity leave policy would be great.

Then, when they get back: education/training.

So instead of simply paying them more money, you want a government-enforced mandatory training/educational program for anyone in a minimum wage position?

That's well within the confines of socialism, much more so than simply giving them a living wage.

I'm impressed

Originally posted by krisblaze
So instead of simply paying them more money, you want a government-enforced mandatory training/educational program for anyone in a minimum wage position?

That's well within the confines of socialism, much more so than simply giving them a living wage.

I'm impressed

Government enforced? Who said anything about government enforced. The only enforcement would come from the bosses of the job. And it wouldn't be mandatory but you'd be required to attend if you want a chance at a pay increase. Your assumptions are amusing.

He's krisblaze. What you expect from him?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bardock, I noticed you took a few days off, were you recharging your socialist batteries?

Yeah, thanks for noticing. Doubling down on my Trotskyism.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I wouldn't pay them more if that's what you're asking. I would set up some kind of mandatory skill training outside of work for a minimum of 12 months so the person's skills are updated and an increase in salary is justified. Sure beats the "just pay them more" philosophy.

You are talking from the employers perspective? Do you think the government has a duty to support children of poor people that can't reasonable support the children by themselves?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Government enforced? Who said anything about government enforced. The only enforcement would come from the bosses of the job. And it wouldn't be mandatory but you'd be required to attend if you want a chance at a pay increase. Your assumptions are amusing.
So it's just a requirement to get a pay increase, and not mandatory.

These optional skill courses already exist

They exist in every single country, be it socialist or capitalist (not that any single country is either or).

Originally posted by dadudemon
The vast majority of the time, that would be a bullshit excuse. Basically, you're suggesting that they don't have time to attend mandatory training (which they would be doing instead of their job) but, yet, they would still have time to do their job.

Meaning, that excuse wouldn't add up. If you're suggesting that they wouldn't have time to work or do their job, that's something I could agree to especially if their kid has special needs. In which case, then a robust maternity leave policy would be great.

Then, when they get back: education/training. He's saying while working a fulltime job and raising a newborn child trying to find the time to go to mandatory may not fit into their schedule.

Which is a legitimate problem.

Unless you are saying they will be paid to go to this mandatory training while not having to work. Which I'm okay with.

But what happens if they go through the training but still can not find a job for the increased salary? Do they keep just going to mandatory training until they get one?

Also I don't know if this solution displaces the problem of people having jobs that does not allow them the ability to start families or live normal lives as those would still exist.

Originally posted by Newjak
He's saying while working a fulltime job and raising a newborn child trying to find the time to go to mandatory may not fit into their schedule.

Which is a legitimate problem.

Unless you are saying they will be paid to go to this mandatory training while not having to work. Which I'm okay with.

But what happens if they go through the training but still can not find a job for the increased salary? Do they keep just going to mandatory training until they get one?

Also I don't know if this solution displaces the problem of people having jobs that does not allow them the ability to start families or live normal lives as those would still exist.


Yes, forced training (instead of your job until the training is completed) with a promotion or move to another department that pays more money. Seems like a great idea. Except for the lazy. They may quit their job.


Most super corporate (you know, places where you get into trouble for saying "Merry Christmas" companies already have mandatory 'annual goals' and related pay raises. Meaning, if you aren't furthering yourself, then your annual merit increase takes a hit. But I am unaware of any places that will fire you for not doing volitional but mandatory training (you have to do some training or education but you can choose what to do). Perhaps automechanics? They have to get certified in certain cars in order to service vehicles. They probably have to keep training forever and ever at some places.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, forced training (instead of your job until the training is completed) with a promotion or move to another department that pays more money. Seems like a great idea. Except for the lazy. They may quit their job.


Most super corporate (you know, places where you get into trouble for saying "Merry Christmas" companies already have mandatory 'annual goals' and related pay raises. Meaning, if you aren't furthering yourself, then your annual merit increase takes a hit. But I am unaware of any places that will fire you for not doing volitional but mandatory training (you have to do some training or education but you can choose what to do). Perhaps automechanics? They have to get certified in certain cars in order to service vehicles. They probably have to keep training forever and ever at some places.

Originally posted by psmith81992

Do you think the government has a duty to support children of poor people that can't reasonable support the children by themselves?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you think the government has a duty to support children of poor people that can't reasonable support the children by themselves?

Its the governments job to support every person in the world. So yes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you think the government has a duty to support children of poor people that can't reasonable support the children by themselves?

I'm not sure if that is their duty. And I'd say "help" and not "support". Welfare is a tricky thing. I'm for a period of support for those families trying to get out of poverty. I'm against welfare for those who sit on it because they don't want to work or upgrade their skills. This seems like a common sense answer which is why I can't give you a yes or a no.

I guess what complicates it from my POV is that young children really have no possibility to affect this, and are from the get go settled with the situation their parents have brought them into. I believe in equality of chances, and to me poverty is one of the largest factors in why chances are not equal for children born, so I support the government making this unfairness a bit better. What do you think about that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess what complicates it from my POV is that young children really have no possibility to affect this, and are from the get go settled with the situation their parents have brought them into. I believe in equality of chances, and to me poverty is one of the largest factors in why chances are not equal for children born, so I support the government making this unfairness a bit better. What do you think about that?

Hard for me to agree with this knowing the parents are getting something out of it even for putting their children in this situation.

Interesting, so do you think that it is better to have the children grow up with this severe disadvantage rather than the parents profiting in any way from having a child?

Originally posted by krisblaze


They exist in every single country, be it socialist or capitalist (not that any single country is either or).
psmith and Star seem to think it's a black and white issue of capitalism vs socialism, and miss the fact that the two ideas work together in most places.
Originally posted by Star428

Again, we're a mixed economy like every other place in the universe so.....nope.

When did I say it was a black and white issue? I appreciate the ignorant response.

Originally posted by psmith81992
We did. It's called capitalism which, through all of its faults, is still infinitely better.
You painted it black and white right there. If you've changed your opinion or misspoke, which is I fine, then cool beans.

Also, I think the train to advance model is interesting, even if kinks may arise.

It's like socialism without the government. We'd get to be liberal and conservative at the same time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, forced training (instead of your job until the training is completed) with a promotion or move to another department that pays more money. Seems like a great idea. Except for the lazy. They may quit their job.


Most super corporate (you know, places where you get into trouble for saying "Merry Christmas" companies already have mandatory 'annual goals' and related pay raises. Meaning, if you aren't furthering yourself, then your annual merit increase takes a hit. But I am unaware of any places that will fire you for not doing volitional but mandatory training (you have to do some training or education but you can choose what to do). Perhaps automechanics? They have to get certified in certain cars in order to service vehicles. They probably have to keep training forever and ever at some places. I'm fine with the idea of mandatory training to get better educated people.

But it seems to be the wrong tool for fixing the issue of jobs not providing a living wage for people to live normal lives which includes having children.

I'm looking at it from the POV of a janitor. Let's say you mandatory train that janitor and they are successful and you move them to a new job yay!

Now of course you still need a janitor so you hire a new one. So they go through the mandatory training but for some reason they just aren't good at this new job you forced them into. Does that mean you as the company must pay them the new job salary, or do let them go, or do you put them back a s a janitor?

That's one scenario here is another. You have had a line of successful mandatory training people come up through the janitor job relocation program. Until you get to the one Janitor you mandatory train and you try to relocate them but unfortunately there is no need for anybody in the current job training you put them through nor for any of the training classes you put them through.

So once again what do you do with them. Force back into the subpar paying janitor role/let them go/take the financial hit and give them the new job anyways.

But wait now the new janitor is coming in and they need to go through training now because they need to earn a living wage.

What I'm trying to get at is that while mandatory training can be a good solution in certain situations. Most companies I've seen implement these styles of classes are in organizations where they are already continuing the training within the job the person already has. So mandatory training to teach software developers a new frame work. Or they are training them for managerial positions.

The reason I'm saying this type of solution doesn't work is because it does not eliminate the need for the original occupation that was earning below the living wage like the janitor. Therefore there is always going to be someone suffering in that role. You also can not say you will be able to successfully relocate people from one occupation to the next either through demand or competence in that field.

So it feels like we are still at the original problem to me. That those people who need to do those jobs are still suffering simply because they are working that job.

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm fine with the idea of mandatory training to get better educated people.

But it seems to be the wrong tool for fixing the issue of jobs not providing a living wage for people to live normal lives which includes having children.


Your position assumes people should have a right to have children and be expected to be supported by those around them. Most Americans are not comfortable with taking care of other people's children and that would be a tough sell.

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm looking at it from the POV of a janitor. Let's say you mandatory train that janitor and they are successful and you move them to a new job yay!

Let's not look at it from the point of view from a janitor because, in many cases, that's it. No room to move up or go anywhere in the "organization" because that's it. If this man or woman has a kid and they can't afford it, that's just too bad. Nothing can be done. No pay raise except for the standard annual increase.


This scenario can only apply to organizations that have more than one job.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your position assumes people should have a right to have children and be expected to be supported by those around them. Most Americans are not comfortable with taking care of other people's children and that would be a tough sell.



Let's not look at it from the point of view from a janitor because, in many cases, that's it. No room to move up or go anywhere in the "organization" because that's it. If this man or woman has a kid and they can't afford it, that's just too bad. Nothing can be done. No pay raise except for the standard annual increase.


This scenario can only apply to organizations that have more than one job. So you're saying if you're not lucky enough to get a good paying job you should not be allowed to produce offspring ever?

If you do have a child you're just F'd.

You can't ignore an occupation because it doesn't fit into your model because the problem we are trying to solve revolves around those types of occupations.

At some point an organization is going to run out of a need for higher level paying jobs and they still need to fill those lower end jobs.

Originally posted by Newjak
So you're saying if you're not lucky enough to get a good paying job you should not be allowed to produce offspring ever?

Did I say that?


But, Newjak...homie, dude...buddy...you have not idea how depraved and legitimately evil my perspective actually is on this. I have not given you my actual perspective (but you could find it at least 2 times in the GDF if you looked hard enough).

Originally posted by Newjak
If you do have a child you're just F'd.

Yeah, it's kind of been like that throughout all of hominid history. Having children is always a very risky thing to do because our offspring take so damn long to mature. Children, for humans, will always be costly until we come up with some awesome pure communistic systems. That is likely not to happen for a while.

But, I would amend your statement to say, "if you have a child that you cannot support, there is a decent welfare system in place that can help if you don't make enough money."

But you're talking about the corporate system of mandatory training and promotions, right? Well, in the scenario PSmith outlined, a single-employee organization, such as a janitor can sometimes be, is effed if they have a kid they cannot afford. But not really: that's just dramatics on your part. If they fall below a certain level of income, there are decent welfare systems in place. That employee also has the option to seek more pay at another job if they can find it. PSmith's scenario does not apply to this situation because it is not a corporation with multiple jobs that a person can be promoted into. I'll explain this more with blueberries, later (seriously).

Originally posted by Newjak
You can't ignore an occupation because it doesn't fit into your model because the problem we are trying to solve revolves around those types of occupations.

Too bad: it has to be ignored.

Under the current system, the self-employed janitor is f*cked. Under PSmith's proposed system, the self-employed janitor is still f*cked.


Obviously, a self-employed janjitor would not fit into a corporate system (that's not a government system) of assisted education and promotions. It is like PSmith said "blueberries" and you said "potatoes aren't blueberries! haha!"


Originally posted by Newjak
At some point an organization is going to run out of a need for higher level paying jobs and they still need to fill those lower end jobs.

What about the millions of childless people who don't have college degrees? I'm sure they would be perfectly content, in a corporation, making a living wage. And if they weren't content, should they not be rewarded for their hard work?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Did I say that?


But, Newjak...homie, dude...buddy...you have not idea how depraved and legitimately evil my perspective actually is on this. I have not given you my actual perspective (but you could find it at least 2 times in the GDF if you looked hard enough).



Yeah, it's kind of been like that throughout all of hominid history. Having children is always a very risky thing to do because our offspring take so damn long to mature. Children, for humans, will always be costly until we come up with some awesome pure communistic systems. That is likely not to happen for a while.

But, I would amend your statement to say, "if you have a child that you cannot support, there is a decent welfare system in place that can help if you don't make enough money."

But you're talking about the corporate system of mandatory training and promotions, right? Well, in the scenario PSmith outlined, a single-employee organization, such as a janitor can sometimes be, is effed if they have a kid they cannot afford. But not really: that's just dramatics on your part. If they fall below a certain level of income, there are decent welfare systems in place. That employee also has the option to seek more pay at another job if they can find it. PSmith's scenario does not apply to this situation because it is not a corporation with multiple jobs that a person can be promoted into. I'll explain this more with blueberries, later (seriously).



Too bad: it has to be ignored.

Under the current system, the self-employed janitor is f*cked. Under PSmith's proposed system, the self-employed janitor is still f*cked.


Obviously, a self-employed janjitor would not fit into a corporate system (that's not a government system) of assisted education and promotions. It is like PSmith said "blueberries" and you said "potatoes aren't blueberries! haha!"




What about the millions of childless people who don't have college degrees? I'm sure they would be perfectly content, in a corporation, making a living wage. And if they weren't content, should they not be rewarded for their hard work? I've been under the impression that PSmith's recommendation would get rid of welfare.

Also I'm not talking about a self employed janitor I'm talking about a janitor in a large corporation where mandatory job training for those earning less then a certain salary is instituted.

And I understand that under the current system and the proposed on that the janitor is still f*cked. Hence the point I'm trying to make. This solution that PSmith brought up seemed to be aimed at allowing lower paid occupation a chance to earn more. I was showing where it doesn't actually solve the base problem of certain occupations not giving a living wage. If my interpretation of his intent on that system was wrong so be it but that it not how I took it.

As for the millions of employees that are content what happens to them when they get stuck in those positions and can not move higher because there nothing else for them to move up to? What do they do then? Never have children while only those lucky enough to get a decent job do?

Originally posted by StyleTime
Also, I think the train to advance model is interesting, even if kinks may arise.

It's like socialism without the government. We'd get to be liberal and conservative at the same time.

Kinda my point.


Exactly


Agree as well

Originally posted by Newjak
I've been under the impression that PSmith's recommendation would get rid of welfare.


Then let's let him clarify that.

Originally posted by Newjak
Also I'm not talking about a self employed janitor I'm talking about a janitor in a large corporation where mandatory job training for those earning less then a certain salary is instituted.

So then where's the problem? Seems like the guy that had a kid that he cannot afford and, therefore, would be manditorily required to get education or training and moved into another position that paid more, is not an issue for anyone. Since I reject your idea that millions of people who exist that would definitely do the original janitor job, I don't see you presenting any arguments.

Originally posted by Newjak
And I understand that under the current system and the proposed on that the janitor is still f*cked. Hence the point I'm trying to make. This solution that PSmith brought up seemed to be aimed at allowing lower paid occupation a chance to earn more. I was showing where it doesn't actually solve the base problem of certain occupations not giving a living wage. If my interpretation of his intent on that system was wrong so be it but that it not how I took it.

Oh. I see. As you can read from my posts, I make the assumption that a living wage is already being earned for these low-level, low-skilled workers. That's because I think the living wage issue has to be solved, first, before we start entertaining new ideas for promotions.

Originally posted by Newjak
As for the millions of employees that are content what happens to them when they get stuck in those positions and can not move higher because there nothing else for them to move up to? What do they do then? Never have children while only those lucky enough to get a decent job do?

Are you arguing that no jobs will exist? Because that's just not the case nor will it ever be.

So our argument boils down to:

"No jobs will exist."

"Yes they will."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Then let's let him clarify that.



So then where's the problem? Seems like the guy that had a kid that he cannot afford and, therefore, would be manditorily required to get education or training and moved into another position that paid more, is not an issue for anyone. Since I reject your idea that millions of people who exist that would definitely do the original janitor job, I don't see you presenting any arguments.



