"Socialist" Pay Structure downs Seattle Company

Originally posted by Newjak
I will wait for the segue I want to hear this 😛

Everyone should get birth control treatment that prevents them from being able to have children until they get a "you can have children" license. This license will be obtained, for a fee, by being assessed by 2 mental health professionals, and by proving you have the required living conditions and income to support the child.

In other words, fascism. No one is allowed to reproduce unless the state can be reasonably assured that the parents or parent is fit to be a parent.

Obviously, this could never be done nor would I advocate it but boy would it be nice if we could require licenses before people could reproduce. Having a child is not a right, it is a privilege, imo. This is no 10,000 BCE, anymore. We live in a different world. When someone has a child that they cannot take care of, everyone else has to take up that burden.

Originally posted by Newjak
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.

I see it as addressing a huge portion of the population but not necessary even a majority. Also, I'm still making the assumption that the living wage question has been "fixed" for at list a single, childless, adult (meaning, at the minimum, a living wage is set as the standard for almost all employees (minus extremely small businesses)).

Originally posted by Newjak
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 don't think we agree, then. Those are usually title changes, and job changes, not hierarchical promotions.

Originally posted by Newjak
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.

So a grandfather clause for very small businesses?

Originally posted by Newjak
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.

This is where we disagree. I don't believe pay should automatically include a cushion for having children. There is a balance between personal responsibility and the state promoting the common welfare of the people. Making it to where every single person in the US can "reasonably afford having 1-2 children" is too far into the "promoting the common welfare." It cuts too far into the ability of a business to competitively manage their organization. If you want to indirectly create this environment through taxes and income thresholds, you won't find much of an argument from me (but we would clearly argue over minor details). Currently, the system does that: if you don't make enough and have so many children, your income can be supplemented through welfare programs (directly/indirectly).

Originally posted by Newjak
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.

I don't since I made it clear that my support of this idea is conditional upon the living wage problem being solved, already.

Originally posted by Newjak
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.

Well, that's back to the living wage debate, then. It doesn't matter if the executive salaries keep going up and up while the employee incomes stay about the same. As long as the employees are still making, on average, a living wage, there is no issue. But, there is an issue: tens of millions of Americans are not making a living wage.

Originally posted by Newjak
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.

You mean a company where one of their primary profit strategies is to specifically make their margins by underpaying their employees? You mean companies like Apple and Walmart? WEEEEEE! 😄 😄 😄

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

But the owner is a human, too. The owner should not take all the hit. There is an extreme situation (and it is very common) of this happening: the business goes under. If you put too much financial burden on the owner, then none of the people in the organization have a paycheck because the business doesn't exist anymore.

There's a regulatory and policy balance. How often do you want businesses to fail because of strict policies and how often do you want them to succeed due to lax policies? Obviously, I am creating a false dichotomy because there are probably millions of other variables that go into successful or failed businesses. But from the angle we are discussing this, we are talking about it from a regulatory and compliance perspective.

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?

Oh. Haha.

Cold.

Imagine this:

"I need a raise. We're going to have a child."

"We don't cover raises for employees expecting children. We generally run a meritocracy around here. Being able to have sex good enough to create a human is not something we deem as a 'merit-able raise consideration.' However, our benefits do cover abortions: you can abort for free. 😈 Also, as your boss, let me strongly add **** your couch!"

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
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.

Yeeeaaah....that would require a person to take a literal and direct control over their life.

🙂

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Parasitic human tissue? Right....

That is what it is until it is capable of living outside of the human body on its own. Hence, why there are no third term abortions unless extreme circumstances...

I don't really know why this is in this thread though, but anyways.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Everyone should get birth control treatment that prevents them from being able to have children until they get a "you can have children" license. This license will be obtained, for a fee, by being assessed by 2 mental health professionals, and by proving you have the required living conditions and income to support the child.

In other words, fascism. No one is allowed to reproduce unless the state can be reasonably assured that the parents or parent is fit to be a parent.

