"Socialist" Pay Structure downs Seattle Company

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
👆

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).

Originally posted by Star428
👆

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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."

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: