AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 228
  • Posts: 12528
October 17th, 2012 at 7:48:02 AM permalink
Quote: TheBigPaybak

2. I think many organizations realize that paying the lowest possible wage isn't in their best interest. I don't think McDonald's does that most of the time. I do feel businesses, especially smaller ones, sometimes need the flexibility to do what they need to do.

.

CORRECT! This goes way back, Henry Ford's 8hr/$5 day being the among the first well-known examples. Over the years the reasoning has been distroted to say that Mr Ford wanted his workers to be able to buy a car. Nonsense. He did it because turnover at the factories was very high-they had to hire thousands of workers a year just to stay staffed. When he paid twice as much people stayed on. Cynics refer to this as "golden handcuffs."

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals look at this and say it should be a law that everyone does it. Conservatives know if everyone is forced to pay a better wage or provide health insurance then the outfits that do will lose a competitive advantage in workplace recruitment, eventually we will all be worse off.

Yes, some people will not be able to get hired at the best places. Sorry, but welcome to earth. Get better skills and the better places will consider you.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
October 17th, 2012 at 8:09:58 AM permalink
Golden Handcuffs, I thought, meant a large bonus or wage at some point in the future, but not right now.

E.g. a executive is offered a $100,000 bonus in two years time. He could leave, but he loses his bonus, hence a golden pair of handcuffs.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 228
  • Posts: 12528
October 17th, 2012 at 8:36:19 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Golden Handcuffs, I thought, meant a large bonus or wage at some point in the future, but not right now.

E.g. a executive is offered a $100,000 bonus in two years time. He could leave, but he loses his bonus, hence a golden pair of handcuffs.



Can be used that way as well. I have also heard it called a "honey pot."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Scotty71
Scotty71
Joined: Mar 5, 2011
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 289
October 17th, 2012 at 9:08:52 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Golden Handcuffs, I thought, meant a large bonus or wage at some point in the future, but not right now.

E.g. a executive is offered a $100,000 bonus in two years time. He could leave, but he loses his bonus, hence a golden pair of handcuffs.



Yes usually in the form of restricted stock and stock options that vest over chunks of time keeping you handcuffed to your employer....but if they let you go w/out cause they usually vest immediately.
when man determined to destroy himself he picked the was of shall and finding only why smashed it into because." E.E. Cummings
Mission146
Mission146 
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15017
October 17th, 2012 at 9:19:05 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Then you move into other work. The average person has what, 6 carrers in a lifetime now?



He should move. When I was in AZ they were always looking for good teachers. Teaching jobs in the norheast are harder to get than most places as far as I have noticed.



He could, I just don't know that he wants to. He has subbed, and he sad he would take anything in Ohio or W.Va.



Quote:

Again, why should you have to be "permitted" a certain employer/employee relationship? If a grocery store wants to employ PT to "duck giving benefits" that is their business. One of a few things can happen. There may be a suprlus of labor in the area, in which case they will be able to staff. There may be a shortage of labor, meaning they will need to offer FT to more workers. They may get a lower-level of employee with only offering PT, or they may not. No matter what, it is their choice as a business to do it however they want. As it should be.



I'l tell you why, because when you have a place that works someone 39 hrs, or even 39.75 hrs per week, every week, all they are doing is ducking the benefits. It's cheating, nothing more or less. I worked at a store that did this, you worked 39.75, but if something happened and you accidentally clocked out late on the last day, write-up, two of those, bye-bye. I'll tell you one other thing that happened there with cashiers. The hours went by 15's, so you could clock in seven minutes early without it counting, and that was mandatory! You had to have the drawer counted and be at your register when your, "Shift started." Essentially, then, the five-day-a-week cashiers actually did work over forty hours and should have been FT. Cheating. If you failed to clock seven minutes early, that was a first time right up and second time bye-bye.