Oh. I see. As you can read from my posts, I make the assumption that a living wage is already being earned for these low-level, low-skilled workers.



Are you arguing that no jobs will exist? Because that's just not the case nor will it ever be.

So our argument boils down to:

"No jobs will exist."

"Yes they will." I would include the ability to support a child in a living wage.

Anyways I'm not saying there won't be jobs but pretending that there is an unlimited supply is equally dubious. Often times the higher level paying jobs are much less numerous then the number of people trying to get them. And there are limited higher paying jobs and there could be a number of hurdles getting to them.

For instance someone may not be particularly competent at the jobs a company train a lower level employee for. So if a person is not doing well at their mandatory trained job but excel at lower level paying jobs does that mean that person is stuck in their previous job? Does it mean the company is stuck with that employee working in their new job even if they aren't good at it?

Also if the company has only so many higher level paying jobs but more numerous lower level people wanting to move to the higher level jobs what happens to those people that can not get to higher level jobs simply because of positions available?
I mean proposed solution to me doesn't change the primary issue I think exists. It's still based on the same baseless claim that if people want more money then they need to pursue the jobs that will give the wage needed to earn a living. To me this leads back to where we were before. People wanting higher paying jobs but there not being enough to support that desire while people are still being forced into inequality because of their lower paying jobs. You're saying they can not have children unless they are lucky to get the higher paying job and if they do have a child then they are boned unless they get on welfare.

I mean yeah you're assuming welfare exists but I would rather have a system that has employer's pay more to their employers including the cost of being able to raise children. Where only in extreme circumstances should government aid be given because I would rather see those funds go to other things like building and restoring infrastructure.

I mean one of the base things we do as human beings is reproduce. And this solution seems to say yeah if you've had hard times, bad luck, or just come from a poor background with very little room to move up you're still boned.

Originally posted by Newjak
I would include the ability to support a child in a living wage.

Before or after the child?

But, if they are working an honest job, I have a hard time opposing your idea...except for the obviously prohibitive costs of providing a living wage to all. Just because someone has a kid does not mean they are entitled to a pay - raise. That would get rather expensive for many organizations.

Originally posted by Newjak
Anyways I'm not saying there won't be jobs but pretending that there is an unlimited supply is equally dubious.

This is a strawman. The problem was with you stating that there would be no jobs left, not with me stating that there would be unlimited jobs: I never made that statement or assumption. Since you agree that there will be jobs even under that other system, we have no argument.

And to cover the reply where you say I am also strawmanning your point, you said, "....nothing else for them to move up to?" Maybe there is nothing but entry level jobs left in your scenario? Maybe. But it read that you implied there were not jobs left.

Originally posted by Newjak
I mean proposed solution to me doesn't change the primary issue I think exists. It's still based on the same baseless claim that if people want more money then they need to pursue the jobs that will give the wage needed to earn a living. To me this leads back to where we were before. People wanting higher paying jobs but there not being enough to support that desire while people are still being forced into inequality because of their lower paying jobs. You're saying they can not have children unless they are lucky to get the higher paying job and if they do have a child then they are boned unless they get on welfare.

That's not the case at all. If they have children, and they don't make enough money to support it, the organization has a mandatory training or education program to get that person into a higher paying job. Since organizations already have mandatory education or training programs in place, the only thing new, here, is the idea that an employee should make enough money to support their children. This is not barbaric or even a bad thing.

Originally posted by Newjak
I mean yeah you're assuming welfare exists but I would rather have a system that has employer's pay more to their employers including the cost of being able to raise children. Where only in extreme circumstances should government aid be given because I would rather see those funds go to other things like building and restoring infrastructure.

Not everyone can pay a "living wage" to a father of 6 children. A living wage is doable for many employers for just a single man but not all of them, as well. A living wage is a bit of a pipe dream, too.

Let me make it clearer:

A living wage is doable for some organizations like so:

1. Single man, no family - doable
2. Single man, 1-2 children - doable
2. Single man, 5 children - nope.


And another organization may be like this:

1. Single man, no family - not doable.


What is an example of a company that cannot afford a living wage? How about any organization that is in the food business but has fewer that 50 employees?

Originally posted by Newjak
I mean one of the base things we do as human beings is reproduce. And this solution seems to say yeah if you've had hard times, bad luck, or just come from a poor background with very little room to move up you're still boned.

I think this image is funny:

https://i.imgur.com/flnfbxV.jpg

I am not advocating the abolishment of welfare. What i am in favor of is more stringent rules to reduce abuse so we can make sure welfare goes to those who actually need it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Before or after the child?

But, if they are working an honest job, I have a hard time opposing your idea...except for the obviously prohibitive costs of providing a living wage to all. Just because someone has a kid does not mean they are entitled to a pay - raise. That would get rather expensive for many organizations.



This is a strawman. The problem was with you stating that there would be no jobs left, not with me stating that there would be unlimited jobs: I never made that statement or assumption. Since you agree that there will be jobs even under that other system, we have no argument.

And to cover the reply where you say I am also strawmanning your point, you said, "....nothing else for them to move up to?" Maybe there is nothing but entry level jobs left in your scenario? Maybe. But it read that you implied there were not jobs left.



