Jump to content

If You Could Find A Job


Razors Edge

Recommended Posts

...today, that significantly paid more, came with a signing bonus, was - at worst - the same as your present job, and you could start immediately (or whenever you wanted), would you quit and jump ship?  Especially if you were doing the job of two or three other folks that already left?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

...today, that significantly paid more, came with a signing bonus, was - at worst - the same as your present job, and you could start immediately (or whenever you wanted), would you quit and jump ship?  Especially if you were doing the job of two or three other folks that already left?

Did you get something lobbed at you?

Doing job of 2-3 people especially in IT world, never sounds good.  Maybe doing job of 2nd person might be bearable for a yr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, shootingstar said:

Did you get something lobbed at you?

Doing job of 2-3 people especially in IT world, never sounds good.  Maybe doing job of 2nd person might be bearable for a yr.

No.  It's the "dilemma" faced by the service industry right now.  Basically, they have their pick of other service industry jobs - for more pay and often signing bonuses - and likely a bit of labor market empowerment right now.  We see the "shortages" across the service industries, and it sort of seems nice to hear it is due to them having different and potentially better opportunities, rather than due to more mercurial events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

No.  It's the "dilemma" faced by the service industry right now.  Basically, they have their pick of other service industry jobs - for more pay and often signing bonuses - and likely a bit of labor market empowerment right now.  We see the "shortages" across the service industries, and it sort of seems nice to hear it is due to them having different and potentially better opportunities, rather than due to more mercurial events.

We just have to bear with inconsistent restaurant service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read another article today about why there's so many job openings and people changing jobs.  The concept being that when COVID change everything, people took a step back and reprioritized a lot of things.  So even though companies are offering higher wages and benefits, a ton of people are looking instead for quality of life stuff.

That's a concept I get.  I've accrued a lot of time off, I appreciate that.  The flexibility here is great, the short commute is great, it's a good environment, on site gym, they take care of us well.  Would take a lot for me to move now.  A bunch of years ago when the kids were small, I got an offer with about a 50% increase.  Then they started upping it, signing bonus, increased that, a car..... I still had to turn it down.  It would have meant a lot of time away from the family, a big burden on my wife for that.  And even thought I would only work a few days a week for part of the summer, November December would be 80 hour weeks.  The guy who tried to hire me still gives me a half joking hard time about it, but he totally gets why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, shootingstar said:

We just have to bear with inconsistent restaurant service.

Eventually, the market will stabilize.  The better run restaurants will have better service, higher prices, and better compensated employees.  The ones that still have patchy service will be the ones that aren't very well run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

.today, that significantly paid more, came with a signing bonus, was - at worst - the same as your present job, and you could start immediately (or whenever you wanted), would you quit and jump ship?  Especially if you were doing the job of two or three other folks that already left?

Yes.

I love my current job. The culture, the people, and the direct management are amazing. But, a company doesn't give a shit about you. It doesn't care about it's people. HR is not a resource but a disguised additional insulator between the peons that make the wheel turn and those who actually reap the benefits.

Jumping ship for better pay is an industry standard in the DS/DA space right now. The general understanding is 3-4 years. Then you need to move up to do that the best opportunity is out and up.

19 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

We see the "shortages" across the service industries

Also keep in mind a lit of these "shortages" are manufactured. https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2021/10/20/a-florida-man-applied-for-60-entry-level-jobs-in-a-month-to-prove-the-so-called-labor-shortage-is-a-myth

This is just the one to get the most traction but I've seen many tales similar. The shortage is in the businesses not wanting to pay more for their employees. A bit of napkin math with the employment numbers. Amazon boasts they pay double the federal rate at $15/hour to their 950,000 (yes almost a million US employees). They still managed to make 22 billion in profits last year.

Now the research from Kahneman and Deaton point to the happiness index at its highest with an median salary of $63,000, that's $30 an hour. If Amazon raised the rates of all employees who make less than $30 and by extension those that make more a linear increase above as well (yes everybody gets a raise) then the additional costs for Amazon is 9.9 billion. With raising their employees into the range where finances are not a worry. They get a more productive and happier workforce, who spends more money on the local economy, who pays more taxes. And they still make 10 BILLION in profit

This is not a novel idea. An Amazon is easy to pick on. But the same goes across most industries. 

 

Now the argument is the smaller businesses can't support higher wages, especially in the service center. Well of course; for now. But if a concerted effort to raise everyone's expectations in salary means more can be expected from all industries. The restaurant can raise prices because they have better products, better staff, and offer the same type of value for the dollar people can afford to spend. 

  • Heart 3
  • Awesome 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 12string said:

I read another article today about why there's so many job openings and people changing jobs.  The concept being that when COVID change everything, people took a step back and reprioritized a lot of things.  So even though companies are offering higher wages and benefits, a ton of people are looking instead for quality of life stuff.

That's a concept I get.  I've accrued a lot of time off, I appreciate that.  The flexibility here is great, the short commute is great, it's a good environment, on site gym, they take care of us well.  Would take a lot for me to move now.  A bunch of years ago when the kids were small, I got an offer with about a 50% increase.  Then they started upping it, signing bonus, increased that, a car..... I still had to turn it down.  It would have meant a lot of time away from the family, a big burden on my wife for that.  And even thought I would only work a few days a week for part of the summer, November December would be 80 hour weeks.  The guy who tried to hire me still gives me a half joking hard time about it, but he totally gets why.

Yep - consider a Dual Income family (or DINKs too).  Do you need two incomes? What is the point of two people working?  To pay the premium cable bill and lease two BMWs (not to mention the day care or nanny or au pair)?  We're creatures of habit and get stuck in ruts, and a shake-up of things - including priorities - helps sometimes.  My wife's world got all sorts of crazy from COVID and then the  death her father and near full time executor duties.  She definitely will adapt and change when this is over!

So, the labor market beyond the service industry surely has lots of folks retiring early (or even on time) or thinking, "I have enough savings and 401k to make a move to something else", so there will be turmoil ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

Eventually, the market will stabilize.  The better run restaurants will have better service, higher prices, and better compensated employees.  The ones that still have patchy service will be the ones that aren't very well run.

The restaurant industry doesn't pay that well...in general. The profit margins aren't that great either for owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, shootingstar said:

The restaurant industry doesn't pay that well...in general.

True but it really depends on the city.

Many cities and CA in general are implementing living wage ordinances. In Los Angeles the living wage is over $19 an hour.  If you are flipping burgers for McDonalds in LA you are earning decent money for unskilled labor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ChrisL said:

True but it really depends on the city.

Many cities and CA in general are implementing living wage ordinances. In Los Angeles the living wage is over $19 an hour.  If you are flipping burgers for McDonalds in LA you are earning decent money for unskilled labor. 

I have to look up the  legislated minimum wage for our province since I've moved around in Canada and haven't paid attention.

But still it's not alot of money and very tight to live on.  For an older teenager, it's fine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I likely wouldn't.  Change is hard and I'm close enough to retirement that it really wouldn't be worth it to me to get used to a whole new set of people, procedures and problems.  If I were just starting out in my career, probably yes.  But I like the people I work with and they generally treat me well and respectfully.  That's not a given at a lot of jobs.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sitcheeation actually helped Gina out this last month. :nodhead:

She works in customer service for a warehousing outfit. She was at a company for 22 years as a manager doing the same thing making good money. They started restructuring the company and let a lot of the vets go, really sucked. But with a big severance package. This company had developed some super tight rules as well. If you were late, 1 point, if you made a mistake 1 point if you messed up in any way, 1 point. When you got to 3 points, you were terminated for the hourly employees and no erasing points. That sucked seeing they were trying to terminate employees rather than lay off.

So a year later, she gets a job with a company directly across the street. Very relaxed atmosphere. But there is a gal who is a loudmouth, racist, political, lazy bum employee. The office area is very relaxed but Gina has old school work values. This young gal would leave work saying she was driving to the other building down the road about 1/4 mile. Then she would vanish for a couple of hours fairly often. Lots of lazy type person things. The manager wanted to get rid of her but couldn't for obvious reasons. I guess not wanting to deal with certain issues.  The girl pretty much did what she wanted. But it was very relaxed so she took advantage of it.

Gina went in and the gal training her had medical issues, never found out why but she was gone for long periods of time. So Gina got trained for one week then the gal went back on leave for 4 months. Supposed to come back but never did.

So Gina, having 22 years experience and on the same system figured everything out. Old school work habits earned her a really good rep with the customers. One customer sent a $100 gift certificate to our home for Christmas. This was after she was there about 2 months. Then about 3 months ago, another customer sent a $100 gift card to her at work for Dominoes Pizza telling her to treat all the office employees to pizza. They sent messages to the big manager saying she was a breath of fresh air and they really appreciated her help and efforts. If you ever met Gina, you'd know she is the sweetest, most patient, nicest person ever! :nodhead:

Funny the other company she worked for walked in to Gina's new company and saw her there. That manager said hello and surprised to see her there. But strangely enough, he was there to talk to management hoping to get help from their company as far as storage space. Never worked out because her current manager didn't want to get involved. Tough luck! 

Then the bum gal came in about 3 weeks ago and said she found another job giving 2 weeks notice. Management was pretty happy about that. She gave 2 week notice and was supposed to train another person on her accounts. She showed up 2 days, from 5 am to 7 am then left before the boss came in. They were pretty upset and the people who were taking over her accounts had to figure it out for themselves.

So after a week, the bum still had one week left, the boss called Gina into the office.  Uh oh, what did she do? The boss tells her that he learned a lesson from the bum gal, he wanted to make sure that his faithful employees would not leave. Said he was glad the bum left and if she ever tries to come back, it won't happen. But he tells Gina she is one of 3 most valuable employees so he wants to make sure she is happy and not thinking about leaving. So he tells her starting Monday, it was a Thurs I think, that she is getting another $2 on top of her current pay. Wow! Gina was already making good pay so another $2 !!!! As a manager at the other company, she was making good money on salary. This job, she is making close to that on hourly so if she works any OT, she will be making what she was making as a manager. Luckily they don't work too much OT, maybe an hour or two per week. Don't really want to OT anyway. But is sure was nice of them to give her mo' money.

So the bum gal jumped ship which helped Gina out seeing Gina is a more faithful legit earn your pay type of employee.

The gal said she was going to a new company as they offered her the same pay but it was closer to her home. Turns out, at the end she finally told the coworkers what company she was going to work for. It was the company Gina worked for 22 years in customer service. She really screwed herself. That company is very strict. No way is she disappearing during work hours, no way is she going to wear political racist t shirt, and they have a dress code, office attire. Very strict rules and the gal having 3 kids, settled for an odd hour shift. From 1 pm to 10 pm.

That gal jumped ship thinking she's getting something better but Gina thinks she just screwed herself and management doesn't want her back. So before anyone jumps ship, remember the grass ain't always greener on the other side. The gal has been there about a week. Gina and her bosses who know that company figure the bum gal will be back in about a month or two asking for her job back. 

But thanks  for the increase in pay! :happyanim: 

  • Heart 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

No.  It's the "dilemma" faced by the service industry right now.  Basically, they have their pick of other service industry jobs - for more pay and often signing bonuses - and likely a bit of labor market empowerment right now.  We see the "shortages" across the service industries, and it sort of seems nice to hear it is due to them having different and potentially better opportunities, rather than due to more mercurial events.

If you don't have a livable minimum wage, what happens is what happened until recently.  You make the poorest and most desperate out there work three low paying shitty jobs just to survive, and treat them like interchangeable shit and never train them so they can ever aspire to something better.

If you have a livable minimum wage (where NOBODY gets rich, a necessary disclaimer for the ignorant fucks that don't think people should be paid for their labor and that those people somehow want to be millionaires for breaking their backs for minimum wage), then those three-income folks can become two or even one-income folks and actually see their kids, have a life, and maybe go take some community college or trade classes to actually better themselves.  That leaves businesses with exploitative business models scrambling to find folks who no longer have to take the first crappy job offered and can and will easily walk for better treatment and better pay.  Adapt or die, in the survival of the fittest way.  Capitalistic Darwinism, isn't that what everyone wants?

Oh, some people will cry, bitch, and moan "Oh, what about the poor exploitative business owners that employ the bulk of their workforce at minimum wage, they will never be able to compete with (insert stupid bullshit comparison here) anymore, they need to treat their workforce like slave-owning thugs now more than ever!"  Yeah, sure, stump for corporate welfare some more, you useful dolt/pawn of the shitheads!

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChrisL said:

Many cities and CA in general are implementing living wage ordinances.

I think cities realize that if a person is working, and businesses are making money, yet the city is still required to spend money to prop those working people up, then there is something not quite right going on.  It is what folks generally are talking about when Walmart comes in and displaces smaller businesses - especially by undercutting prices (partly through lower paid employees?) and then the town/county's welfare rate goes up especially with "working" poor who are at Walmart, part time, low wage, and not covered by things like health insurance.

  • Heart 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

If you don't have a livable minimum wage, what happens is what happened until recently.  You make the poorest and most desperate out there work three low paying shitty jobs just to survive, and treat them like interchangeable shit and never train them so they can ever aspire to something better.

If you have a livable minimum wage (where NOBODY gets rich, a necessary disclaimer for the ignorant fucks that don't think people should be paid for their labor and that those people somehow want to be millionaires for breaking their backs for minimum wage), then those three-income folks can become two or even one-income folks and actually see their kids, have a life, and maybe go take some community college or trade classes to actually better themselves.  That leaves businesses with exploitative business models scrambling to find folks who no longer have to take the first crappy job offered and can and will easily walk for better treatment and better pay.  Adapt or die, in the survival of the fittest way.  Capitalistic Darwinism, isn't that what everyone wants?

Oh, some people will cry, bitch, and moan "Oh, what about the poor exploitative business owners that employ the bulk of their workforce at minimum wage, they will never be able to compete with (insert stupid bullshit comparison here) anymore, they need to treat their workforce like slave-owning thugs now more than ever!"  Yeah, sure, stump for corporate welfare some more, you useful dolt/pawn of the shitheads!

Wait until you're paying $50 for your Starbucks, you moran! :happyanim:

  • Heart 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, 12string said:

The concept being that when COVID change everything, people took a step back and reprioritized a lot of things.  So even though companies are offering higher wages and benefits, a ton of people are looking instead for quality of life stuff.

Yup.  I think lots of folks where one spouse could stop working decided that they were sick of their lives being filled with unnecessary stresses and aggravation for what was not enough to make it worthwhile for them.  Plus, with minimum wages going up, lots of previously filled jobs became openings.  Time for some change, and this seems fine to me.

2 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

Wait until you're paying $50 for your Starbucks, you moran! :happyanim:

You gotta admit, that was good pot-stirring while being 100% factually correct and really inarguable except by the most shit-headed amongst us.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

Yup.  I think lots of folks where one spouse could stop working decided that they were sick of their lives being filled with unnecessary stresses and aggravation for what was not enough to make it worthwhile for them.  Plus, with minimum wages going up, lots of previously filled jobs became openings.  Time for some change, and this seems fine to me.

You gotta admit, that was good pot-stirring while being 100% factually correct and really inarguable except by the most shit-headed amongst us.

In the old days, we'd just go out and find a country (or continent) and grab some cheap labor from there to exploit for these lower end jobs.  Oddly, it would seem there are hundreds of thousands of folks out there more than willing to come work at a safe place like a restaurant or hotel or automotive or landscaping business, but we've probably limited that pipeline a bit.

It will be interesting to see where the labor pool comes from? HS and college kids?  Automation?  Consolidation/efficiency?  It's definitely a turbulent time for that sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, shootingstar said:

The restaurant industry doesn't pay that well...in general. The profit margins aren't that great either for owners.

It does here. Local pizza place was offering $25-35/hr to make pizza. That's $52-72k/year plus benefits. Asst. mgr at a juice place $55-70k/yr. Store Clerk, Sandwich Ninja/Prep Master $20/hr plus tips

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, denniS said:

It does here. Local pizza place was offering $25-35/hr to make pizza. That's $52-72k/year plus benefits. Asst. mgr at a juice place $55-70k/yr. Store Clerk, Sandwich Ninja/Prep Master $20/hr plus tips

Those seem like reasonable and fair wages.  Hopefully that becomes the norm.

  • Heart 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

Those seem like reasonable and fair wages.  Hopefully that becomes the norm.

It seems to be locally. Housing limited how many people can live here. Employers are essentially taking people from one place to the next. Many restaurants are closed 1-2 days a week. They are treating staff like they matter, good pay and benefits, flexible schedules etc. 

  • Heart 1
  • Thank You 1
  • Awesome 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, denniS said:

It seems to be locally. Housing limited how many people can live here. Employers are essentially taking people from one place to the next. Many restaurants are closed 1-2 days a week. They are treating staff like they matter, good pay and benefits, flexible schedules etc. 

How refreshing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

If you don't have a livable minimum wage, what happens is what happened until recently.  You make the poorest and most desperate out there work three low paying shitty jobs just to survive, and treat them like interchangeable shit and never train them so they can ever aspire to something better.

If you have a livable minimum wage (where NOBODY gets rich, a necessary disclaimer for the ignorant fucks that don't think people should be paid for their labor and that those people somehow want to be millionaires for breaking their backs for minimum wage), then those three-income folks can become two or even one-income folks and actually see their kids, have a life, and maybe go take some community college or trade classes to actually better themselves.  That leaves businesses with exploitative business models scrambling to find folks who no longer have to take the first crappy job offered and can and will easily walk for better treatment and better pay.  Adapt or die, in the survival of the fittest way.  Capitalistic Darwinism, isn't that what everyone wants?

Oh, some people will cry, bitch, and moan "Oh, what about the poor exploitative business owners that employ the bulk of their workforce at minimum wage, they will never be able to compete with (insert stupid bullshit comparison here) anymore, they need to treat their workforce like slave-owning thugs now more than ever!"  Yeah, sure, stump for corporate welfare some more, you useful dolt/pawn of the shitheads!

Nice rant!

I employ contract staff and my vendor is always trying to get me to increase the entry wage. I did once but I’m still getting low quality staff on a couple of vacancies.  I give them a week or so but have been sending them back, yeah thanks but no thanks.

2 things I have noticed providing and now utilizing an entry level work force is:

Higher wages doesn’t directly correlate to higher caliber person.  In a tight labor market you get what you get.  The last bonehead who came in for $16.50 would have taken $15 if that’s all there was available.

Work environment is critical for retention.  Treat your people well, empower them and make them feel valued.  My tenured staff are all critical to our operations and have earned wages exceeding $20 an hour, over $5 an hour more from where they started. 

 

  • Heart 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChrisL said:

Nice rant!

I employ contract staff and my vendor is always trying to get me to increase the entry wage. I did once but I’m still getting low quality staff on a couple of vacancies.  I give them a week or so but have been sending them back, yeah thanks but no thanks.

2 things I have noticed providing and now utilizing an entry level work force is:

Higher wages doesn’t directly correlate to higher caliber person.  In a tight labor market you get what you get.  The last bonehead who came in for $16.50 would have taken $15 if that’s all there was available.

Work environment is critical for retention.  Treat your people well, empower them and make them feel valued.  My tenured staff are all critical to our operations and have earned wages exceeding $20 an hour, over $5 an hour more from where they started.

Which is the interesting side-effect occurring in many of these jobs - ie. you hire that bonehead at $16.50, and the previously hired folks, who have cut it and do a good job, start to wonder WTF they are doing "wrong" (or "right") to be barely making more than the new idiot.  And, that idiot got a $1,500 signing bonus.  That's a real challenge for some places.  I don't think most staff have a problem if an "equal" comes in and makes near or a little more than them, but when they see someone clearly LESS useful getting the same or more, it can get bad.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, denniS said:

It seems to be locally. Housing limited how many people can live here. Employers are essentially taking people from one place to the next. Many restaurants are closed 1-2 days a week. They are treating staff like they matter, good pay and benefits, flexible schedules etc. 

I think resort towns are an outlier though.  You have to treat service workers well, pay them well above industry average as you have a diminished labor pool, semi isolated area and very expensive housing.  

These factors really aren’t being faced by companies in NY, LA other major metro areas.  

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Razors Edge said:

Which is the interesting side-effect occurring in many of these jobs - ie. you hire that bonehead at $16.50, and the previously hired folks, who have cut it and do a good job, start to wonder WTF they are doing "wrong" (or "right") to be barely making more than the new idiot.  And, that idiot got a $1,500 signing bonus.  That's a real challenge for some places.  I don't think most staff have a problem if an "equal" comes in and makes near or a little more than them, but when they see someone clearly LESS useful getting the same or more, it can get bad.

I faced that very same dilemma.  I told my vendor if you raise the entry wage you have to raise the existing staff accordingly.  They didn’t make that connection but ultimately did it. This increases my costs tremendously… 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ChrisL said:

I faced that very same dilemma.  I told my vendor if you raise the entry wage you have to raise the existing staff accordingly.  They didn’t make that connection but ultimately did it. This increases my costs tremendously… 

10 years ago when I was still working I pointed out to my supervisor that they were hiring people at an entry wage higher than mine.  He was shocked and went upstairs and a few weeks later came back with a significant raise for me.  A few weeks after that they informed me that my job had been eliminated.   Life's not fair.  Don't expect it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

10 years ago when I was still working I pointed out to my supervisor that they were hiring people at an entry wage higher than mine.  He was shocked and went upstairs and a few weeks later came back with a significant raise for me.  A few weeks after that they informed me that my job had been eliminated.   Life's not fair.  Don't expect it to be.

Yeah but I’m looking at this from the employer side with retention & employee morale in mind.  I’d rather pay more to tenured staff than place & retrain them.  Life ain’t fair but I’m not gonna piss of my good employees. 

That also happened to me many years ago. I started out in management at $24K a year.  About 9 months into my employment the entry wage got bumped up to $30K.  At my 1 year review my wage increased to $28K.  

I tendered my resignation and told my boss he could rehire me for $30K or replace me.  He talked to HR and they bumped me to $30K but that always left a bad taste in my mouth. 
 

 

  • Heart 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ChrisL said:

These factors really aren’t being faced by companies in NY, LA other major metro areas.  

Actually, they are not that dissimilar when you think about it.  People staffing minimum wage jobs can't afford to live in NYC or LA, they have to come in from a distance.  If they can get the same wages and save an hour and a half each way on their commute, they are way ahead of where they were previously.  That means LA and NYC businesses have to treat people better and pay them better still to retain them.  Here, you have the rich folks crowding out the poor folks, so much so that it has been hard for a while to find decent help in the lower echelons.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

You should have asked for $34K instead of them hiring and training someone new who might not work out.   I would have been plenty pissed, too.

In hindsight probably so but I also had a young child & didn’t want to be looking for work if they called my bluff either.

When I eventually did leave the company the owners son tried several strong arm & scare tactics to get me to stay. He finally said, how much?  How much what? How much for you to stay?  

I was so frustrated with them I said it’s not about the money but damn what if I said $200K (I was making about $75K). I wonder what he would have said. 

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, goldendesign said:

Also keep in mind a lit of these "shortages" are manufactured.

Yeah, anecdotal evidence from a guy who had an article to write so approached it with an agenda and fills it with - well, nothing, he just said he didn't a job. or BLM statistics from all over the country.  Or, hey, even compare it to anecdotal evidence from the hundreds of thousands of employers who are short staffed and can't get people to  take the jobs. 

There IS  labor shortage, not because there aren't people, but due to some LONG overdue reckoning.

There have always been a few terrible employers that no one will work for unless they have to.  More people are deciding they don't have to.  Crappy employers are another reason there's a labor shortage

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 12string said:

Crappy employers are another reason there's a labor shortage

I think that was the whole point of that "experiment".  He went only to businesses where owners were crying very publicly about their supposed inability to find people to work for them, which turned out to be disingenuous at best.

The reckoning IS long overdue, I agree.  Leverage needs to be applied when leverage is obtainable.  You strongarm your workers long enough, it is cool to get your medicine back at you if your whole business model is based on keeping the poor so poor that they have no choice than to continue slaving for you.  Also, based on the previous model changing, do you really need 170 Dunkin' Donuts locations just in Manhattan?  How about more than 250 McDonalds in the city?  Walk an extra block for the crap food if you need it, I won't cry if half of those places close, although we know that they will find a way to adapt to a new lowest common denominator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boomers are retiring. There are fewer millenials and younger to replace them. 300,000 of working age have died of Covid. Some people were fed up and left the work force when they found out it was less expensive to stay at home than pay commuting and child care. Unemployment is at 2.8% around here. That's about as low as it can reasonably get according to economists. Don't say people don't want to work with out including the unspoken "for you". 

  • Heart 1
  • Awesome 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Razors Edge said:

...today, that significantly paid more, came with a signing bonus, was - at worst - the same as your present job, and you could start immediately (or whenever you wanted), would you quit and jump ship?  Especially if you were doing the job of two or three other folks that already left?

YES!

My job had me locked-in because of pension benefits.  The pension amount is back-loaded and partly based on the last 3 years avg. salary.  The Cadillac-level health retirement insurance benefits in Maryland's countywide public school systems fall off drastically if you don't have 20 years in the system from which you retire, from about 75% for 20 years or more to 25% to 0% if you have 19 years or less.

I had to grin and bear it for several years as the system went to hell in the 2000's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

o you really need 170 Dunkin' Donuts

THIS.  So much, this.  

A perfect time to cut back on those, you will not put the poor out of work. 

It might cut into the CEO's $billion bonus and shareholder earnings, so, nope, not gonna happen.=, keep those minimum wage people overworked to keep those stores open!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Further said:

When wages go up so do prices. So the higher wage goes just as far as the lower wage used to. And rent is taking a huge jump, so the higher wage probably won't even keep up.

This is true, but the average wage has become a much smaller percentage of corporate profits as the top dogs take a bigger slice of the pie.

When Hostess went into bankruptcy, it forced its bakers to take a 25% pay cut then a 40% cut.  Meanwhile, the CEO's pay was increased from $1.1 million to 2.2 million and the VP's, Treasurer, etc. got similar raises.

When Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, he used a trick of merger laws to move $25 million out of the employees pension fund allowed when "the company needs the money."  As a result, the board awarded Cheney a $20 million increase in his pension!

The total compensation for large company CEO's was 29x the avg. worker wage in 1979.  It's around 350x now.  They also now own their own fleets of planes, huge skyscrapers, etc.

So I think it's reasonable for workers to get a bigger slice of the pie and for management to cut back on management expenses.

 

  • Heart 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 12string said:

THIS.  So much, this.  

A perfect time to cut back on those, you will not put the poor out of work. 

It might cut into the CEO's $billion bonus and shareholder earnings, so, nope, not gonna happen.=, keep those minimum wage people overworked to keep those stores open!!

It actually costs the companies money to keep them open, but stockholder metrics also value increasing number of stores. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Further said:

When wages go up so do prices. So the higher wage goes just as far as the lower wage used to. And rent is taking a huge jump, so the higher wage probably won't even keep up.

So millions of Americans should just lump it and stay destitute because some people don't want to pay the extra quarter for their big mac and fries or 2 cents more for a gallon of gas or milk or sherpa-lined hoodies that only cost $31.80 to begin with?  Prices were and are going way up before any of the wage talk made entitled folks go fight a losing PR battle, and rents are pretty damn high already, as high as the markets would bear (as they do).   

Requiring a livable minimum wage should be able to keep people off of welfare and other social services that the poverty level dwellers need to survive, and reduces the chances that the most desperate will go commit crimes to get money, which also reduces the need for extra police, extra prisons, etc..  If the minimum wage doesn't do that, it should be higher still.  Yeah, yeah, I know some asshole or other will say something stupid like "Well where does it all end, why don't we make minimum wage $100/hr already, smart guy", and to that I will ask them to stop being assholes already and you know what I mean.  It shouldn't take decades to increase the bare minimum.

There aren't too many significant downsides that I can see to paying a livable minimum wage, other than that asshole who owns 94 McDonald's franchises might have to sell one of his vacation homes or other until he figures a way around the higher wages.  That prices will go up a percent or two so people can actually have a life that isn't all misery is a thing that I am not so broken up about at all.  

  • Awesome 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MickinMD said:

This is true, but the average wage has become a much smaller percentage of corporate profits as the top dogs take a bigger slice of the pie.

When Hostess went into bankruptcy, it forced its bakers to take a 25% pay cut then a 40% cut.  Meanwhile, the CEO's pay was increased from $1.1 million to 2.2 million and the VP's, Treasurer, etc. got similar raises.

When Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, he used a trick of merger laws to move $25 million out of the employees pension fund allowed when "the company needs the money."  As a result, the board awarded Cheney a $20 million increase in his pension!

The total compensation for large company CEO's was 29x the avg. worker wage in 1979.  It's around 350x now.  They also now own their own fleets of planes, huge skyscrapers, etc.

So I think it's reasonable for workers to get a bigger slice of the pie and for management to cut back on management expenses.

 

Let them eat cake.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Further said:

When wages go up so do prices. So the higher wage goes just as far as the lower wage used to.

:nodhead:

So many people think the business owners will absorb the cost of higher wages and that prices will remain stable or near the same.  They won't.  Small business, big business, corporate behemoth - they will all pass the increase costs of wages into their products and on to their customers. 

Small business owners work hard everyday to earn money for themselves through their business, and should not be expected to take a cut in pay themselves to pay their employees more.  They have just as much right to earn a higher 'living' wage as their employees do.  More so, because the business owner is putting much more on the line to run the business, and with greater risk should come greater reward.

Big business and corporate behemoths should produce profits for their shareholders.  (That's the whole point of operating a business in the first place - to make money.)  Those shareholders invest in the business expecting to receive profits.  Of course they realize the risks, but again they have no less a right to earn money from their investments than another person has the right to a living wage.

Let the market work.  The minimum wage should be $0.  Pay people according to their abilities and ambitions, and according to how the market perceives the value of those abilities.  Setting an artificial floor for wages causes disruptions and unintended consequences.

  • Heart 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...