Quote:

Based on what? Wages are based on skill. I make more than the kid at the grocery store both because I deliver more value to my employer and I can do his job but he cannot do mine. A doctor makes more than me for the same reasons. Why is wage disparity a bad thing in this case? If there was less disparity then there is less motivation to improve yourself. Why go to college if you can make almost as much at the grocery store? Why learn a trade, taking years to go from apprentice to journeyman to master craftsman if you can make near as much as unskilled labor?

Sorry, wage disparity is not a bad thing, unmotivated people thinking they have a "right" to a living wage is.



I'm not talking communism, here, there is no question that there should and must be some wage disparity and still a good deal of it. I'm not looking to cap income by position, except for State and Federal positions, of course.

Quote:


Why have a prisoner clean highways instead of a free person?

Prisoner: $.25/hour
Free Person" $10+ per hour, and they still need supervision even if not armed.



You are incorrect, no offense. Before that $0.25/hr you still often pay as much as $70+/day to house the prisoner, that must be factored into the equation. Besides, one bullet is cheaper than one hour, even at $0.25/hr.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mission146
Mission146 
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15017
October 17th, 2012 at 9:53:26 AM permalink
Quote: Scotty71

The two income family is the worst thing that has happened to America. 100% household employment is what we should strive for. This is where the "rich" need to be "taxed" if you will AND this is where health insurance/HC reform will do the most good. I will start a thread for this topic because it is too much to expand on here.



Bullseye! Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Women's Lib, and wage equality between genders assuming the same position, seniority and education. I'm cool with taking the hammer to the glass ceiling, but an unfortunae unintended consequence of this fact is going to be a flooded labour market on the supply side. If you dump another 30% into the workforce, almost within a decade, it's going to force down wages/salaries relative to spending power and earnings. I can back this up with charts, in fact, I had that very discussion on another Forum, so I could just copy that entire post over later. I've got the data.

Quote:

HUD currently subsidizes housing to almost no rent to accomplish exactly this right. What needs to change? My widowed mother ran a HUD housing unit in a small town for years. Its one of the poorest county in the midwest and wages are low, so depending on # kids rent was anywhere from $8- $180 a month with utilities included and in and at most HUD complexes cable TV is a utility or at least an inalienable right.



The first thing is that HUD regulations need to be changed. HUD has, "Preference points," which basically make it very difficult to find housing (in certain markets) unless you're a family or single parent with custody of your kids. If you are a full-time student, living alone, you are automatically disqualified. If you have no other means by which to obtain housing as a ful-time student, then, and no familly support in that regard, you're screwed. I understand that people could live on campus, but then you talk about th C.C. people and the bulk of those don't have campuses. I obviously do not support having to choose between education and having a plac to live. In my experience tallking to people who have lived in such housing, if you want cable, you pay. They really shouldn't have any except the most basic cable plans, though, if they can't support themselves from a housing standpoint. I'd say Internet access is probably a must, that really gives you access to any information that you may need. TV is unnecessary.

Quote:

I'm sorry but I often work 70-90 hours a week, why should I subsidize any wage especially if they aren't working my hours and taking my risks. We have safety nets to prevent starvation so WTF is a good living wage anyway? Is it acquiring goods, that's mainly what people want regardless of what they tell you. They want stuff because that's what people in America value!



I don't know that you should because I do not know what your income level is, FWIW my average week is 65-70, but I'm salary. I would say a good livng wage is simply one by which a person (lacking debt) could easily afford all of their food, utilities, healthcare and transportation to/from work. We are strong enough that there is no compelling reason that people should struggle, in this regard.

Quote:

I like this idea but you have to juice job creation and hiring to even need a job board. If you cut the bennies for non compliance does that include no housing benni's like hud or section 8? As far as the job site goes the Govt doesn't usually compete with private industry (Monster, jobs.com). Is the govt going to screen applicants better? What about the people who get fired at jobsites and newspapers because the government undercut their industry?



Yes, if you refuse employment found for you, that's it, you're 100% done. The reason that someone gets fired (or laid-off) will obviously play a factor. In the event someone works in a Government-Found job, then if they need to call off they must make documentation for both the Agency and the employer. Obviously, if someoneg gets Termed for not showing up for work without adequate cause, they're done, no more benefits, game over.


Quote:

l yeah! I love this but you will be accused of slavery and this is so hard to enforce regionally but you are on the right track. I would goes as far as to phase out lowest level govt jobs and transition unemployed welfare recipients in. All of this works well in urban areas but there is more poverty than you can imagine in rural America and less access to transportation to complete these service projects. You have to be careful that you dont grow govt in this dept so you turn this over to the Red Cross' and Habitat's of the world.



The enforcement would not be terribly difficult, you would just give someone somewhere to be, a time to be there, and check randomly to make sure they are doing what they should be doing. You could even go te route of phasing out Government jobs and putting these people in those places, except, it's kind of counter-intuitive because that is a net job loss. My point is there are all kinds of good social niceties that can be done by people who are otherwise sitting on their tuchuses right now. The rural areas are a tough matter, but certainly, there are services that can be found that people can perform on-line 40 hours per week. It could be as simple as responding to Government agency E-Mails with pre-written answers and passing along the questions for which there exists no pre-written answer. If someone is well-educated enough, they could do proofreading of Government websites just for Grammar/Punctuation errors and correct those.

That's the thing. If you want to get people to WANT to work, then you have to get them in the habit of working, not watching Springer.

Quote: Mission146



What about the alcoholics, they are a bigger problem I bet. You know some are on disability for alcoholism right? Please tell me you would boot them off disability and put em on short term welfare. I say no money no drinky.



Random alcohol tests, you're drunk, you're done. There will be no disability for alcoholism, you will be placed on short-term welfare, do your mandatory 40/week CS and attend AA, you miss, you're done.


Quote:

lose me here. Dont over complicate and just make it a tax credit I think... In your model as an biz owner can I opt out and close up shop?... lay people off? Dangerous ground here unless I'm missing something.
I run a private investment company, is the gov't going to tell me how much money I need to lose before I can lay people off or cut their wages? I need clarification. is this small biz temporary welfare... who audits and decides what is a fair margin?



It is basically just small Biz temp welfare. The fair margin is simply that if you have a business, and the business is viable with exception of being able to pay all of their employees, but otherwise in the good, the Government will help out for one year by subsidizing the wages in order to keep the people employed and off the elfare. You'd be audited, don't misunderstand, so you could not be doing any wantonly frivolous spending either, and then come begging for help, so you might hae to cut your spending in other areas. The overall function, though, is to give the business a year to get back on its feet and people employed.

Quote:

just to get very specific I pay my admin 56k a year+401k match+14 days vacation+12 sick days+disability insurance+employment taxes...is that a good wage? Next year after her wages are paid I should clear over 300k lets say... I'm not looking for ways to pay her less because she is very good... but in 2015 if things go bad and I only clear 200k do I deny her her her normal 3%-5% COLA(union lovers say no) & at what point am I justified to reduce her pay by 30% if ever. Whats my fair wage given the fact that I took the risk of starting my own company (quit a job), burned a shitload of capital (all of my savings and most investments) and flirted with 7 figure lawsuits( over non competes) to get it going? Can I get the govt (Dems) to guarantee she doesn't take a better job and leave me in the lurch...hell no. Great wages & job security for the serfs w/out loyalty to the King....that NEVER has worked. Its my risk to keep talent but you have to understand that in the private sector investors are bearing the risk and you want to potentially tax them more for zero incremental reward. When you gamble do you want to just break even or do you want a payoff for putting your money at risk, Its like paying 3:2 on the 4&10... you might make some money but the downside risk doesnt necessarily warrant the bet.



Good wage? Listen, you've got my PM if she ever quits!!! You are justified in doing whatever sh is agreeable to. I don't think wage increases are necessarily permanent, but like you, I believe in sharing the wealth. If the business does very well, you, as an employee, do very well. In my case, I am about 25% above where I was when I started, and would not agree to go below my starting point, but if the revenues go way down, then my salary needs to come down a bit. I can't expect to keep a high relative pay level for the market when the business is hurting. Wages being indexed to business performance fosters employees who will bust their butt to maxmize revenue because if the business does well, then they do well, and this index needs to be specifically focused on employees whose departments are more closely related to the gains/losses in revenue.

In any event, employees have no more protection when it comes to keeping a job the business simply cannot afford. If they perform poorly, same thing, we would keep laws such as Right to Work, with only the difference that an employee MUST be given a specific reason(s) for termination.

Quote:



Farm subsidies you forgot to mention- I would want to support small farms more and cargill a lot less, but the smaller need to act bigger via cooperatives- End subsidies completely and fund loans to seed farming cooperatives with via community banks. You have to have a strategy for jobs in rural America too!

Stay tuned for health care...



I don't know much about farming Economics, so should I ever have the opportunity to look at it, I will then provide an answer.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mission146
Mission146 
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15017
October 17th, 2012 at 10:15:41 AM permalink
Quote: Scotty71


I can live with UHC...but again you are dictating profits. Companies will charge what the market will bear, its very simple. The drugs and equipment they sell overseas aren't necessarily manufactured in an FDA compliant (very expensive) facility in the US either. America doest get to pay Africa prices because revenue has to come from somewhere unless you want to put Pfizer and Merk out of biz. You could shift the most expensive R&D to universities but again that is meddling and will cost jobs and the government cannot allocate capital a fraction as well as a profit driven entity. Dont forget the Healthcare sector is 17% of the S&P 500 and if you crush the pharma companies the pensions and mutual funds (in your 401k too) will get crushed along with the overpaid executives you likely think are the problem. Rev growth will be purely secular & you will remove most of the profit motive that funds future projects. Investments are my area and in addition to stocks I invest in private health care companies and clinical startup biotech too so I am sensitive to this area. I (we) have over 7.2 million directly invested in startups in the following areas (stem cell production for diabetes and cancer research, wound care management technology, medical records efficiency and drug delivery/efficacy). These investment if all the stars align could pay off 200x... is that too much, what is a fair return on my capital when we can lose our entire investment. Investment decisions are driven by competing projects (other projects). If HC doesn't pay off anymore the investment $$ chasing returns will go where its treated best.



I suppose that's the first thing, the FDA is patently out of control, so you need to get rid of some of these garbage regulations. I say that if someone wants a prescription, and a pharmaceutical company can say, "This is what it is designed to do, but we are very early in the use of this prescription, so there could be risks we don't know about yet," and someone is willing to take those risks, then it is fine. If they commit fraud by putting something out there that they KNEW would result in serious adverse side effects, then they can be sued, but to expect medications in their infancy to be perfect (and keep them from the market until they demonstratively are) is irresponsible because it prevents people from getting the treatment they need.

In any event, like many regulatory agencies, the FDA overstepsits bounds and is unwilling to allow individual citizens to take the risks they are willing to take for what they believe will improve their health. The bad companies that intentionally release dangerous products and have unsafe environments will eventually be sued into non-existence/bankruptcy or will be unable to compete with the companies that do adequate research/testing of their products and consistently deliver good produts more cheaply. The first assumption that has to be made is that the pharmaceuticals have no motivation to put out products that will kill people or have debilitating side effects nor would they deliberately do so. The FDA approaches almost everything from a standpoint of a company trying to get away with putting a bad product out their, they overstep their bounds, they do not allow fr individual decision-making, it's ridiculous!

Quote:



Money always goes where it is treated best, casino's & governments notwithstanding.

St Jude Medical for example makes heart valves, pacemakers etc... they spent 704MM on R&D last year, greater than 10% of their revenues...what kind on long term return can the expect on that money. If their Implantable defibrillators (about 40k) work fine now what incentive exists to make a better one that saves more lives. Make them reduce prices by 15%..... Do they comfortably have 700MM a year now to invest in R&D when rev goes from 5.5BB to 4.6BB but their EBITDA goes from 1.2BB to 600MM?



When you look at nationalized healthcare where you can still have for-profit pharmaceuticals, the Government (which will insure the vast majority of people) want to strike a balance between the best working product and most economical product and figure out which one is the correct balance pursuant to product testing and pricing. Delivering a good product at the best price possible will still be incentivized as it is in the current market. Your best bet is the company that you think can do that.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mission146
Mission146 
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15017
October 17th, 2012 at 10:38:05 AM permalink
Quote: TheBigPaybak

A lot of points, and a busy day- so to quickly comment:
1. I certainly don't, and would imagine that most people don't agree any "low level" worker is a pariah or social outcast! If you contribute, you're all right in my book!
2. I think many organizations realize that paying the lowest possible wage isn't in their best interest. I don't think McDonald's does that most of the time. I do feel businesses, especially smaller ones, sometimes need the flexibility to do what they need to do.

Anyway, need to get back to it- I appreciate the different perspectives!



1.) We're cool on that point, then, but ther are certainly those that determine that anyone receiving any form of social welfare is an outcast.

2.) They realize that, but only BECAUSE of the minimum wage. In other words, if you want to entice a burger-flipper that can actually be expected to show up for work, maybe you pay him a dime or quarter an hour more than the next guy, which is fine. My point is, without Minimum Wage, you could set the bar for beating another company's wage scale very low. There can be no question that if they were inclined to pay more they'd already be doing it, so it's a cinch they will pay less.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 228
  • Posts: 12528
October 17th, 2012 at 11:11:26 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

He could, I just don't know that he wants to. He has subbed, and he sad he would take anything in Ohio or W.Va.



Again, self-imposed limits. If he likes the area, good for him. But it is an area with very low population growth and one where teachers do not quit until they retire. I would suggest he find a growing market (Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanat, etc) then move there and go for it.


Quote:

I'l tell you why, because when you have a place that works someone 39 hrs, or even 39.75 hrs per week, every week, all they are doing is ducking the benefits. It's cheating, nothing more or less. I worked at a store that did this, you worked 39.75, but if something happened and you accidentally clocked out late on the last day, write-up, two of those, bye-bye. I'll tell you one other thing that happened there with cashiers. The hours went by 15's, so you could clock in seven minutes early without it counting, and that was mandatory! You had to have the drawer counted and be at your register when your, "Shift started." Essentially, then, the five-day-a-week cashiers actually did work over forty hours and should have been FT. Cheating. If you failed to clock seven minutes early, that was a first time right up and second time bye-bye.



Well, the answer is to require less benefits then. Clearly the cashier job is one that does not produce enough value to the store to justify an extra $1,000/mo in benefits. Simple economics, as I have been saying all along.

As to clocking in a few minutes early, boo hoo hoo for the cashiers. I have had office jobs where the same is expected, except instead of counting a drawer you have to log on all of your systems. Truck drivers only get paid for the mile driven, but they have to walk-around inspect their vehicles. It happens in jobs sometimes.


You are incorrect, no offense. Before that $0.25/hr you still often pay as much as $70+/day to house the prisoner, that must be factored into the equation. Besides, one bullet is cheaper than one hour, even at $0.25/hr.



Except you are not going to shoot people for minor to medium offenses. The prisoners picking up garbage are lower-risk. Even in Joe Arpio's tent city, picking up trash is a sought-after prison job. You pay to house the cons either way, so let them clean up.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
October 17th, 2012 at 1:41:39 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

I don' see how years matter, just the number of predictions made. 8000 correct predictions of something is impressive. 8, not so much.



Sure its impressive. You act like they throw darts at
a board. Its a finely tuned scientific process and they
can show exactly how they arrive at their results. And
they improve on it constantly, so if anything their odds
of being right go up every 4 years.

They did it earlier with stats from May and found Romney
the winner. They did it later with stats from Aug and it
was even more in Romney's favor. And they didn't even
have to use Intrade.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal

  • Jump to: