Job creation from a 1%er

stoveguy2esw said:

still doesn't answer the question in my mind, should others have to "pick up the tab" when a business fails?
say I open a business in your town, I spend every thing I have just to get the doors open, and it fails, should you be obligated to help pay for the loss?

Click to expand...

I never suggested this is a good thing for anyone except the owners, it can be catastrophic for creditors, and the domino effect of bankruptcy led to our last financial crisis. For risky small businesses, the bank probably won't give a loan without security, so they won't lose out. If you're an investor in a company of any size and don't realize you can lose everything, you deserve to lose everything, but you still don't incur the company's debts.

TE

Grisu said:

Like the first part of the post but don't really agree with this. A lot of doctors actually want to help people (and detest the rest that comes with the job). I venture that the guys who go into a profession just because of the money are more often than not the worst in their jobs. Or they study finance right away and go straight to Wall Street. Does our society really benefit from having people choose certain jobs just because of the money, not because they like what they are doing? How many great teachers or nurses end up in an office instead of a school/hospital? How many responsible farmers are sitting behind a desk?

The idea that you need to pay a high salary to make certain jobs attractive is a very flawed one. Or is picking lettuce/hauling trash really that more attractive than treating the sick or putting numbers in a spreadsheet even assuming the same pay? Low wages are NOT paid because so many people like to do those jobs. They are paid because many people have no other choice.

Click to expand...

I'm a little behind on the conversation....I get to talk to a lot of bright college students in my job, and I can say that many of them are picking high paid professions because of the money incentive, period. Most certainly including MDs. Sorry Grisu. Its not their own greed, of course, it is usually their parents pushing them into a college major that they think is 'useful' or 'lucrative'...not a lot of parents are happy to pay 6 figures on tuition for little Johnny or Jane to read 19th century poetry.

If you are good at math...your parents tell you to become an engineer.
If you have a good memory and spatial skills.....your parents tell you to be pre-med.
If daddy made a lot of money doing something with a degree....they tell you to study that.

not only happening in the usa, the real income distribution. the new world order http://finance.yahoo.com/news/washing-machine-factory-tests-italys-082928516.html

stoveguy2esw said:

"unskilled labor" is an oxymoron. even loading hay bales is "skilled" in a way as if you do not know the proper technique for doing it you wont make it through a single day (I've seen this personally) I personally abhor the term "unskilled labor" even though I understand its implied meaning I do not accept its definition. tying ones shoes is a skill, we learn it in kindergarten if not sooner at home, I have never nor would I ever describe a person who worked in my plant in such a manner I don't care if he/she swept the floor or scrubbed the john. I detest the descriptive.
?

Click to expand...

My we have thin skin here. You can call me unskilled if you like, as i never went to college or had formal training in anything after high school and i assure you i wont be devastated. Were discussing minimum wage here and if or why employers should be forced to pay more.Call it minimum skilled or whatever you like. If you can get paid for tying your shoes ,that would be relevant to the discussion. Skill sets as it applies to wages IMO is all about how long one has to train to do whatever. If you can learn to operate a cash register in a day or two or even a week of course its not going to demand a high wage. In my area CNA makes $10-12 an hour,just above minimum wage. Reason being the training is only a week or 2. My point is if you want higher wages, develop a skill that takes more than a day to learn.

Ehouse said:

I agree and I think a better way of looking at employment is to say there's a skill component, a risk component, and a time component to any job. I think we tend to overvalue the skill component, severely undervalue the risk component, and don't acknowledge the sacrifice inherent in the time component. It's the time component the minimum wage attempts to address.

Click to expand...

Risk is important,i pay my employees more if the risk is high. Also if the job requires heavy physical labor. I usually only hire part time and day help, but the pay goes by skill level,risk level and whether or not the person spends 40% of their time answering and sending texts on their mobil phone.

Grisu said:

Low wages are NOT paid because so many people like to do those jobs. They are paid because many people have no other choice.

Click to expand...

But they do have a choice. THe choices started while they were in school. If their choice is NOT to
develop any marketable skills other than manual labor or what ever they picked up in high school,then thats their choice and thats their pay grade. The "minimum skills" field(dont want to offend anyone) is already crowded and growing.
How can they then complain their chosen profession does not pay enough. They knew what it paid beforehand. (Or should have known)

John Boener voted himself a raise recently, but against a raise in minimum wage. Raise was like $25/hr. Makes over $350k. I suppose that anyone that gets as much done for the American... Oh wait... That's right

We could advance wages far far better if our Govt would stop forcing us to compete with slave wage countries. Then we would only be competing with other american workers rather than the whole world and its impoverished masses. IMHO.
Then even walmart would pay better as the workforce would have more choices.

Seasoned Oak said:

We could advance wages far far better if our Govt would stop forcing us to compete with slave wage countries. Then we would only be competing with other american workers rather than the whole world and its impoverished masses. IMHO.
Then even walmart would pay better as the workforce would have more choices.

Click to expand...

Add to that the low pollution control and worker safety costs.

begreen said:

There's lots of reasons. The jobs available in Seattle are not the same in quantity or quality as they are in Shelby, TN. Competition, job pool size, skill, distance (especially if they don't own a car), are all factors. Walmart is the largest employer in the country and they pay poorly. They can afford to pay more but they don't. It's hard to get by when you make poverty level wages.
http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/factsheet/walmart-watch-fact-sheets/fact-sheet-wages/

Click to expand...

their business model is different than yours, what a shock. shop at your local ace like I do, lowes and HD are no different than a walmart.. always negative around here with business no matter what they sell or make. got any problems with phil knight being paid what he gets? a lot of people could run a major factory with what he "EARNS" I know web doesn't like the usa made shoes from NB, not enough choice. just take those that are left to produce from raw mat'l to retail and make them pay a living wage, so the rest will pay more and have less, that is what I'm hearing from a lot of you folks.an economy is the production of goods and services. imho all we have left is sevices , to to create wealth for all sides trading hamburgers.. buy only American and that's it. then you can preach. there is not a company in America that cannot pay employees more, they just would like to be able to in x years forward.

Grisu said:

In the end they all meet a demand and we would not like to live without any one of the professions. Why then pay one $25,000/ year and the other $100,000+/year?

Click to expand...

so do we pay the garbage guy 100K or the doctor 25K? all things being equal, should we pay a fry cook the same as a school teacher or a cop? the guy at jiffy lube should make the same wages as a guy that develops vaccines for a pharmaceutical company?

look, im not saying that folks who do not have a higher education should not have access to jobs which pay a "living wage". im saying that the people who put in the time and effort to get the training required for the more highly technical fields should be fairly compensated for doing so. the free market places a higher "value" on these jobs because its a lot of time and expense to get the needed education and experience needed to do these tasks. to say that we should pay a guy who got a job riding on the back of a trash truck should be paid the same as a guy who spent 12 years in college and residency and all the other stuff a doc has to go through to be able to practice medicine is silly.

Grisu said:

So a salary should be determined by someone's training and not by the product they are making? Should we all just get a college education then? Would a "Ms trash hauler" be worth a higher salary?

Click to expand...

would you go to school for 4 years to get a BS in trash hauling? yeah, if it paid the same as another profession requiring the same level of education, but it doesn't does it? better still would you be willing to have a $100 a week bill to collect your trash so that the sanitation company he works for could afford to pay him on that level?

Are you guys still at this? Don't you realize this is a purely political / regional problem? The federal gubbermint wants to paint the whole country with a broad paint brush and say you have to pay this amount of hourly wage. The average median income in the county I live and work in is around $45000 per family. According to begreens Wally world web link a single employee working 34 hours a week makes more than a single male in my county who works a full 40 plus. Makes me want to quit my business and get 2 part time jobs at 2 different Wal-Marts and make more money and work less hours with out all the head aches. O.K. I read this forum and see folks that live in an area that complain about the cost of a wood stove or the installation of liners and all that but then I look at the average wage in the area they are saying they are from and that wage is much, much higher than what it is in my neck of the woods.
And completely off topic, but about wally world being the slave master of the world. My youngest daughter who is 36 put her self thru collage working there. Wal-Mart was more than happy to accommodate her hours as to scheduling around classes and such. She started as a checker for minimum wage and over her employment there went on to be offered a mid management job. She wanted to be a teacher though and that is what she is doing now and making good money doing it at a charter school in Huston Texas. She makes more money than my wife and myself put together and it wouldn't have been possible with out her being able to work at wally world. Those jobs are NOT meant to support a family of 4. Just like social security was never meant to be a retirement plan. Just supplemental.

Adios Pantalones said:

John Boener voted himself a raise recently, but against a raise in minimum wage. Raise was like $25/hr. Makes over $350k. I suppose that anyone that gets as much done for the American... Oh wait... That's right

Click to expand...

was he the only guy who voted for that? or are we just singling him out? guess he's betting on being re-elected , as the only way he could get that raise is to do so. 27th amendment.

as for the raising the minimum wage I haven't looked at the actual bill, dunno what's in it. if its a straight raise the min wage , i'd say they should pass it.
as for the pay raise, no im not defending it , but here's an article about it
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/15/congress-pay-salaries/2660545/

stoveguy2esw said:

was he the only guy who voted for that? or are we just singling him out? guess he's betting on being re-elected , as the only way he could get that raise is to do so. 27th amendment.

as for the raising the minimum wage I haven't looked at the actual bill, dunno what's in it. if its a straight raise the min wage , i'd say they should pass it.
as for the pay raise, no im not defending it , but here's an article about it
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/15/congress-pay-salaries/2660545/

Click to expand...

I single him out because he's the obstructionist in chief. He controls what comes to the floor

Adios Pantalones said:

I single him out because he's the obstructionist in chief. He controls what comes to the floor

Click to expand...

ohh ok, like Harry Reid aka the senate version. AFAIAC neither are worth a bucket of warm spit

Seasoned Oak said:

My we have thin skin here. You can call me unskilled if you like, as i never went to college or had formal training in anything after high school and i assure you i wont be devastated. Were discussing minimum wage here and if or why employers should be forced to pay more.Call it minimum skilled or whatever you like. If you can get paid for tying your shoes ,that would be relevant to the discussion. Skill sets as it applies to wages IMO is all about how long one has to train to do whatever. If you can learn to operate a cash register in a day or two or even a week of course its not going to demand a high wage. In my area CNA makes $10-12 an hour,just above minimum wage. Reason being the training is only a week or 2. My point is if you want higher wages, develop a skill that takes more than a day to learn.

Click to expand...

actually I agree with your post, wasn't intentionally being thin skinned per se but I do dislike that term. what I bolded n your post is what ive been saying as well.

as butcher said above "Those jobs are NOT meant to support a family of 4. Just like social security was never meant to be a retirement plan. Just supplemental".

problem as I see it is that the higher paying jobs which we should have in manufacturing have been whittled away leaving a higher percentage of "service" type jobs ,cashiers and such which are the only game in town. raising the min wage though laudable as a short term "band aid" solution is not the answer. bringing manufacturing back to the US is the only long term solution. comparing exports to imports may look good on paper , but when you look at what we actually export versus what we import one should be able to see easily why we are losing so many manufacturing jobs. part of it is our own fault. we demand cheap goods. what we demand we get like the petulant child. we use it and throw it away then get the next "big thing" that the rest of the world ships to us.

look at TV's a generation or to ago they were a major investment , now most homes have more than one many have several (I have 4 so im as guilty as anyone) used to be when your TV broke you took it to a shop where a guy fixed it, now we just toss it and go get a new one. what did that change do? it took away a small business opportunity that used to employ thousands with decent waged jobs. the replacement for those jobs would be the cashier at wally world. which since the technical skill needed to fix a tv set is replaced by a person who runs a cash register. (not demeaning the cashier, but a tv repairman used to take classes in the trade and thus demanded a higher salary due to the skill set and demand for it) heck TV's aren't even considered "durable goods' by many trackers of the economy any more. hey used to supply a pretty large "mom and pop" type industry.

stoveguy2esw said:

ohh ok, like Harry Reid aka the senate version. AFAIAC neither are worth a bucket of warm spit

Click to expand...

Oh, Did Reid vote against a minimum increase too? Not sure why the comparison

stoveguy2esw said:

so do we pay the garbage guy 100K or the doctor 25K? all things being equal, should we pay a fry cook the same as a school teacher or a cop? the guy at jiffy lube should make the same wages as a guy that develops vaccines for a pharmaceutical company?

look, im not saying that folks who do not have a higher education should not have access to jobs which pay a "living wage". im saying that the people who put in the time and effort to get the training required for the more highly technical fields should be fairly compensated for doing so. the free market places a higher "value" on these jobs because its a lot of time and expense to get the needed education and experience needed to do these tasks. to say that we should pay a guy who got a job riding on the back of a trash truck should be paid the same as a guy who spent 12 years in college and residency and all the other stuff a doc has to go through to be able to practice medicine is silly.

Click to expand...

Those who put in the time and training aren't going to be fairly compensated for doing so if those who put in 40+hrs. a week at lower skilled jobs aren't being fairly compensated for doing so. The free market doesn't place a fixed, value on any job. If people stop coming through the door because they can't afford the product or service, the default solution is a lower price, recent attempts at forced consumerism not withstanding.

Adios Pantalones said:

Oh, Did Reid vote against a minimum increase too? Not sure why the comparison

Click to expand...

look at how many bills sent from the house that haven't been brought to the floor in the senate. calling one "obstructionist in chief" just isn't fair unless they are both called out together. FWIW I do not think either should be in a leadership position, but this is the problem when you have 2 sides both demanding acquiescence from the other rather than debate and compromise which virtually never happens in government any more. most of the blame for this lies at the feet of Boehner AND Reid.

wasn't commenting about the min wage thing , I have no idea if Reid voted for it, has it even been to through the senate yet?

Ehouse said:

Those who put in the time and training aren't going to be fairly compensated for doing so if those who put in 40+hrs. a week at lower skilled jobs aren't being fairly compensated for doing so. The free market doesn't place a fixed, value on any job. If people stop coming through the door because they can't afford the product or service, the default solution is a lower price, recent attempts at forced consumerism not withstanding.

Click to expand...

were that the case prices on everything would already be dropping based on the scale of top and bottom wage differential. it hasn't, so the logic of the lower wage earners not partaking of the services of the higher wage earners isn't exactly accurate. the difference is subsidies. the government subsidizes the poor so they can afford the prices of the rich. this is the flaw in the safety net ideal (not saying it isn't needed but it becomes part of the problem) if food prices are too high then the poor cannot afford them , however we cannot let them starve so we have food stamps to help, this allows the prices to stay higher as demand is not diminished (obviously folks gotta eat) this is also the flaw in "supply side" economics, supply side economics cannot work in a welfare society as price controls which would normally be there are artificially held at higher rates due to the subsidies. this is the inherent problem of combining a free market with a welfare state, you have to subsidize as costs are where they are , but at the same time you need pricing to settle to a proper rate based on the wage scales of the population. its a hard thing to make happen as both are equally important.

BTW im not implying we are a full blown "welfare state" it was just a term which is descriptive of a large portion of the population receiving some sort of subsidies, was just for expedience in the narrative