Job creation from a 1%er

[Seasoned Oak]

Fun conversation, but why is everyone saying $15? I thought the proposal was for $10.10, and to index it to inflation going forward (for the first time).

Thats why they call it 'Unskilled labor" No particular skill required. Usually skilled pay requires some sort of skill.

 

[Cynnergy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

*Ducks and runs*

 

[stoveguy2esw]

Founder, CEO....google, Bell Labs, Sun and many more...has something to say about all this:
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/07/go...ity-will-be-number-one-issue-for-democracies/

He sorta mentions what I did. Not everyone can hold a science and tech job. Those who can't will lose out.

Interesting read, anyway....

nuts and bolts will never go away. no matter how complicated the device is , somebody has to assemble it. look at automobiles, no matter how complex they are you still have a guy with a wrench there. manufacturing is what it is. the gateway to the middle class. now the folks who write code, and such for these tech companies are more valuable in one respect, you don't learn how to do it in high school, you need higher education and you need a mind that can absorb the knowledge to do this and invent new ways to do this.

there is a simple truth to understand here. in America our creed is that "all men are created equal" this is true. but not all men are created equal in the simple fact that some folks have different abilities. not everyone has the ability to learn to create software like a gates or jobs, though they may well be a superior mechanic than either of them.

its like web has said several times in the past "there's a butt for every seat" in my mind , "there's a mind for every task". but this doesn't necessarily translate to equal monetary value for service.

in my mind those who do not have the ability to hold a "tech " job, shouldn't lose out as long as the nuts and bolts are still necessary, and they always will be. question is , are we going to recognize that we have the ability to bring those "nuts and bolts jobs" back here or will we allow ourselves to continue to welcome the outsourcing of these jobs to countries which pay 10% of the wages we do. quality wise we can compete with ANYBODY I know this for a fact , I see it when I walk along the assembly lines we have at ESW. what we cannot compete with is companies abroad who can make and ship products here for less than we can produce them locally because of the wage scale they are able to pay for the same work (taking nothing away from the "line worker" in Taiwan, or Bangladesh, as they im sure are as proud of what they make as my guys are here in the Old Dominion. but when they get paid 10 bucks a day and a welder might make 25-30 bucks AN HOUR then the company which has a 3% labor cost on their P and L is going to have a boatload of extra room to lower pricing. we cannot compete with that, this is where government has to step in and level the playing field. until that happens our labor force will continue to rot away into the "boutique" workforce instead of the manufacturing workforce of a couple generations ago

 

[stoveguy2esw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

*Ducks and runs*

you should it does fit the discussion though

 

[TradEddie]

If my company goes bankrupt and in debt,,the employees will not assume any of that debt,,,just me. The employees risk nothing,, I risk it all.

Apologies if someone else has brought this up, but if the statement above is true, you need a new corporate lawyer. Almost the entire point of creating a company is to shield the owners from liability and debt. You should never lose more than your own investment.

TE

 

[stoveguy2esw]

Thats why they call it 'Unskilled labor" No particular skill required. Usually skilled pay requires some sort of skill.

no matter what you do for a living it requires a "skill" go pick lettuce or better yet , artichokes for a day. not intending this at all to be racist but picking cotton is a skill. it may not be the same skill as writing a custom program for some mainframe but its a skill none the less. my wife has worked as a cashier for stores for most of her working life, god help you if she saw that post , she'd drag you to a register and say "go ahead show me how its unskilled" trust me dude, you would be hating life in seconds.

"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.

that said , a cashier isn't going to possess the same degree of technical training as a programmer, or a doctor, and nowhere near the level of technical training or education. so therefore the "trade" these docs and techies are trained in will command a higher salary. if the salary weren't higher why would a potential doctor spend the first 35 years of their life learning the trade before they picked up a scalpel and walked in the OR?

 

[stoveguy2esw]

Apologies if someone else has brought this up, but if the statement above is true, you need a new corporate lawyer. Almost the entire point of creating a company is to shield the owners from liability and debt. You should never lose more than your own investment.

TE

that's fine if your investment is next to nothing , granted you might not lose your house, but you still lose what you put into the business itself. what if that investment is your life savings? what if you mortgage your house to get the capital to start up?
when you do this you probably do not have the extra money laying around to pay for a "corporate lawyer"

the statement above is perfectly factual. you do not start a business by putting a quarter in a bubble gum machine and twisting the handle. its a major risk, a person could end up destitute in a start up.

 

[TradEddie]

I own my own company too, I've put my money, time and effort into it, but the entire point of creating a company is a) tax breaks, b) severance of liability. The poster stated that if his company is in debt, and goes bankrupt, he assumes that debt, that should never, ever be the case. If the poster mortgaged his house to start a business, I admire that, but that's not what he said. Some of the greatest entrepreneurs ever have left a trail of bankrupt companies and unpaid creditors behind before they hit the big one.

TE

 

[Grisu]

that said , a cashier isn't going to possess the same degree of technical training as a programmer, or a doctor, and nowhere near the level of technical training or education. so therefore the "trade" these docs and techies are trained in will command a higher salary. if the salary weren't higher why would a potential doctor spend the first 35 years of their life learning the trade before they picked up a scalpel and walked in the OR?

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.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

I own my own company too, I've put my money, time and effort into it, but the entire point of creating a company is a) tax breaks, b) severance of liability. The poster stated that if his company is in debt, and goes bankrupt, he assumes that debt, that should never, ever be the case. If the poster mortgaged his house to start a business, I admire that, but that's not what he said. Some of the greatest entrepreneurs ever have left a trail of bankrupt companies and unpaid creditors behind before they hit the big one.

TE

ok, i'l bite , if you have a company and it is unable to pay its debts and goes bankrupt , then who is responsible for the money that is owed? im all ears. do the creditors just have to "eat the loss"?

 

[stoveguy2esw]

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

why do they not have that choice?

 

[Grisu]

ok, i'l bite , if you have a company and it is unable to pay its debts and goes bankrupt , then who is responsible for the money that is owed? im all ears. do the creditors just have to "eat the loss"?

Not so sure about American bankruptcy law but my Mom does exactly that in Germany and the answer is simply: Yes, the creditors will eat the loss. They get all the material assets (buildings, machines etc.) but the private wealth of the owner is unaffected when the business was set up correctly (meaning the owner did not put up any of his private wealth as collateral). (I think LLC would be the appropriate equivalent here but don't nail me on that.)

 

[Ehouse]

no matter what you do for a living it requires a "skill" go pick lettuce or better yet , artichokes for a day. not intending this at all to be racist but picking cotton is a skill. it may not be the same skill as writing a custom program for some mainframe but its a skill none the less. my wife has worked as a cashier for stores for most of her working life, god help you if she saw that post , she'd drag you to a register and say "go ahead show me how its unskilled" trust me dude, you would be hating life in seconds.

"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.

that said , a cashier isn't going to possess the same degree of technical training as a programmer, or a doctor, and nowhere near the level of technical training or education. so therefore the "trade" these docs and techies are trained in will command a higher salary. if the salary weren't higher why would a potential doctor spend the first 35 years of their life learning the trade before they picked up a scalpel and walked in the OR?

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.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

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.

when it comes down to the brass tacks , people do not work because its a benefit to society they do so because its a benefit to their self (otherwise why work?) now some have the 'higher calling' they become doctors or priests or whatever because they want to help their fellow man. that said , they have to put in the time to learn the task they have taken for themselves to do. education costs my friend, both in time and in money. most doctors literally are in school between actual school and training until approximately 35 years old. (how many "doogie howsers" have you met? the guy at UVA that did my wife's last surgery from what I understand is a "prodigy" and he is almost 40.

there's a lot to be said for being happy with what you do OTOH, but its not usually the greatest thing financially. I myself could have on a few occasions doubled or in one case tripled my annual salary with offers I have had in the past. didn't take em as I do like what I do and I was unsure if I would like the new job. its nice to be secure enough in my occupation to be able to turn those offers down

 

[Grisu]

why do they not have that choice?

Because they would go hungry otherwise?! The real unemployment rate is ~14%; that puts the number at about 30 million people without steady job. Are there really 30 million open positions in "career-jobs" in this country? In addition, what would we do if all those farmworkers, line cooks, janitors would do what everyone suggests: Get an education and do something "better"? Are we really sure those jobs are not needed?

 

[razerface]

I own my own company too, I've put my money, time and effort into it, but the entire point of creating a company is a) tax breaks, b) severance of liability. The poster stated that if his company is in debt, and goes bankrupt, he assumes that debt, that should never, ever be the case. If the poster mortgaged his house to start a business, I admire that, but that's not what he said. Some of the greatest entrepreneurs ever have left a trail of bankrupt companies and unpaid creditors behind before they hit the big one.

TE

In fact, in an earlier post, I did say I sold everything I owned to start my business.

I do not consider anyone who screws people out of their money, until they finally " hit the big one" to be a great anything,,just a dishonest crook. I have watched these crooks put the hurts on a lot of companies ,including mine, by filing bankruptcy to not pay what they owe us and other people, then, right back in business.

My company is an LLC,,,but it still would not totally absolve me from debts. When we get loans for machinery and buildings,,ect,,the bank make us sign personal guarantees,,,which could come after our personal possessions to pay off debts. This is happening more and more as loans became tougher.

 

[Grisu]

when it comes down to the brass tacks , people do not work because its a benefit to society they do so because its a benefit to their self (otherwise why work?)

If it is not a benefit to society why pay them? For what?

there's a lot to be said for being happy with what you do OTOH, but its not usually the greatest thing financially.

Because we think that some work is more "valuable" than other. I am just wondering why the people providing my food or teaching my kids earn way less than the guys designing the next I-Phone app or peddling the newest financial instrument. Our meaning of "value" needs some serious readjustment.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

Because they would go hungry otherwise?! The real unemployment rate is ~14%; that puts the number at about 30 million people without steady job. Are there really 30 million open positions in "career-jobs" in this country? In addition, what would we do if all those farmworkers, line cooks, janitors would do what everyone suggests: Get an education and do something "better"? Are we really sure those jobs are not needed?

sure they are needed, but should they be filled by a guy with a masters degree? better yet , should a person spend the first 35 years of their life being educated to make 8 bucks a hour? I wouldn't. if I were going to make the same amount regardless of what I did i'd probably not have completed high school. what's the use, im not going to live any more comfortably than the neighbor who drives a truck around a sucks the crap outta portajohns. why go into hock for a hundred grand to make no money when I get done? ive worked at those low paying jobs before heck I can remember making 3.35 an hour, what did I learn form that? I learned I didn't want to make that any longer, so I did what I needed to do to get beyond that and make a reasonable living. my dad , he was a papermaker. when I was quite young we moved several times each time we moved it was so that he could start at a new plant in a higher position eventually we ended up here in Va where he was hired by a mill as a foreman, he worked at the mill until he retired (now he plays golf every day and earned every round) but when he started he was bringing home like 40 bucks a week. he figured he could do better, eventually he did , he learned the craft and excelled at it. when we moved up here they ended up paying him more than they initially offered him due to the skill set he learned. in the papermaking community he is quite respected and still gets calls from the occasional start up asking him to come help them get dialed in and he hasn't watched a machine run in a plant in over a decade. now , dad has no degree, no paper saying he is an expert, but he has the respect of quite many who do.

this is how it works, it doesn't work to just demand higher wages at the same job just because you do not wish to put in the effort to better yourself. im sorry , ive lived it , im not going to be convinced otherwise by words, heck my degree has nothing to do with what I do , I gained it because I wanted to. and I did it well after I graduated high school.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

ok, i'l bite , if you have a company and it is unable to pay its debts and goes bankrupt , then who is responsible for the money that is owed? im all ears. do the creditors just have to "eat the loss"?

still waiting on an answer to this one

 

[Grisu]

still waiting on an answer to this one

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personally-liable-business-bebts-business-bankruptcy.html

 

[stoveguy2esw]

If it is not a benefit to society why pay them? For what?

never said It didn't "benefit society" there is a demand , the demand is met and those who do so are paid to do so.
the guy who picks up your garbage benefits society right? , but do you think we should pay him doctors wages?
the doctor who you see whan you are sick "benefits society as well, but do you think he should earn the same payment as the guy who tosses yoru trash in the back of a garbage truck?



Because we think that some work is more "valuable" than other. I am just wondering why the people providing my food or teaching my kids earn way less than the guys designing the next I-Phone app or peddling the newest financial instrument. Our meaning of "value" needs some serious readjustment.

I got no issues with teachers making solid wages. but they invest more in their training than the guy who picks up your garbage too. though using the "benefit to society" argument is a bit too open ended don't ya think?

 

[stoveguy2esw]

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personally-liable-business-bebts-business-bankruptcy.html

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?

 

[stoveguy2esw]

Some of the greatest entrepreneurs ever have left a trail of bankrupt companies and unpaid creditors behind before they hit the big one.

somebody ends up paying for those bankruptcies. other companies lose in that individual creditors lose as well, financing companies lose money and recoup it by higher interest on loans to new startups. money doesn't just get "written off" sooner or later either the owner of the failed business or those who follow him or backed him end up out money as a result. by the time it happens in big business (queue the "too big to fail" argument) the government is involved (who have no money vested) ask Lehman brothers how well hey came out of the recession, better yet ask those who had money in the company.

 

[Grisu]

never said It didn't "benefit society" there is a demand , the demand is met and those who do so are paid to do so.
the guy who picks up your garbage benefits society right? , but do you think we should pay him doctors wages?
the doctor who you see whan you are sick "benefits society as well, but do you think he should earn the same payment as the guy who tosses yoru trash in the back of a garbage truck?

Whose absence would you feel first? The farmworker's, your kid's/grandkid's teacher's, your garbage hauler's, your doctor's? You can make a case that the doctor decides upon life and death but so does the farmworker. 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?

I got no issues with teachers making solid wages. but they invest more in their training than the guy who picks up your garbage too. though using the "benefit to society" argument is a bit too open ended don't ya think?

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?

 

[Grisu]

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?

Ah, now I understand your question. As you may know I don't look at the money-side of the equation. So let me rephrase: Someone puts the labor in to produce a product that hopefully will better our lives. If he fails should we punish him? Or should we actually encourage people to take that risk to move our society forward especially when we have spare resources (like unemployed labor)?

Let the market decide if the product has value; not the people with the money beforehand whether it will give a high enough return on the investment. Our society can provide all the capital that is needed to as many businesses that we have ideas for (up to full employment). And if one fails the only things we will really have lost are the hours worked and the material resources put into that failed business. Money is just a way of counting those. The problem is by keeping people unemployed we are wasting those resources anyway every day.