"Socialist" Pay Structure downs Seattle Company

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?

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. 😮‍💨

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.

@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.

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

😆 😆

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.

👆

What if they don't have time for this skill training with their new responsibilities as parents?

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.

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. 😈

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.