That's not the case at all. If they have children, and they don't make enough money to support it, the organization has a mandatory training or education program to get that person into a higher paying job. Since organizations already have mandatory education or training programs in place, the only thing new, here, is the idea that an employee should make enough money to support their children. This is not barbaric or even a bad thing.



Not everyone can pay a "living wage" to a father of 6 children. A living wage is doable for many employers for just a single man but not all of them, as well. A living wage is a bit of a pipe dream, too.

Let me make it clearer:

A living wage is doable for some organizations like so:

1. Single man, no family - doable
2. Single man, 1-2 children - doable
2. Single man, 5 children - nope.


And another organization may be like this:

1. Single man, no family - not doable.


What is an example of a company that cannot afford a living wage? How about any organization that is in the food business but has fewer that 50 employees?



I think this image is funny:

https://i.imgur.com/flnfbxV.jpg Before the child is born.

Also I'm not advocating for someone to offer a wage that a single man with 5 children needs to make. I did say that there will be cases where aid is still needed to be given.

As for the job availability discussion. There will be no more higher paying jobs then there currently are. Therefore a lot of the same hurdles will still be present in this new system for people with lower end training/jobs to get into them. It's easy to say we'll just train them all and get them jobs but I don't see this statement making new jobs so I don't see the numbers of people with kinds getting out of poverty.

I guess I could just ask what happens when the company can not get a person placed at a higher job, Something that be a much higher occurrence then you realize.

As for not being able to pay a living wage to someone with 1 to 2 kids. If a business can not afford to do that then they should not be in business in my opinion.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I am not advocating the abolishment of welfare. What i am in favor of is more stringent rules to reduce abuse so we can make sure welfare goes to those who actually need it. What kinds of rules?

Originally posted by Newjak
What kinds of rules?



Don't try so hard to be dense. It comes natural enough.

Originally posted by Newjak
What kinds of rules?

I'm not a policy maker but as a taxpayer who hates the idea of welfare because of its abuse, I am willing to pay more for better oversight and more stringencies regarding the deadbeats of American society.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm not a policy maker but as a taxpayer who hates the idea of welfare because of its abuse, I am willing to pay more for better oversight and more stringencies towards the deadbeats of American society. I would agree with this if there was any evidence of serious welfare abuse.

As it stands everything I have ever researched suggests those on welfare are on welfare because they have to be.

Mandatory drug tests has cost millions over the years catching only a handful of applicants while the same number of welfare recipients have been the same.

Those on welfare spend around 50% less then those not on welfare. They make a lot less big purchases like cars computers.

Most people on welfare are still working jobs.

50% of welfare people are off of it in a year. 75% get off welfare within 5 years.

So it's not like most people are trying to stay on welfare assistance. Their jobs just don't give them a livable wage.

On that topic, I wonder how much welfare abuse in America amounts to.

Even the most generous calculations of Norwegian welfare abuse puts it at less than 1% the amount lost to economic and financial crimes.

LOL@"no evidence of welfare abuse". You know, sometimes I think people who make comments like that are living in an alternate fantasy reality from the rest of us; or perhaps they just came down with the last drop of rain or something.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL@"no evidence of welfare abuse". You know, sometimes I think people who make comments like that are living in an alternate fantasy reality from the rest of us; or perhaps they just came down with the last drop of rain or something. Did I say there was no abuse? I said serious abuse. As in it is a wide spread problem.

Backpeddaling and to then ice the cake between serious abuse and abuse

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Backpeddaling and to then ice the cake between serious abuse and abuse

It's not backpedaling, you can see him say 'serious abuse' right here in the initial post.

Originally posted by Newjak
I would agree with this if there was any evidence of serious welfare abuse.

As it stands everything I have ever researched suggests those on welfare are on welfare because they have to be.

Mandatory drug tests has cost millions over the years catching only a handful of applicants while the same number of welfare recipients have been the same.

Those on welfare spend around 50% less then those not on welfare. They make a lot less big purchases like cars computers.

Most people on welfare are still working jobs.

50% of welfare people are off of it in a year. 75% get off welfare within 5 years.

So it's not like most people are trying to stay on welfare assistance. Their jobs just don't give them a livable wage.

Originally posted by Newjak
I would agree with this if there was any evidence of serious welfare abuse.

As it stands everything I have ever researched suggests those on welfare are on welfare because they have to be.

Mandatory drug tests has cost millions over the years catching only a handful of applicants while the same number of welfare recipients have been the same.

Those on welfare spend around 50% less then those not on welfare. They make a lot less big purchases like cars computers.

Most people on welfare are still working jobs.

50% of welfare people are off of it in a year. 75% get off welfare within 5 years.

So it's not like most people are trying to stay on welfare assistance. Their jobs just don't give them a livable wage.

Ha! Those look like the stats I posted a couple of weeks back. If you learned this stuff because I posted it, hooray!!!! If you learned it because you independently discovered it...I'm a bit downtrodden but still glad these stats are being posted.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ha! Those look like the stats I posted a couple of weeks back. If you learned this stuff because I posted it, hooray!!!! If you learned it because you independently discovered it...I'm a bit downtrodden but still glad these stats are being posted. Those were independently researched but glad to see I'm not the only seeing the same thing in the numbers.

Originally posted by Newjak
Before the child is born.

Originally posted by Newjak
Also I'm not advocating for someone to offer a wage that a single man with 5 children needs to make. I did say that there will be cases where aid is still needed to be given.

I think this is a nice segue into my evil and depraved view on human reproduction.

Originally posted by Newjak
As for the job availability discussion. There will be no more higher paying jobs then there currently are. Therefore a lot of the same hurdles will still be present in this new system for people with lower end training/jobs to get into them. It's easy to say we'll just train them all and get them jobs but I don't see this statement making new jobs so I don't see the numbers of people with kinds getting out of poverty.

No, we won't train them all, they all won't get additional educations, and they all won't get promotions. You're doing that thing again where you go out of your way to mischaracterize the other's position and argue against that new mischaracterization (strawman). Obviously, when you say absurdly ridiculous things about us advocating "train them all", there are clearly going to be logistical issues (an unsustainable numbers game). Here's an example of what you did:

Me: We should offer and after school program for Essex county schools.

You: OMG! We don't have the funds to start and after school program for all 3143 counties in the US!

A better way to think about this (both of the answers are "no": Did PSmith or I ever once say, "Train and/or educate them all and then move them all into higher paying jobs!!!"? Did we ever once even come close to implying that?



Originally posted by Newjak
I guess I could just ask what happens when the company can not get a person placed at a higher job, Something that be a much higher occurrence then you realize.


This is another strawman. Not once did we say "higher position" or imply that it only meant higher position. It was better paying position. That could be a hierarchical move, lateral move, or interdepartmental move. This means that they could get a functional demotion. The only goal is to move them into a position where they can make more money and support their child/children.

Originally posted by Newjak
As for not being able to pay a living wage to someone with 1 to 2 kids. If a business can not afford to do that then they should not be in business in my opinion.

Do you know how many extremely small businesses you would f*** over with an attitude like this (it's a bad idea)? This is why things like FMLA only apply to businesses greater than 50 people.

That is ignorant as all hell. It's the business' responsibility to plan accordingly when its employees **** up? Really dumb.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That is ignorant as all hell. It's the business' responsibility to plan accordingly when its employees **** up? Really dumb.



Yea that type of thinking is why this country is in dire straights.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think this is a nice segue into my evil and depraved view on human reproduction.



No, we won't train them all, they all won't get additional educations, and they all won't get promotions. You're doing that thing again where you go out of your way to mischaracterize the other's position and argue against that new mischaracterization (strawman). Obviously, when you say absurdly ridiculous things about us advocating "train them all", there are clearly going to be logistical issues (an unsustainable numbers game). Here's an example of what you did:

Me: We should offer and after school program for Essex county schools.

You: OMG! We don't have the funds to start and after school program for all 3143 counties in the US!

A better way to think about this (both of the answers are "no": Did PSmith or I ever once say, "Train and/or educate them all and then move them all into higher paying jobs!!!"? Did we ever once even come close to implying that?






This is another strawman. Not once did we say "higher position" or imply that it only meant higher position. It was better paying position. That could be a hierarchical move, lateral move, or interdepartmental move. This means that they could get a functional demotion. The only goal is to move them into a position where they can make more money and support their child/children.



Do you know how many extremely small businesses you would f*** over with an attitude like this (it's a bad idea)? This is why things like FMLA only apply to businesses greater than 50 people. I will wait for the segue I want to hear this

I am not intending to strawmen anyone. From my point of view Psmith's idea has presented as a solution to the entire problem. As such I have been discussing it based on the assumption. If I am wrong I am wrong and I will as usual give psmith a chance to clarify.

As it stands though if all you are talking about is this solving a handful of scenarios that are still enclosed in the bigger issue fine. I have already stated that I enjoy the idea of employer's offering paid training to employee's to help learn new skill sets. I just don't see it as a solution to the over all problem. But I can agree it would help a handful of people that have been hit by the overall problem. My problem has been that to me this was presented as the golden bullet which I do not see it as.

As for the higher position. I thin we can agree that most position movements in companies that do paid training are into hierarchal positions such as manager. Or a a job higher up in the ladder. Most pay increases in companies are not lateral. I feel less so when we talk about moving from a lower paying job to a higher paying one unless you are talking about marginal raises like 3% or less a year ones.

I admit extremely small businesses like those less than 50 employees could be hit hard and I could see concessions being made to those companies to help allowing to build up slowly to the new living wage over a decent time span. Probably more so for already existing companies. I think newly created companies that go understanding that need to pay a living wage will be better suited to having to exist within those means.

I have more on the subject of businesses and living wages but I will save that more for my reply to psmith's post.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That is ignorant as all hell. It's the business' responsibility to plan accordingly when its employees **** up? Really dumb. I think we need to discuss to separate things here. One is that my opinion of a good business model is that it is the job of the employer to provide the means for their employees to at least maintain or give the resources to a decent healthy lifestyle. And I do believe this includes the ability to have a reasonable number of children like 1-2. Considering having children has always been a natural part of the human lifecycle.

What I feel we are discussing is an exploitive business model where a business is allowed to grossly underpay their employees so that business can increase profits for a select few. Especially those in positions deemed lower skill non-skilled. I think in our current state of affairs this is the most common model we see.

Considering this is the business model of most large to medium businesses and those businesses workforce make up a large portion of the total workforce. So while I can see concessions in compensation being made for smaller companies I completely think it should be the the responsibility of larger corporations to take care of their employees instead of trying to exploit them to gain record profits which has been the case over the last decade where profits have been going up but the average salary has only barely gone up.

But if you go into making a company and you're trying to pay your employees a non living wage so that you can be successful I completely believe you should not be a business owner.

If you want to start a company the person taking the hits financially should be the owner not their employees.

You used "I" so much, impossible to even read.

Clearly DDM grammar and sentence structure flows more fluid then a page of "I."

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You used "I" so much, impossible to even read. Then don't read it. I can and I'm sure other people can as well.

Talking in first person about a problem you are trying to associate yourself with does not work. Its a god awful read.

http://goinswriter.com/weak-words/

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Talking in first person about a problem you are trying to associate yourself with does not work. Its a god awful read.

http://goinswriter.com/weak-words/ TI there was not a single mention of not using the word "I" in that entire article. Or overusing it or trying not to associate yourself to a problem. If you're going to post an article at least make it relevant to what you are saying.

facepalm

Originally posted by Newjak
TI there was not a single mention of not using the word "I" in that entire article facepalm

To bad there was..

Here is an easier one for you to understand

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121371885556170

Surprising new research from the University of Texas suggests that people who often say "I" are less powerful and less sure of themselves than those who limit their use of the word. Frequent "I" users subconsciously believe they are subordinate to the person to whom they are talking.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
To bad there was.. I'll bite where in the article did it say it?

Originally posted by Newjak
TI there was not a single mention of not using the word "I" in that entire article. Or overusing it or trying not to associate yourself to a problem. If you're going to post an article at least make it relevant to what you are saying.

facepalm

Maybe you will get this

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121371885556170

Surprising new research from the University of Texas suggests that people who often say "I" are less powerful and less sure of themselves than those who limit their use of the word. Frequent "I" users subconsciously believe they are subordinate to the person to whom they are talking.

You didn't like what the wsj had to say apparently.

You're coming up with your own definition of "reasonable" and using 1-2 children as your example. It is the job of the employer to give his employees a decent lifestyle IF HE IS MAKING A PROFIT. That's what you forgot to mention. The human lifecycle is irrelevant in this discussion. If someone is working for a year or two, then starts complaining that he can't make ends meet because he just had 2 children, I don't think it's the employer's job to bump his salary simply because the guy wanted kids. Certainly it's a nice gesture but it's on the employee to live within his means.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're coming up with your own definition of "reasonable" and using 1-2 children as your example. It is the job of the employer to give his employees a decent lifestyle IF HE IS MAKING A PROFIT. That's what you forgot to mention. The human lifecycle is irrelevant in this discussion. If someone is working for a year or two, then starts complaining that he can't make ends meet because he just had 2 children, I don't think it's the employer's job to bump his salary simply because the guy wanted kids. Certainly it's a nice gesture but it's on the employee to live within his means. So you feel that an employer should be making profits first even at the expense of their employees?

That's not what he said.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
That's not what he said. What did he mean?

He mean what he said

"You're coming up with your own definition of "reasonable" and using 1-2 children as your example. It is the job of the employer to give his employees a decent lifestyle IF HE IS MAKING A PROFIT. That's what you forgot to mention. The human lifecycle is irrelevant in this discussion. If someone is working for a year or two, then starts complaining that he can't make ends meet because he just had 2 children, I don't think it's the employer's job to bump his salary simply because the guy wanted kids. Certainly it's a nice gesture but it's on the employee to live within his means."

Your thinking is personal responsibility and accountability is right out the window. And now it's the burden of them employer. It's not..

I have had meetings all morning so I'm actually earning my paycheck a bit, today. I'll respond later. After noon, CST, probably.


But, we all know Newjak is subordinate to me because I'm an arrogant ******* and he's just appeasing my ginormous ego. estahuh

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have had meetings all morning so I'm actually earning my paycheck a bit, today. I'll respond later. After noon, CST, probably.


But, we all know Newjak is subordinate to me because I'm an arrogant ******* and he's just appeasing my ginormous ego. estahuh

Hahahahahah, bout time you poked your butthole in here.

Originally posted by Newjak
So you feel that an employer should be making profits first even at the expense of their employees?

What is up with your strawman arguments? I did not mention anything close to what you said. There was no talk about "at the expense" of anybody. An employer's first job is profit. If his employee decides to have 2 kids during his employment, the employer is not required on any level to increase the employee's pay, especially at the expense of profits.

Originally posted by psmith81992
What is up with your strawman arguments? I did not mention anything close to what you said. There was no talk about "at the expense" of anybody. An employer's first job is profit. If his employee decides to have 2 kids during his employment, the employer is not required on any level to increase the employee's pay, especially at the expense of profits. I'm not trying to strawman you. That is legitimately what it sounded like you were trying to say to me. It's also why I phrased it in the form of a question to verify.

Perhaps we are speaking different topics. I'm not talking about a person having a kid and demanding to employer to pay them more. I'm saying that bare minimum a person should be making a wage that allows them the ability to support a child or two without going into poverty or being forced on welfare to decide. Over 50% of adults 18-40 have at least one child. 40% of adults 18-40 want to have a child even though don't currently have one. Only 6% of adults 18-40 don't want any children.

So yes I do think for the majority of our workers having a decent minimum wage should acount for them having children.

So I'm not saying an employee asking a boss for a raise because they had a child I and the boss saying no is him worrying about profit at the expense of the employee. I'm saying the minimum wage should already be including that. I can hear different arguments for what amount should be. And that if the employer is starting their employees below that minimumwage/living wage then they doing so at the expense of their employees.

So when you say employers should worry about profits first it sounds to me like you're saying they shouldn't worry about giving their employees a living wage if it is effecting profits.

Hopefully this clears up both sides and we can move forward with constructive conversation.

Because it really seems to boil down to whether or jot you believe a living wage should account for having a child.

I guess having kids when you are financially ready goes right out the window. And it's the employers job to support your decision to have kids. Then again that's what abortion is for right?

How about getting a job that can afford you and your kids a good living rather then making it the employers responsibility for your personal decision.

Also you didn't cite your source your percentages.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I guess having kids when you are financially ready goes right out the window. And it's the employers job to support your decision to have kids. Then again that's what abortion is for right?

How about getting a job that can afford you and your kids a good living rather then making it the employers responsibility for your personal decision.

Also you didn't cite your source your percentages.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx

And I do believe it is the job of the employer to offer compensation to their staff that gives them the ability to earn a living wage as presented by Ushgarak. Which does include childcare.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well as Newjak has mentioned 'living wage', let's take the wiki definition for the UK idea of that concept:

"A person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, transport, health care, minimal recreation, one course a year to upgrade their education, and childcare"

I don't know what that number is for the US. or any particular state in the US, but it seems like a good baseline.

Yes so the 18 year old working at McDonalds should have all that?

Do you have a job? Cause something is not making sense here.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes so the 18 year old working at McDonalds should have all that?

Do you have a job? Cause something is not making sense here. Yes they should. At the very least they should not be working hard to only make ends meat on one of the only jobs available to them.

Yes I have a job TI.

"Get a better job" is not an answer to bad wages and an absurdly low minimum wage. If it were possible for most average Americans to get better jobs they would, so in absence of those better jobs why not make the shitty jobs a little less shitty?

Economic growth and jobs growth without proportional growth in wages only leads to worse and worse economic inequality. All the arguments against raising wages and benefits for low level employees tend to revolve around how it might damage the corporations or "make fewer jobs," but how good is a job if it doesn't pay you what you need to live comfortably?

I think about this Henry Ford quote when I see debates on wage increases. Henry Ford is the father of American industrialism and one of the greatest figures in the history of capitalism, but his successors seem to have forgotten his words:

"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible."

You're not going to tell me that any Fortune 500 company can't raise its wages by just a little, if necessary at the expense of the executives' salaries.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I guess having kids when you are financially ready goes right out the window. And it's the employers job to support your decision to have kids. Then again that's what abortion is for right?

How about getting a job that can afford you and your kids a good living rather then making it the employers responsibility for your personal decision.

Also you didn't cite your source your percentages.




Exactly. All the irresponsible people will start thinking "It's ok, honey. The government (taxpayers) will provide us with everything we need if we wanna have more babies. Let's keep *****ing like rabbits".

Exactly, it's better to have babies starve and grow up in poverty, than to give one cent to the parents.

The solution to said wages has already been brought up by me. Nobody is saying "get a better job", or at least I'm not reading that part.


See, "live comfortably" and "basic human needs" aren't the same thing. While it is your right to argue about wages being high enough to live off of, it's a different discussion when you add in the qualifier "comfortably".


You and I must be thinking of a different Henry Ford. The one I've read about treated his employees like garbage.


Yup, that is EXACTLY what we're saying.
Edit: Note the sarcasm.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The solution to said wages has already been brought up by me. Nobody is saying "get a better job", or at least I'm not reading that part.


See, "live comfortably" and "basic human needs" aren't the same thing. While it is your right to argue about wages being high enough to live off of, it's a different discussion when you add in the qualifier "comfortably".


You and I must be thinking of a different Henry Ford. The one I've read about treated his employees like garbage.


Yup, that is EXACTLY what we're saying.
Edit: Note the sarcasm. Are you talking about the mandatory training? Is that what you are talking about when you say solution?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Exactly, it's better to have babies starve and grow up in poverty, than to give one cent to the parents.

When did you start caring about babies.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
When did you start caring about babies.

I care about babies a lot, like with all humans. You probably are referring to me not extending that same care to parasitic human tissue without consciousness...but that's different for many reasons.

Parasitic human tissue? Right....

Originally posted by Omega Vision
"Get a better job" is not an answer to bad wages and an absurdly low minimum wage. If it were possible for most average Americans to get better jobs they would, so in absence of those better jobs why not make the shitty jobs a little less shitty?

Economic growth and jobs growth without proportional growth in wages only leads to worse and worse economic inequality. All the arguments against raising wages and benefits for low level employees tend to revolve around how it might damage the corporations or "make fewer jobs," but how good is a job if it doesn't pay you what you need to live comfortably?

I think about this Henry Ford quote when I see debates on wage increases. Henry Ford is the father of American industrialism and one of the greatest figures in the history of capitalism, but his successors seem to have forgotten his words:

"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible."

You're not going to tell me that any Fortune 500 company can't raise its wages by just a little, if necessary at the expense of the executives' salaries.



You don't honestly think the wasp pigs and jew bigwigs are going to part with their hard earned billions, do you?

LOL. It's easy for Bardock to criticize us like he always does because he doesn't even live here. Why should he give a damn that American taxpayers are the ones who have to pay to take care of irresponsible people and their children? He doesn't have to pay for them so he should just keep his mouth shut.

My my, you've revealed yourself to be a whole lot of stupid, haven't you?