Obviously, this could never be done nor would I advocate it but boy would it be nice if we could require licenses before people could reproduce. Having a child is not a right, it is a privilege, imo. This is no 10,000 BCE, anymore. We live in a different world. When someone has a child that they cannot take care of, everyone else has to take up that burden.

I see it as addressing a huge portion of the population but not necessary even a majority. Also, I'm still making the assumption that the living wage question has been "fixed" for at list a single, childless, adult (meaning, at the minimum, a living wage is set as the standard for almost all employees (minus extremely small businesses)).

I don't think we agree, then. Those are usually title changes, and job changes, not hierarchical promotions.

So a grandfather clause for very small businesses?

This is where we disagree. I don't believe pay should automatically include a cushion for having children. There is a balance between personal responsibility and the state promoting the common welfare of the people. Making it to where every single person in the US can "reasonably afford having 1-2 children" is too far into the "promoting the common welfare." It cuts too far into the ability of a business to competitively manage their organization. If you want to indirectly create this environment through taxes and income thresholds, you won't find much of an argument from me (but we would clearly argue over minor details). Currently, the system does that: if you don't make enough and have so many children, your income can be supplemented through welfare programs (directly/indirectly).

I don't since I made it clear that my support of this idea is conditional upon the living wage problem being solved, already.

Well, that's back to the living wage debate, then. It doesn't matter if the executive salaries keep going up and up while the employee incomes stay about the same. As long as the employees are still making, on average, a living wage, there is no issue. But, there is an issue: tens of millions of Americans are not making a living wage.

You mean a company where one of their primary profit strategies is to specifically make their margins by underpaying their employees? You mean companies like Apple and Walmart? WEEEEEE! 😄 😄 😄

But the owner is a human, too. The owner should not take all the hit. There is an extreme situation (and it is very common) of this happening: the business goes under. If you put too much financial burden on the owner, then none of the people in the organization have a paycheck because the business doesn't exist anymore.

There's a regulatory and policy balance. How often do you want businesses to fail because of strict policies and how often do you want them to succeed due to lax policies? Obviously, I am creating a false dichotomy because there are probably millions of other variables that go into successful or failed businesses. But from the angle we are discussing this, we are talking about it from a regulatory and compliance perspective.

I need to get some work done but I will reply to this.

EDIT:

One question though what do you mean by a hierarchal promotion?

I am for a middle ground between what I view as extremist right wing and extremist left wing implementations. I do think you'd probably view it as too left though.

Originally posted by AbnormalButSane
That is what it is until it is capable of living outside of the human body on its own. Hence, why there are no third term abortions unless extreme circumstances...

I don't really know why this is in this thread though, but anyways.

Bardock brought it up

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh. Haha.

Cold.

Imagine this:

"I need a raise. We're going to have a child."

"We don't cover raises for employees expecting children. We generally run a meritocracy around here. Being able to have sex good enough to create a human is not something we deem as a 'merit-able raise consideration.' However, our benefits do cover abortions: you can abort for free. 😈 Also, as your boss, let me strongly add **** your couch!"

Yeeeaaah....that would require a person to take a literal and direct control over their life.

🙂

👆

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-04/goldman-confused-if-economy-recovering-then-how-possible

I love zerohedge.

Finally got the time to respond ddm 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
Everyone should get birth control treatment that prevents them from being able to have children until they get a "you can have children" license. This license will be obtained, for a fee, by being assessed by 2 mental health professionals, and by proving you have the required living conditions and income to support the child.

In other words, fascism. No one is allowed to reproduce unless the state can be reasonably assured that the parents or parent is fit to be a parent.

Obviously, this could never be done nor would I advocate it but boy would it be nice if we could require licenses before people could reproduce. Having a child is not a right, it is a privilege, imo. This is no 10,000 BCE, anymore. We live in a different world. When someone has a child that they cannot take care of, everyone else has to take up that burden.

Like you I would never advocate for such a plan and would vote against it. I think putting that kind of power out of the hands of populace is extreme. Still I could see it doing some good if implemented.

So it seems like we are coming to a good basis for talking. It seems like what you are saying is that you are already under the impression of a living wage but you do not feel the cost of childcare should be added to a living wage from the onset.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I see it as addressing a huge portion of the population but not necessary even a majority. Also, I'm still making the assumption that the living wage question has been "fixed" for at list a single, childless, adult (meaning, at the minimum, a living wage is set as the standard for almost all employees (minus extremely small businesses)).

My major concern is that children are a major factor in people's lives. A majority of adults already have them and majority that do not have kids plan on having them so soon will. So if we are going to do a starting living wage that for childless adults I want to make sure a good mechanism would be in place for when that pay change needs to happen.

Otherwise will the odds and time frame of becoming a parent I think we could end up where we are today with a large portion of people scraping by while having to go on welfare even though their employers can afford to give them more money.

So once again I'm good with the idea of making it a switch of single childless to someone with a child I just think it needs to be reliable in how it does so.

Here is where we get to psmith's idea, which on paper sounds good, and why I do not think it adequately gives that mechanism to switch between the types of living wages we are discussing.

The main reason is that while I love the idea of continuing education for someone it doesn't solve the problems we currently face with having people in low paying jobs. Higher paying salary jobs, titles, advancements are not abundant in supply. Therefore moving up to those positions are not guaranteed. I mean currently we have issues of highly educated people unable to find non minimum wage jobs due to demand of those jobs. I did not see anything in Psmith's proposal to solve that problem to make sure the higher paying salaries are available or open to the people needing to bump up to those salaries due to having children.

There are other things as well such as by the time they are done with training they could already be in the whole from having to need the pay bump before the training is done.

So to me until that mechanism is in place and because having children in this country happens so often I would rather just have the base living wage start with childcare in mind considering most workers are going to fall into that category anyways.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I don't think we agree, then. Those are usually title changes, and job changes, not hierarchical promotions.

Perhaps it is different in places where you have worked but in companies I have worked at or have been told about by other people the only way to get sizable pay bumps is to move to new roles, primarily in manager/leadership roles or getting a job transfer into a occupation that pays higher. There is not much in terms of lateral promotions. That fact is actually an extremely major gripe I have with companies that they are more or less vertical in how they get promotions and not horizontal.

Originally posted by dadudemon

So a grandfather clause for very small businesses?

So giving smaller businesses a chance to handle that turnover to a higher living wage is perfectly reasonable to me. It gives them time to adjust without dying over night.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Well, that's back to the living wage debate, then. It doesn't matter if the executive salaries keep going up and up while the employee incomes stay about the same. As long as the employees are still making, on average, a living wage, there is no issue. But, there is an issue: tens of millions of Americans are not making a living wage.

Originally posted by dadudemon

You mean a company where one of their primary profit strategies is to specifically make their margins by underpaying their employees? You mean companies like Apple and Walmart? WEEEEEE! 😄 😄 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon

But the owner is a human, too. The owner should not take all the hit. There is an extreme situation (and it is very common) of this happening: the business goes under. If you put too much financial burden on the owner, then none of the people in the organization have a paycheck because the business doesn't exist anymore.

Originally posted by dadudemon

There's a regulatory and policy balance. How often do you want businesses to fail because of strict policies and how often do you want them to succeed due to lax policies? Obviously, I am creating a false dichotomy because there are probably millions of other variables that go into successful or failed businesses. But from the angle we are discussing this, we are talking about it from a regulatory and compliance perspective.

First off creating a living wage that includes childcare expenses built in would not be too hard for the major corporations which employ the most. So I'm not too worried on that front. Of course the major issue comes to small businesses. Can they afford to do so. I think they can if given adequate time to adjust.

Of course I've always thought a companies priorities should be:
Taking Care of the Clients
Taking Care of the Employees
Taking Care of the Bottom Line

To me handling the first two well helps drive the third and maintain overall business health.