Living wage and/or minimum wage

[Dr Beard Face]

Yes, history shows that industry is so fair with their workers.

People need to quit ignoring that history doesn't show industry will just do the right thing. Lets just then assume we need no laws or police either. Im sure everyone will just behave. No government regulation and no laws. That will work out great.

Exactly!
Between Airlines, the banks, film industry, factories back in the day, railroads, healthcare, there are so many examples of industries trying to "regulate themselves" only to put the public in harm's way, or get a nice government handout when they fail because they were so good at being predatory, they shouldn't fail! I'd love to see 3 times self regulation actually worked for the public as a whole.

[Mesta Parker]

Before I retired, I spent my career at a Fortune 50 company and was compensated quite handsomely, no complaints. However, I always thought it it was ironic that while the company strived to be number 1 compared to its peers in all other areas, for compensation, the corporate budget was set at the 85th percentile of average compensation for the top ten companies in the peer group. Not surprising though since employee retention was very high and a company has a responsibility to maximize shareholder value.

[Mesta Parker]

exactly this... i am looked at as a bad worker, because i leave a job after 12 years and only getting 2-3% raises, minus two 5% raises when i got promotions. but when i was leaving, they offered to match me 72% increase i was going to get from somewhere else. if the industry actually showed the level of support and loyalty to their employees that the expect back in return, then things would be much different.

Were you your own advocate during those 12 years? If you did not raise your hand and say, “I think my job skills are worth more”, and show management data validating that, why should they pay you more than what was offered? Be more proactive at your new company so that you don’t leave 6% a year on the table.

[Ginkasa]

Were you your own advocate during those 12 years? If you did not raise your hand and say, “I think my job skills are worth more”, and show management data validating that, why should they pay you more than what was offered? Be more proactive at your new company so that you don’t leave 6% a year on the table.

This isn't really a thing at any of the companies I've worked for. They have a prebuilt annual raise structure. You get raises based on that structure. There is no leeway for "I deserve more for XYZ" raises. If you "ask the boss" for a raise they literally have no power to grant it outside of the pre-existing structure. Maybe other companies, smaller companies?, can do that kind of thing, but never anywhere I've seen. Complaining about pay is more likely to get you on someone's bad side.

[BoulderSooner]

This isn't really a thing at any of the companies I've worked for. They have a prebuilt annual raise structure. You get raises based on that structure. There is no leeway for "I deserve more for XYZ" raises. If you "ask the boss" for a raise they literally have no power to grant it outside of the pre-existing structure. Maybe other companies, smaller companies?, can do that kind of thing, but never anywhere I've seen. Complaining about pay is more likely to get you on someone's bad side.

I don't know of any large or small company that operates only that way .. certainly not large companies ..

[Mesta Parker]

This isn't really a thing at any of the companies I've worked for. They have a prebuilt annual raise structure. You get raises based on that structure. There is no leeway for "I deserve more for XYZ" raises. If you "ask the boss" for a raise they literally have no power to grant it outside of the pre-existing structure. Maybe other companies, smaller companies?, can do that kind of thing, but never anywhere I've seen. Complaining about pay is more likely to get you on someone's bad side.

Asking for more may have no effect this year, the decision has already been made, but can plant a seed for next year. I have seen it happen even in a large corporation. Of course, the person better be a top performer during the coming year.

[Ginkasa]

Asking for more may have no effect this year, the decision has already been made, but can plant a seed for next year. I have seen it happen even in a large corporation. Of course, the person better be a top performer during the coming year.

Maybe that would get you on the higher end of the pre-determined possible rates (3-5%), but only if you're, as you say, a "top performer" and if you were already meeting those results you were likely to get to that increase either way. Again, in my experience asking for a raise doesn't net you anything nor can the people you're allowed to talk have any options to make that happen. It is all very structured.

In particular, I've been in a position to "provide raises". I was given a budget, but also given the calculated raises that the algorithm had determined for each of my people. I had budget left over and bumped up some of those raises for those who deserved it most to use up my budget, but got denied and told to stick to the formula. Nowadays, we don't even get to manually enter the raises and pretend we're doing something. It all happens automatically and the most we do is share the amounts to our people.

I've heard advice and stories like yours all my life. Advocate for yourself. A firm handshake will get you far. Its been from shows and movies and real life people. In my professional career I've never seen it work like that at all. You either get promoted (which is more like applying for a new job, only internally, rather than something handed to you, deserved or not) or you satisfy yourself with the stock annual increases that barely keep up with cost of living, if that. Or you switch companies.

Not saying what you're describing can't happen or doesn't happen. Just sharing my experience.

[Urbanized]

There are worse things than working for a company that gives reliable cost of living/CPI increases.

[Rover]

There are worse things than working for a company that gives reliable cost of living/CPI increases.

That's true, but in some cases it just keeps them from recognizing and rewarding the better employees, whom they wind up losing to competitors. I’ve seen that happen in multiple companies ive worked for and consulted with. It can be a lazy way of managing.

[Teo9969]

Man, all this talk and not a single budget breakdown:


$30k/year is $2,500/month ($14.42/hr no OT). This should be between the bottom 25% and bottom 33% of earners in Oklahoma. Tax liability will be about $400/month.

So $2,100 needs to cover the following. The budget might need to look something like this:

Housing: $750 ($600 + $150 for gas/electric/water)

Transportation: $500 ($225 payment, $100 insurance, $100 gas, $75 maintenance)

Food: $350 (~$12/day)

Health Insurance: $100

Cell Phone+Internet/Cable/Streaming: $150 (including plans and devices)

Miscellaneous: $150 (clothing, hygiene products, gym, hair cuts, furniture, etc )

Savings: $100

Could this be done? Yes
Is it livable? Probably
Is it sustainable? For a handful of years, sure.
Is it comfortable? No shot
Is it realistic? We didn't consider either debt or "help" in the equation.

Oklahoma is much cheaper than most of the US so this could maybe swing it here. This wouldn't work in most metropolitan areas.

You can also easily see how $100 less earnings or more costs per month would be disastrous for this budget.

[Rover]

Man, all this talk and not a single budget breakdown:


$30k/year is $2,500/month ($14.42/hr no OT). This should be between the bottom 25% and bottom 33% of earners in Oklahoma. Tax liability will be about $400/month.

So $2,100 needs to cover the following. The budget might need to look something like this:

Housing: $750 ($600 + $150 for gas/electric/water)

Transportation: $500 ($225 payment, $100 insurance, $100 gas, $75 maintenance)

Food: $350 (~$12/day)

Health Insurance: $100

Cell Phone+Internet/Cable/Streaming: $150 (including plans and devices)

Miscellaneous: $150 (clothing, hygiene products, gym, hair cuts, furniture, etc )

Savings: $100

Could this be done? Yes
Is it livable? Probably
Is it sustainable? For a handful of years, sure.
Is it comfortable? No shot
Is it realistic? We didn't consider either debt or "help" in the equation.

Oklahoma is much cheaper than most of the US so this could maybe swing it here. This wouldn't work in most metropolitan areas.

You can also easily see how $100 less earnings or more costs per month would be disastrous for this budget.

If everything goes perfectly every month, then maybe this works. But this assumes a lot. Health ins, $100? No copay? $100 premium? No hours lost from illness, etc. No extraordinary car expenses? No purchase of any furniture, etc? And on and on. It’s difficult here to make it work out. And we are one of the cheapest in the US

[Teo9969]

If everything goes perfectly every month, then maybe this works. But this assumes a lot. Health ins, $100? No copay? $100 premium? No hours lost from illness, etc. No extraordinary car expenses? No purchase of any furniture, etc? And on and on. It’s difficult here to make it work out. And we are one of the cheapest in the US

This also assumes things like probably living with a roommate, driving a car where you are likely concerned about a major repair coming up (you bought it used and you don't know if it was well maintained before you bought it), no debt of any kind other than a car payment. $100 savings/month will not take you very far toward a down payment on a house or other financial goals, really just would cover emergencies if you had about 3 years with nothing coming up. There really isn't much of a budget for even an annual vacation/leisure. You can't really afford to buy gifts around the holidays for your loved ones. $12/day in food is a lot of work.

All of those things can take a toll on your mental health decreasing your ability to make healthy decisions for yourself and your loved ones.

God forbid you have a child in this situation.

[jedicurt]

Asking for more may have no effect this year, the decision has already been made, but can plant a seed for next year. I have seen it happen even in a large corporation. Of course, the person better be a top performer during the coming year.

literally not a thing at most companies. sure it means maybe i would get 3.5% the next year instead of 3%. but yes, i was always an advocate for myself. and they didn't balk at all at trying to match a literal 72% increase to try and keep me, but felt me saying i needed more was only worth 0.5% while working for them.

[April in the Plaza]

Yes, history shows that industry is so fair with their workers.

People need to quit ignoring that history doesn't show industry will just do the right thing. Lets just then assume we need no laws or police either. Im sure everyone will just behave. No government regulation and no laws. That will work out great.

That was definitely true back in the day, but there’s more than enough regulation of labor / wages / etc. at this point in the cycle.

[Rover]

That was definitely true back in the day, but there’s more than enough regulation of labor / wages / etc. at this point in the cycle.

Yes, we know they do the right things about polluting water and air, informing shareholders accurately, never price fix, don't try to monopolize markets, don't mislead in advertising, and are fair in all their practices when left on their own. Lol.

Which regulations do you think are not necessary in general?

[jedicurt]

That was definitely true back in the day, but there’s more than enough regulation of labor / wages / etc. at this point in the cycle.

can you please tell me the time this was true? because looking at history... i sure can't find it. and you say there is enough, but they only got worse when the culture of deregulation occurred. so it seems like there clearly isn't enough

[mugofbeer]

By definition, government regulation is control and a loss of freedom. I'm definitely not trying to say there should be NO government regulation but the question is "how much" and what kind. As with anything, there are outlier cases that may be reasonable exceptions - such as the Martin Skreli /Regeneron situation or lnsulin. Comparing environmental and other subject categories to the issue of minimum wage levels is comparing apples to oranges - different though they both are fruit with other similarities.

The market will implement it's own minimum wage. First, minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be more than temp and entry level jobs - not "living wage" jobs. Second, if the job pay is too low, no one should take the job. Third, interference in the natural supply/demand balance will always have an overall negative effect. Fourth, public sentiment is part of the equation. If the public is willing to accept higher prices, then raise wages - just remember, raising prices hurts the ones who can least afford it.

California and Colorado are perfect examples where the states have implemented large increases in minimum wage and the result has been higher restaurant prices, layoffs, less available jobs, automation and business closures. Implementation of price controls will result in less production and product shortages. Implementation of rent controls will suppress the supply side of rental construction which is the exact opposite of what is needed. Even in Marxist societies, the supply/demand equation can't be ignored.
The pending merger of Kroger and Albertsons/Safeway is exactly the wrong thing because competition breeds lower costs and prices. Taxation of businesses is simply another expense so it is treated as a cost of doing business and is passed on to the consumer as much as possible.

There are many other ways to "coax" businesses to behave than interfering in their day-to-day operations.

[Rover]

By definition, government regulation is control and a loss of freedom. I'm definitely not trying to say there should be NO government regulation but the question is "how much" and what kind. As with anything, there are outlier cases that may be reasonable exceptions - such as the Martin Skreli /Regeneron situation or lnsulin. Comparing environmental and other subject categories to the issue of minimum wage levels is comparing apples to oranges - different though they both are fruit with other similarities.

The market will implement it's own minimum wage. First, minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be more than temp and entry level jobs - not "living wage" jobs. Second, if the job pay is too low, no one should take the job. Third, interference in the natural supply/demand balance will always have an overall negative effect. Fourth, public sentiment is part of the equation. If the public is willing to accept higher prices, then raise wages - just remember, raising prices hurts the ones who can least afford it.

California and Colorado are perfect examples where the states have implemented large increases in minimum wage and the result has been higher restaurant prices, layoffs, less available jobs, automation and business closures. Implementation of price controls will result in less production and product shortages. Implementation of rent controls will suppress the supply side of rental construction which is the exact opposite of what is needed. Even in Marxist societies, the supply/demand equation can't be ignored.
The pending merger of Kroger and Albertsons/Safeway is exactly the wrong thing because competition breeds lower costs and prices. Taxation of businesses is simply another expense so it is treated as a cost of doing business and is passed on to the consumer as much as possible.

There are many other ways to "coax" businesses to behave than interfering in their day-to-day operations.

Personally, i think this is a very naive take on corporations regulating themselves.

[mugofbeer]

Where in here, anywhere, did l say anything about corporations self-regulating? It's naive to make comments when you clearly didn't comprehend the post or understand economics 101. The market self regulates along with public opinion. Interfere with the laws of supply and demand and it will inevitably backfire

[Mesta Parker]

Which regulations do you think are not necessary in general?

Those that give very little “bang for the buck” and there are many in that category. For example earlier this week the WSJ report that a Berlin based study showed that of over 1500 policies and regulations implemented around the world to reduce CO2 emissions, only 67 actual reduced CO2. The rest basically wasted money and inconvenienced citizens.

[Mesta Parker]

The pending merger of Kroger and Albertsons/Safeway is exactly the wrong thing because competition breeds lower costs and prices..

When the FTC reviewed and decided to oppose this merger the following grocery competitors were not included in the FTC study; WalMart, Costco, Aldi, Amazon, Trader Joe’s and others. There is no shortage of competition in the grocery business which operates on very thin margins.

[Rover]

Those that give very little “bang for the buck” and there are many in that category. For example earlier this week the WSJ report that a Berlin based study showed that of over 1500 policies and regulations implemented around the world to reduce CO2 emissions, only 67 actual reduced CO2. The rest basically wasted money and inconvenienced citizens.

That’s your basis for a generalized wide net statement that the US needs to get rid of regulations? That big businesses should be allowed to pollute?

[zefferoni]

By definition, government regulation is control and a loss of freedom. I'm definitely not trying to say there should be NO government regulation but the question is "how much" and what kind. As with anything, there are outlier cases that may be reasonable exceptions - such as the Martin Skreli /Regeneron situation or lnsulin. Comparing environmental and other subject categories to the issue of minimum wage levels is comparing apples to oranges - different though they both are fruit with other similarities.

The market will implement it's own minimum wage. First, minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be more than temp and entry level jobs - not "living wage" jobs. Second, if the job pay is too low, no one should take the job. Third, interference in the natural supply/demand balance will always have an overall negative effect. Fourth, public sentiment is part of the equation. If the public is willing to accept higher prices, then raise wages - just remember, raising prices hurts the ones who can least afford it.

California and Colorado are perfect examples where the states have implemented large increases in minimum wage and the result has been higher restaurant prices, layoffs, less available jobs, automation and business closures. Implementation of price controls will result in less production and product shortages. Implementation of rent controls will suppress the supply side of rental construction which is the exact opposite of what is needed. Even in Marxist societies, the supply/demand equation can't be ignored.
The pending merger of Kroger and Albertsons/Safeway is exactly the wrong thing because competition breeds lower costs and prices. Taxation of businesses is simply another expense so it is treated as a cost of doing business and is passed on to the consumer as much as possible.

There are many other ways to "coax" businesses to behave than interfering in their day-to-day operations.

Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be more than enough for a living wage, at least in the US. It's a modern myth that they're only for weekend spending money or something.
In my Inaugural, I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living. Throughout industry, the change from starvation wages and starvation employment to living wages and sustained employment can, in large part, be made by an industrial covenant to which all employers shall subscribe. - FDR

[Ginkasa]

There are worse things than working for a company that gives reliable cost of living/CPI increases.

I'm not poo-pooing the concept. Just trying to explain that the idea of "advocate for yourself" and "ask for a raise" aren't concepts that actually exist in my experience. That said, at least for the last few years the annual raises from my employer have not kept up with the cost of living.

[Mesta Parker]

That’s your basis for a generalized wide net statement that the US needs to get rid of regulations? That big businesses should be allowed to pollute?

No just the regulations that are basically feel good only and have no true benefit. I read a couple of weeks ago there are over 300,000 federal regulations in effect. Do we really need all of them?