View Full Version : Seattle and the $15/hr Minimum Wage
Crazed Rabbit
03-01-2014, 02:43
Currently, Washington state has the highest minimum wage in the union with $9.32/hr this year (~$19,000/year for 40 hrs/wk). By law, it increases a bit every year.
There's been a push in the liberal city of Seattle to increase the minimum wage to $15/hr. I can understand that it seems very nice. Cities are expensive to live in, and Seattle is one of the most expensive. People don't want to just scrape by.
The push for this includes the Mayor (though he's not dead set on $15, just an increase) and a newly elected socialist city councilwoman;
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022479636_sawantwage1xml.html
(And yes, a real 'Workers should seize the factories!' socialist, not just a left leaning democratic party member; http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/seattle-city-councilmember-elect-shares-radical-id/nbxbC/ )
The councilwoman is really pushing for the $15/hr wage and has a site; http://www.15now.org/
The problem (as it always is with socialist ideas) is actual economic realities; http://seattletimes.com/html/dannywestneat/2022973571_westneat23xml.html
It would be hard to find more of a liberal do-gooder in the local business community than John Platt.
His restaurant, St. Clouds, in my own Madrona neighborhood, doubles as a sort of local relief agency. Drop by there and Platt is likely to be cooking 500 meals for the homeless. Or volunteering to be chef for public-school auctions. Or running dine-out fundraisers for everyone from environmental activists to immigrant high-schoolers trying to get to college.
...
It works like this. About one-third of Platt’s costs are labor. Those costs will rise up to 60 percent if the wage is lifted from $9.32 to $15 per hour. His cost of goods also will rise, though not as sharply. The bottom line is St. Clouds’ total costs could easily go up 25 to 30 percent.
If he passes that on to his customers, then St. Clouds’ burger with green chili aioli, which sells for $13, could cost $17. The top of the menu, pan-roasted duck, could go from $32 to more than $40.
“It isn’t fear-mongering; it’s just math,” says Burke Shethar, who runs the Madrona Ale House across the street from St. Clouds. “We could be the city of the $18 hamburger.”
But economists say these new costs are so steep they can’t be passed completely along to customers, who would balk at paying them. Small businesses would be forced to eat some portion, and try to recover the rest by a combination of reducing staff hours or benefits as well as raising prices. Bigger companies, as were affected by the SeaTac wage measure, have more flexibility to absorb such “cost shocks.”
It's like the supporters think they'll make $15/hr up from $9.32 but everything else will just stay the same. A complete ignorance of the total integration of economics.
And non-profit groups will be hurting too; http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022992703_westneat26xml.html
Bill Hobson says the $15-an-hour wage movement is the most electrifying change in thinking he’s witnessed on an issue in more than 30 years of advocacy for the poor.
“I’m something of a 1960s radical,” Hobson says, “and I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a rapid societal shift as the $15 wage.”
There’s only one hitch, and it’s a doozy: He can’t pay it.
Hobson, as director of the Downtown Emergency Service Center, is Seattle’s largest employer of social workers and counselors to the homeless. He’s got 520 full-time workers running a network of apartments, shelters and crisis clinics for the city’s sickest and most vulnerable — thousands of mentally ill or drug-addicted folks who, on any given day, would be out lying on sidewalks or under bridges without the help of Hobson’s crew.
Of that crew, though, 171 make less than $15 an hour. His 30 janitors start at $11.75. The hundred-plus counselors who staff the agency’s buildings start at $12.75 — a “travesty,” Hobson says, considering many have college degrees in social work.
But paying $15 will cost him $1.25 million he doesn’t have.
“In principle, I’m all for the higher wages,” Hobson said. “But I can’t pay it. Without some major infusion of cash from the city, I would have no choice but to cut services.”
I don't think the minimum wage should be a "living wage" that is something people plan on earning for a long time.
CR
Indeed, a better idea would be to limit corporate profits to say, 10% of their revenue. Then companies will have nothing better to do with 90% of their revenue than pay their employees and acquire materials/services of decent quality.
Crazed Rabbit
03-01-2014, 03:11
Indeed, a better idea would be to limit corporate profits to say, 10% of their revenue. Then companies will have nothing better to do with 90% of their revenue than pay their employees and acquire materials/services of decent quality.
That's an even worse idea. You want to penalize successful companies? You want people to worry about making to much of a profit? Gah.
CR
There's a hidden benefit to it, more money means more to spend. Services can get more expensive, but groceries not all that much.
HopAlongBunny
03-01-2014, 03:45
Indeed, a better idea would be to limit corporate profits to say, 10% of their revenue.
Leaving a mere 90% to bump up the CEO's pay package :p
Brandy Blue
03-01-2014, 05:36
What I know about economics could be written on the back of a postage stamp, but still ...
What I don't get is why the minimum wage has to be the same for all kinds of businesses. Maybe charities should have a slightly lower rate (not too much lower, or no one will want to work for them), small businesses a medium rate, and larger businesses have to pay either a higher rate or spend a minimum amount of their profits on paying people (I mean the rank and file, employees, not just an excuse to pay the CEO's more), whichever is higher. Or maybe for every $1 they pay management in bonuses and hidden bonuses (stock options etc) they have to pay X amount of dollars in bonuses split up among the employees. Something like that. A single across the board minimum is either going to be too low or too unrealistic.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-01-2014, 06:49
Larger how? # of employees? Total revenues? Net revenues? Profit amount? Profit margin?
I like the idea that a "one size fits all" answer isn't the best route -- classic problem solving point that one.
HoreTore
03-01-2014, 12:15
I don't think the minimum wage should be a "living wage" that is something people plan on earning for a long time.
CR
I agree.
Workers should be kept in a situation where they are not able to feed themselves. They should be kept in a state where they are not able to start families or live comfortably; this will ensure that they will stay loyal and work hard. Allow them to build up a capital reserve or start a family, and they may use that to leave or demand even more benefits.
Rhyfelwyr
03-01-2014, 13:19
What a silly and irrelevant sob story that was about Mr. Platt's restaurant. If he wants to run a charity maybe he should look into getting people in to help on a volunteer basis. If he wants to run a business, he needs to pay his employees what is deemed to be a satisfactory wage.
I don't think the minimum wage should be a "living wage" that is something people plan on earning for a long time.
Just about everybody I have worked alongside with on minimum wage has expected to be on it for life, and indeed they most likely will be.
15 USD would actually be more than British minimum wage, surprisingly.
But I still don't understand why you would pay $17 for a burger or even $13. A large meal at Mc Donalds is only $8 and they pay everyone here minimum wage which is around $11.
Sarmatian
03-01-2014, 13:59
Even though I'm a hated pinko, I don't believe that minimum wages should be raised arbitrarily if it's gonna affect the economy negatively. I'm talking about normal minimum wages, not American, based on my short work experience there.
What the state should do, is focus much more effort and money to allow people to work for something more than minimum wage, first and foremost giving them a good and free education.
HoreTore
03-01-2014, 14:05
Even though I'm a hated pinko, I don't believe that minimum wages should be raised arbitrarily if it's gonna affect the economy negatively. I'm talking about normal minimum wages, not American, based on my short work experience there.
What the state should do, is focus much more effort and money to allow people to work for something more than minimum wage, first and foremost giving them a good and free education.
No matter how educated a people becomes, we will still need someone to flip our burgers and wash our toilets.
Nobody would ever accuse me of being a pinko. Now they will probably. But it's good for the ordinary middle-class enterprises if the lowest of incomes have more money to spend. It's benificial and works it's way up.
HoreTore
03-01-2014, 14:33
Nobody would ever accuse me of being a pinko. Now they will probably. But it's good for the ordinary middle-class enterprises if the lowest of incomes have more money to spend. It's benificial and works it's way up.
The Dark Side is strong, Fragony... Join us.
To expand, you are of course absolutely correct. Higher wages is beneficial to the domestic economy. What higher wages will hurt, is export industries which are low-tech and labour-intensive. But that's not the kind of jobs you want in an economy anyway; we've got Indians, Chinese and Latinos for that.
The Dark Side is strong, Fragony... Join us.
Ah in many things you already got me, I understand the need to alleviate the lower classes as much as possible. Where the money that is needed to do it is comming from is a different matter.
HoreTore
03-01-2014, 14:45
Ah in many things you already got me, I understand the need to alleviate the lower classes as much as possible. Where the money that is needed to do it is comming from is a different matter.
I'm not with the "use taxes to redistribute wealth"-crowd, frags, I'm firmly with the "increase wages"-crowd ~;)
Sarmatian
03-01-2014, 14:59
No matter how educated a people becomes, we will still need someone to flip our burgers and wash our toilets.
Isn't that what South Americans/eastern Europeans are for, depending on which side of the Atlantic you are?
Joking aside, minimum wage should offer a decent living but it is a bad idea to remove an incentive to improve. Why should I go to school for 16 years if I can get a good living with just 8 years in school? Driving people around in a taxi is certainly much less stressful than working in an office.
I'm not with the "use taxes to redistribute wealth"-crowd, frags, I'm firmly with the "increase wages"-crowd ~;)
Yeah excellent, little secret, I am part viking. So I naturally know everything about everything about scandinavia. A LOT of Danes go to Germany to stock up, Swedes go to Denmark because it's even more expensive in Sweden. People don't want to go there for shopping, I blame Kadahar.
HoreTore
03-01-2014, 16:05
Isn't that what South Americans/eastern Europeans are for, depending on which side of the Atlantic you are?
Joking aside, minimum wage should offer a decent living but it is a bad idea to remove an incentive to improve. Why should I go to school for 16 years if I can get a good living with just 8 years in school? Driving people around in a taxi is certainly much less stressful than working in an office.
If that was true, Scandinavia would be a place with little to no education.
It's the exact opposite.
A low-paying* job doesn't create an incentive to improve. A high paying* job does.
*In absolute, not relative, numbers.
That's an even worse idea. You want to penalize successful companies? You want people to worry about making to much of a profit? Gah.
CR
I don't want to penalize anyone, same rules for all companies. Noone ever had to worry about making too much of a profit, it just means that it's not a profit and they have to invest it into something useful such as their employees or better quality production machines. This in turn increases their business success, increases their total revenue and thus also increases their absolute amount of profit. It's a win-win situation.
Leaving a mere 90% to bump up the CEO's pay package :p
Easy. The highest wage per hour including bonuses, shares etc. can only be 20 times as high as the lowest wage per hour.
Crazed Rabbit
03-01-2014, 18:13
Several points;
The minimum wage in the US was intended to prevent companies from paying rock bottom wages for low skilled jobs - as it functions now mostly - not as a livable wage for broad swaths of people in the economy. The reason it should remain that way is because politicians couldn't set such a wage well even if it was possible to set a one size fits all wage.
There's a hidden benefit to it, more money means more to spend. Services can get more expensive, but groceries not all that much.
In the US grocery stores operate on very thin margins and labor is a large cost;
https://www.fmi.org/docs/facts-figures/marketingcosts.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Stores measure employees' speed at checkouts down to the second;
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122651745876821483
Those costs will rise and some employees will be fired, and all will likely lose some benefits.
I agree.
Workers should be kept in a situation where they are not able to feed themselves. They should be kept in a state where they are not able to start families or live comfortably; this will ensure that they will stay loyal and work hard. Allow them to build up a capital reserve or start a family, and they may use that to leave or demand even more benefits.
Thank you, HoreTore, for reading in between the lines and saying what I really believe better than I ever could. :rolleyes:
Because of course it is only by raising the minimum wage that people get paid more - never by raises or other jobs or promotions.
Just about everybody I have worked alongside with on minimum wage has expected to be on it for life, and indeed they most likely will be.
For the US, I don't think we should be setting the minimum wage so that the people working at Mcdonalds can afford to raise a family. Less than 5% of workers in the US are at or below the fed's minimum wage; http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130325.htm
I don't think it's something most people in the US expect to be on forever.
I don't want to penalize anyone, same rules for all companies. Noone ever had to worry about making too much of a profit, it just means that it's not a profit and they have to invest it into something useful such as their employees or better quality production machines. This in turn increases their business success, increases their total revenue and thus also increases their absolute amount of profit. It's a win-win situation.
I believe, accounting wise, that extra money they choose to invest/increase wages with is originally profit. I mean, what do you think they do with the profit they make?
And even if they choose to save up their profits to have a large amount of cash on hand (like Apple), what makes that bad? It allows companies to invest easily if a new opportunity comes up.
CR
Montmorency
03-01-2014, 18:22
For the US, I don't think we should be setting the minimum wage so that the people working at Mcdonalds can afford to raise a family. Less than 5% of workers in the US are at or below the fed's minimum wage;
We've already been over how this is a worthless statistic last summer. It would be much more interesting and relevant to see how many work at or below 200% of the federal minumum.
HoreTore
03-01-2014, 18:27
Thank you, HoreTore, for reading in between the lines and saying what I really believe better than I ever could. :rolleyes:
Actually, I assumed you to be familiar with Wealth of Nations.
Apparently you are not.
Actually, I assumed you to be familiar with Wealth of Nations.
Apparently you are not.
I am, is there any ambiguity I am missing
The Lurker Below
03-01-2014, 18:57
Just about everybody I have worked alongside with on minimum wage has expected to be on it for life, and indeed they most likely will be.
What a depressing notion. I would prefer to be flat broke today and have hope that the future will be better than to be just alright today and know that things will never be better.
I believe, accounting wise, that extra money they choose to invest/increase wages with is originally profit. I mean, what do you think they do with the profit they make?
I believe they pay too much to shareholders and banks and other investors who make enormous profits by just "letting their money work". Meanwhile the investments the companies make in their employees or into actually producing working products are reduced in order to save costs and increase profits, which can then be paid to investors. If they are already working on a very tight margin such as the supermarkets you mention, then it is like it is and not much can be done.
And even if they choose to save up their profits to have a large amount of cash on hand (like Apple), what makes that bad? It allows companies to invest easily if a new opportunity comes up.
Money needs to flow, if people horde money it hurts the economy. And if rich people keep making investments that pay back tenfold while poor people get indebted and have to pay back more in the end then I call that trickle up.
Rhyfelwyr
03-02-2014, 00:21
What a depressing notion. I would prefer to be flat broke today and have hope that the future will be better than to be just alright today and know that things will never be better.
This is the reality of living out the dream.
Kadagar_AV
03-02-2014, 01:35
Peoples lives shouldn't be decent just because they happen to work hard!!
-'murica
Papewaio
03-03-2014, 09:59
So everyone in the restaurant is paid minimum wage or was the article being disingenuous?
$13 a burger. Third in labour. So it takes half an hour of total effort to take an order, make a burger and clean up?
So from $4.5 in cost it goes up to $7.50 in costs. Actual rise if the reports are correct and all are on minimum wage the burger would move from $13 to $16. So when they casually inflate the costs by 20-25% and probably overestimate work effort it would seem like a factually insufficient article.
How would you feel if you had to work 1.5hrs to afford a burger? Or how would you feel that it takes you an hour to make, serve and cleanup two burgers.
No wonder the guy has to donate food, half his staff would be starving.
ICantSpellDawg
03-03-2014, 14:37
I want nothing more than a minimum wage hike in all historic and liberal municipalities. If it works without shedding jobs, great. My hope though is that these municipalities with stagnate economically and constantly be out-competed by others. I want to see the Northeast accelerate their taxes and shrink their economic prowess. This, I believe will help that happen. Republicans should abstain From voting in these areas. If they defeat the measure, the Democrats will use it against them successfully: "remember when the dastardly GOP stopped us from entering paradise?". Let them do itSo that they have to own it and buy stock in less developed citied in the South and mid-west.
I want nothing more than a minimum wage hike in all historic and liberal municipalities. If it works without shedding jobs, great. My hope though is that these municipalities with stagnate economically and constantly be out-competed by others. I want to see the Northeast accelerate their taxes and shrink their economic prowess. This, I believe will help that happen. Republicans should abstain From voting in these areas. If they defeat the measure, the Democrats will use it against them successfully: "remember when the dastardly GOP stopped us from entering paradise?". Let them do itSo that they have to own it and buy stock in less developed citied in the South and mid-west.
You are aware that it is not good for evil secret plans when you tell them to everyone?
HoreTore
03-03-2014, 17:43
You are aware that it is not good for evil secret plans when you tell them to everyone?
Haven't you watched a single James Bond-movie, Husar?
The evil villain always reveals his evil plot when there's still enough time to prevent it.
Montmorency
03-03-2014, 20:44
Typical evil plan: Destroy the world.
Unfortunately for these masterminds, destroying the world invalidates all their goals and makes them unreachable.
Such is the case with this one...
Brandy Blue
03-04-2014, 01:12
"Larger how? # of employees? Total revenues? Net revenues? Profit amount? Profit margin?
I like the idea that a "one size fits all" answer isn't the best route -- classic problem solving point that one."
Well, I admit you've got me there Seamus. I used up the tiny part of my brain that deals with economics by coming up with the not-one-size-fits-all suggestion. I assume that "larger" in this context means big enough not to get massively damaged by a higher minimum wage rate. I guess that means you would judge by net revenue, or maybe net revenue divided by number of employees. But I can't come up with a specific formula. I just don't know enough.
Why do the heartless jerks want to stop at $15/hr? Legislators, in their wisdom and generosity, should set minimum wage at $50/hr. Then no one anywhere would have to need for anything. While they're at it, they may as well set the maximum wage at $50/hr too. Everyone can make a comfortable income and no one will make "too much". :yes:
Papewaio
03-04-2014, 01:46
Seattle would be one of the more expensive cities in the world to live in wouldn't it?
Montmorency
03-04-2014, 02:30
Why do the heartless jerks want to stop at $15/hr? Legislators, in their wisdom and generosity, should set minimum wage at $50/hr. Then no one anywhere would have to need for anything. While they're at it, they may as well set the maximum wage at $50/hr too. Everyone can make a comfortable income and no one will make "too much". :yes:
Why pay workers wages at all? They should just be slaves, good for nothing but their life's-blood and the runts they can stud out.
The government's role should be to prop up existing big business with unlimited free labor and the force to back it up; once one wave of servile scum dies out, the next is ushered in.
And if one of the un-poor should fall into troubles, then they get to join the stinking heaps of bodies in the abattoirs of laziness, the bastions of true and honest work (that is also worthless and fungible of course).
God Bless the 'free' 'market'.
Why pay workers wages at all? They should just be slaves, good for nothing but their life's-blood and the runts they can stud out. Take an economics class and get back to me. :yes:
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2014, 05:06
Why do the heartless jerks want to stop at $15/hr? Legislators, in their wisdom and generosity, should set minimum wage at $50/hr. Then no one anywhere would have to need for anything. While they're at it, they may as well set the maximum wage at $50/hr too. Everyone can make a comfortable income and no one will make "too much". :yes:
Because that is what the standard of living is nowadays in that area. Don't pretend as if people are just pulling numbers out of their ass.
Because that is what the standard of living is nowadays in that area. Don't pretend as if people are just pulling numbers out of their ass.
I think that's exactly what they're doing. :yes:
In Seattle (http://www.seattlehousing.org/housing/public/eligibility/), a single person can make $21/hr working full-time and still be eligible for public housing. Why not set minimum wage to that level? Surely, someone who is working hard, full-time should make enough to afford a place to live, right?
If raising the wage to $15 is good, why isn't $21 better? Why not $50?
ICantSpellDawg
03-04-2014, 05:25
I agree. $50 minimum wages for everyone! Honestly, I'm all for it. More reason to fire workers and automate. Maybe it will even convince my boss to move the company out of State which has been my agenda the entire time. Let's do it! NY first.
I really don't understand what the hold up is. Why won't they just vote on it already? P!us the health care plan requirements, it just gets better and better. I personally think that they are blustering, because they know that they would have to vote for it. I promise, I will even vote for it myself if it gets NY dems to enact the higher minimum
Papewaio
03-04-2014, 05:58
I think that's exactly what they're doing. :yes:
In Seattle (http://www.seattlehousing.org/housing/public/eligibility/), a single person can make $21/hr working full-time and still be eligible for public housing. Why not set minimum wage to that level? Surely, someone who is working hard, full-time should make enough to afford a place to live, right?
If raising the wage to $15 is good, why isn't $21 better? Why not $50?
So taxpayers subsidize businesses that aren't paying their employees a living wage for the location they operate in.
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2014, 09:57
I think that's exactly what they're doing. :yes:
In Seattle (http://www.seattlehousing.org/housing/public/eligibility/), a single person can make $21/hr working full-time and still be eligible for public housing. Why not set minimum wage to that level? Surely, someone who is working hard, full-time should make enough to afford a place to live, right?
If raising the wage to $15 is good, why isn't $21 better? Why not $50?
If 80% of the median income is $21 an hour then the standard of living will accordingly reflect that in housing prices among other things. WHat you have just pointed out is not that the demands are outrageously high, but indeed that in some areas, what they are asking for is still not enough.
Btw, the minimum wage in 1969 is equivalent to ~$10.00 in 2013 currency. Is it unreasonable in your eyes to even ask the government to match that?
EDIT: I really think you need a reality check when you honestly make a statement that getting $15 an hour in an area is unreasonable where (by definition) half of everyone is already making more than $26.25 an hour.
Take an economics class and get back to me. :yes:
Most of the books I've read on the subject (company/HR management) suggest that workers should get a fair compensation for their work to keep the morale high. Would you say the morale of these workers is high? Do they look happy to you? Obviously the management has failed to heed all good advice for managing employees and should get fired.
IMO the employees should all quit if they do not like the wage and if there is no social safety net they can find other ways to survive, such as robbing grandmas or so, maybe they can even band together to improve their chances. There is nothing that should stop a creative person in the land of opportunity.
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2014, 10:15
Economics should not take precedent over basic human decency and responsibility. This is why we have regulations in the first place.
Economics should not take precedent over basic human decency and responsibility. This is why we have regulations in the first place.
Never mind the humans, stop trying to take muh freedoms!
HopAlongBunny
03-04-2014, 11:04
There is nothing that should stop a creative person in the land of opportunity.
Fortunately we have at least 2 real world examples of that precise dictum:
The Hell's Angels and the Mafia; better examples of the application pure free market principles simply do not exist :p
Montmorency
03-04-2014, 13:15
Take an economics class and get back to me. :yes:
If you're going to write mindless rubbish, at least have the grace not to pretend that it's well-informed.
HoreTore
03-04-2014, 13:19
If you're going to write mindless rubbish, at least have the grace not to pretend that it's well-informed.
Slaves don't make economic sense; they produce less wealth for the owner than a free employee.
Unfortunately, the same is true of an underpaid employee, as proven by Smith.
Montmorency
03-04-2014, 13:28
Yes, and infinite minumum wages also don't make economic sense.
Was I being too subtle? I definitely wasn't being subtle...
HopAlongBunny
03-04-2014, 14:11
What!? Are there no work houses!?
HoreTore
03-04-2014, 14:13
What!? Are there no work houses!?
Let's all remember that being poor is a choice people make. Nobody is forcing them to make that choice.
Sarmatian
03-04-2014, 14:27
So everyone in the restaurant is paid minimum wage or was the article being disingenuous?
$13 a burger. Third in labour. So it takes half an hour of total effort to take an order, make a burger and clean up?
So from $4.5 in cost it goes up to $7.50 in costs. Actual rise if the reports are correct and all are on minimum wage the burger would move from $13 to $16. So when they casually inflate the costs by 20-25% and probably overestimate work effort it would seem like a factually insufficient article.
No, the math is correct. A third of the restaurant's cost is labour. The other two thirds also include someone's labour, someone has to feed and take care of a cow, kill it, skin it, clean, grind the meat, freeze it and transport it. Wages of those people also go up as, presumably, some of them also work for a minimum wage. Additional dollar or two increase is probably accurate assessment, provided he doesn't buy his meat out of state.
One would have to wonder if that burger comes with Xbox One included to be priced 13$, though.
How would you feel if you had to work 1.5hrs to afford a burger?
That's easy, like someone who's working in Serbia.
Papewaio
03-04-2014, 20:44
What!? Are there no work houses!?
Isn't that the prison system?
If raising the wage to $15 is good, why isn't $21 better? Why not $50?
Why not thousand or a million?! Infact, take it further to a billion!
We sure told them their argument is wrong for wanting a meagre increase. Let's scrap welfare and minimum wage all together, those plebs should be working for $1 per hour and like it. Who cares about having to basics to survive, lets reinvest the welfare money in law enforcement to shoot on sight anyone who might steal a loaf of bread to prevent themselves and their family starving to death as well. Silly poor people.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-05-2014, 20:34
According to the living wage folks, two adults in Seattle need 40 hours of work at $14.85 for a living wage. Saving for retirement is NOT factored in. This presumes recreational spending at about $75/person/month.
In retirement, they'll need about $14/hour for a living wage, since transportation costs are reduced. Social Security will pay roughly $19,500 in today's dollar terms, leaving them about $9k short per annum, resulting in a near-poverty existence.
According to the living wage folks, two adults in Seattle need 40 hours of work at $14.85 for a living wage. Saving for retirement is NOT factored in. This presumes recreational spending at about $75/person/month.
In retirement, they'll need about $14/hour for a living wage, since transportation costs are reduced. Social Security will pay roughly $19,500 in today's dollar terms, leaving them about $9k short per annum, resulting in a near-poverty existence.So... raise Social Security payments by 40%? :inquisitive:
Why not thousand or a million?! Infact, take it further to a billion!
We sure told them their argument is wrong for wanting a meagre increase. Let's scrap welfare and minimum wage all together, those plebs should be working for $1 per hour and like it. Who cares about having to basics to survive, lets reinvest the welfare money in law enforcement to shoot on sight anyone who might steal a loaf of bread to prevent themselves and their family starving to death as well. Silly poor people.
I love how you try to mock a reductio ad absurdum argument.... and then make one yourself. :2thumbsup:
I love how you try to mock a reductio ad absurdum argument.... and then make one yourself. :2thumbsup:
Fighting Fire with Fire. :beam:
a completely inoffensive name
03-11-2014, 09:06
So... raise Social Security payments by 40%? :inquisitive:
I would rather not have a bloated Federal government be responsible for paying out even more money to essentially subsidize the wages that companies should be paying.
Papewaio
03-13-2014, 03:23
Cost of living is somewhat cheaper in cities compared with countryside. However some parts of cities will be very expensive to live in.
If the government has to subsidize those in high cost areas who have access to more and better services that is hardly an equatable arrangement and if anything is an inverse redistribution of resources. It's almost as bad as corporate welfare, which this is a single step away from.
Companies should either pay for a living wage in their region or cease to exist.
If the cost of living is so high that your nurses, fireman, police, garbage collectors, baristas, shop staff and others in the essential and/or service industries can't afford to live in an area then either have the end users pay more or stop overheating the local economy and have these services moved to another area.
It should not be taxpayers footing the bill for outlier high cost of living areas that are high cost because a wage earner segment is out of sync with the rest of the economy. So let the high wage earners pay more for a coffee or a band aid and pass so that the service workers can afford to live.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-13-2014, 18:09
My earlier point was that the "living wage" isn't one because it would have to be a wage that supplies funding for the retirement years, a safety net for medical emergenices etc. to be a true means to take care of "living."
So how do you handle it?
Force employers to pay the higher wages? They will, and it will have both an inflationary impact and a chilling effect on new hires (studies suggest that few jobs are cut when minimum wage increases happen, but that the pace of hiring slows). And it would be way more than 14.85 if they must also create a nest egg for retirement.
Have the government create a basic living stipend for all, with wages paid by companies over and above this government generated baseline for all? I see more than a few economic concerns with that.
Other ideas? I doubt we can come up with any that don't have substantial drawbacks to them.
Also, as food for thought, if you look at the articles on this measure and see who is supportive of it, you will note that a preponderance of those supporting effort are union members and union leadership. It is also wise to remember that a significant number of union-negotiated contracts require an increase in compensation to union members that is directly tied (raise one, raise the other the same amount) to the minimum wage....
And it would be way more than 14.85 if they must also create a nest egg for retirement.
Isn't that what social security is for, that you pay every month as part of your taxes? Even then, having a living wage would top up your private pension too.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-13-2014, 21:59
Isn't that what social security is for, that you pay every month as part of your taxes? Even then, having a living wage would top up your private pension too.
If you look at the current metrics for living wage, they do not include retirement funding in the budget. The budget isn't very frills at all. Social Security, which is factored in, pays a little over half of active employed pay at this level. Most retirement planners suggest 70-80% of pre-retirement income stream is necessary in retirement to avoid a lifestyle decrease.
Papewaio
03-19-2014, 08:53
I don't think the economy would suffer by raising the minimum wage to a living wage. That pushes more people off the government teat.
In Aus:
"National minimum wage for adults
Currently the full-time minimum wage is $16.37 per hour or $622.20 per week. This means that most employees in the national system shouldn't get less than this.
Casuals covered by the national minimum wage get an extra 24% ($20.30 per hour)."
Plus 9.25% more in superannuation (individual controlled pension)
Plus Medicare
Plus pay for your Uni only after you earn a high enough income ie free if you are an arts student ;)
Stores measure employees' speed at checkouts down to the second;
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122651745876821483
Daniel A. Gunther has good reason to keep his checkout line moving at the Meijer Inc. store north of Detroit. A clock starts ticking the instant he scans a customer's first item, and it doesn't shut off until his register spits out a receipt. To assess his efficiency, the store's computer takes into account everything from the kinds of merchandise he's bagging to how his customers are paying. Each week, he gets scored. If he falls below 95% of the baseline score too many times, the 185-store megastore chain, based in Walker, Mich., is likely to bounce him to a lower-paying job, or fire him.
Utterly disgusting. Words fail me to describe how disgusted, sad and outraged reading that makes me feel.
Is this how human beings are being treated?
Utterly disgusting. Words fail me to describe how disgusted, sad and outraged reading that makes me feel.
Is this how human beings are being treated?
What's so disgusting about it? It isn't much different from an assembly line.
HoreTore
03-19-2014, 17:08
Utterly disgusting. Words fail me to describe how disgusted, sad and outraged reading that makes me feel.
Is this how human beings are being treated?
I second this emotion.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-19-2014, 17:30
Old news really. Taylorism and time/motion stuff has been part of many industries for a century now. UPS does it, most manufacturing, etc.
Be a robot, or lose your job to one. Ain't modern industrial society great?There really isn't much of a role for artistry or flair in being a convenience store cashier.
What's going to make customers most happy is if their cashier can complete their transactions quickly and competently. The store is comparing employee performance against their established metrics.
The same thing happens at my job- just different metrics,
HoreTore
03-19-2014, 20:35
The same thing happens at my job- just different metrics,
You would expect to be fired if a couple of weeks out of a year you're only working at 90% efficiency...? And your line manager hangs over your shoulder every second of every day, monitoring your every move?
What utter nonsense. This is iron discipline you never find anywhere but in the lowest paying jobs. Exploitation of people without resources, pure and simple.
You would expect to be fired if a couple of weeks out of a year you're only working at 90% efficiency...? And your line manager hangs over your shoulder every second of every day, monitoring your every move?
What utter nonsense. This is iron discipline you never find anywhere but in the lowest paying jobs. Exploitation of people without resources, pure and simple.I agree that you're spouting utter nonsense. :yes:
Where does the article say that if they operate below 90% efficiency for a couple weeks they'll be fired? Or that the line manager is hanging over their shoulder? It doesn't say either. :no:
They're expected to operate within 95% of a baseline. What is the baseline? The article doesn't say.
All for less than a living wage too. :no:
And more regulation and/or minimum wage increases will make it worse. As government continues to erect barriers to hiring, employers will be forced to squeeze more and more productivity out of existing workers....
All of this is pretty basic economics. Basic economics is also why we stopped hearing about a federal minimum wage increase. Obama tried to make some hay out of it for his class warfare song and dance, but we won't hear about it again until the elections. Afterwards, nothing will be done- because they know it would cost jobs. For all his talk, income inequality has grown at an accelerated pace under his presidency- he's made it worse.
HoreTore
03-19-2014, 22:07
I agree that you're spouting utter nonsense. :yes:
Where does the article say that if they operate below 90% efficiency for a couple weeks they'll be fired? Or that the line manager is hanging over their shoulder? It doesn't say either. :no:
They're expected to operate within 95% of a baseline. What is the baseline? The article doesn't say.
I find it extremely hard to believe that this 'baseline' is anything but normal efficiency. Thus, having an off-week, which is normal for any human, could result in being fired.
And you really should read it again; the manager is hanging over their shoulder. Every transaction is logged, meaning that the manager is hanging over their shoulders every moment of the day to check how they're doing.
Nobody, and I do mean nobody, with a degree of any kind would accept that kind of nonsense at work. This is a treatment we reserve specifically for the lower class. I guess they are without value, and shouldn't be treated with respect or any kind of basic human decency.
As government continues to erect barriers to hiring, employers will be forced to squeeze more and more productivity out of existing workers....
Rubbish. The countries with the most of these "efficiency check programs" are the countries with the lowest wages, like third-world countries in Asia and the US. In countries with high wages("barriers to hiring", as you say) even for unskilled labour(like Norway, for example), you won't see any of this kind of nonsense.
This is a practice strictly limited to countries who allow low wages. They do not exist in countries with high wages.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-19-2014, 22:13
I find it extremely hard to believe that this 'baseline' is anything but normal efficiency. Thus, having an off-week, which is normal for any human, could result in being fired.
And you really should read it again; the manager is hanging over their shoulder. Every transaction is logged, meaning that the manager is hanging over their shoulders every moment of the day to check how they're doing.
Nobody, and I do mean nobody, with a degree of any kind would accept that kind of nonsense at work. This is a treatment we reserve specifically for the lower class. I guess they are without value, and shouldn't be treated with respect or any kind of basic human decency.
The log is electronic, not requiring personal micromanagement.
A competent manager will not let a quality employee go because they had a bad week.
This is not a Myanmar piece-work sewing factory. It's Michigan -- highly unionized and only having established "right to work" status in 2012.
HoreTore
03-19-2014, 22:17
The log is electronic, not requiring personal micromanagement.
That log is micromanagement.
Every move is watched - you just can't get managed on a smaller level than this.
Is it okay for the 1st Violin in the orchestra to operate at anything less than 100% level? I wonder what would happen if he operates at 95% efficiency.... Oh, I know! The symphony will sound like crap, the orchestra will get booed and the 1st violin will get the boot immediately after the performance.
Some professions do not have room for error or inefficiency.
HoreTore
03-19-2014, 23:00
Is it okay for the 1st Violin in the orchestra to operate at anything less than 100% level? I wonder what would happen if he operates at 95% efficiency.... Oh, I know! The symphony will sound like crap, the orchestra will get booed and the 1st violin will get the boot immediately after the performance.
Some professions do not have room for error or inefficiency.
Thank you for your completely irrelevant* comment.
*and completely incorrect of cours, but that should be obvious
It's very relevant actually. And 100% correct (of course).
Seamus Fermanagh
03-19-2014, 23:09
That log is micromanagement.
Every move is watched - you just can't get managed on a smaller level than this.
Oh it is, as is the camera overwatch in the casinos etc. I am just reminding you that the research suggests that it is "personal" micromanagement -- boss hanging over your shoulder, coming over to your workstation every 20 minutes to look over your shoulder, 3rd degree over taking a bathroom break, etc. -- that contributes most to people reporting themselves as dealing with a hostile or negative work environment. The electronic oversight approach is less overt and intrusive and seems to inhibit the work environment less. Still counts as heavy oversight.
I teach organizational communication, HT, such things are a recurring issue for organizations. Generally flows from a manager who is too "Theory X" in their thinking (aka operates using a hermeneutic of suscpicion).
HoreTore
03-19-2014, 23:11
It's very relevant actually. And 100% correct (of course).
I fail to see how a high-intensity performance profession like a symphony can be compared to a grocery store.
And a member of a symphony is most certainly not fired after one bad performance, assuming the leader of said symphony is a sociopath. Do you happen to know any violinists playing in an orchestra?
Or take De Gea's performance tonight. Basically saved what's left to save of Uniteds season tonight. According to your logic, he should have been sacked two years ago.
HoreTore
03-19-2014, 23:12
Oh it is, as is the camera overwatch in the casinos etc. I am just reminding you that the research suggests that it is "personal" micromanagement -- boss hanging over your shoulder, coming over to your workstation every 20 minutes to look over your shoulder, 3rd degree over taking a bathroom break, etc. -- that contributes most to people reporting themselves as dealing with a hostile or negative work environment. The electronic oversight approach is less overt and intrusive and seems to inhibit the work environment less. Still counts as heavy oversight.
I teach organizational communication, HT, such things are a recurring issue for organizations. Generally flows from a manager who is too "Theory X" in their thinking (aka operates using a hermeneutic of suscpicion).
I do not disagree with any of this.
I fail to see how a high-intensity performance profession like a symphony can be compared to a grocery store.
And I don't. Working the checkout line can be just as intense and quality of work is just as important. What good is a car manufacturer with 95% quality rate? Crap. A server that is up 95% of the time? Crap. Network that delivers 95% of packets? Utter Crap. Some companies settle for crap and some don't. I as a consumer certainly won't settle for it.
And a member of a symphony is most certainly not fired after one bad performance, assuming the leader of said symphony is a sociopath. Do you happen to know any violinists playing in an orchestra?
Violinists? No. I know a Second Trombone though. He spends most performances just sitting, counting pauses in his music sheet. His entire performance in most symphonies is just a handful of notes, and if he screws that up, he's history. Most laymen won't even hear his particular input, but the conductor will. And the conductor will show him the door if he plays at the wrong time or the wrong note.
HoreTore
03-19-2014, 23:31
And I don't. Working the checkout line can be just as intense and quality of work is just as important. What good is a car manufacturer with 95% quality rate? Crap. A server that is up 95% of the time? Crap. Network that delivers 95% of packets? Utter Crap. Some companies settle for crap and some don't. I as a consumer certainly won't settle for it.
Violinists? No. I know a Second Trombone though. He spends most performances just sitting, counting pauses in his music sheet. His entire performance in most symphonies is just a handful of notes, and if he screws that up, he's history. Most laymen won't even hear his particular input, but the conductor will. And the conductor will show him the door if he plays at the wrong time or the wrong note.
The conductor is a sociopath then. A quick google search revealed what is the norm (http://www.yeodoug.com/articles/text/procon.html):
After passing an initial probationary period (of one to three years depending on the orchestra's policy), tenured members enjoy job protection and security as members of the American Federation of Musicians. Dismissal can only be made for cause which must be proven to an arbitration panel, often made up of peer members of the orchestra.
As for your ridiculous standards of getting "100% every time otherwise it's crap"-attitude, well... I don't really see a need to comment on such nonsense.
The conductor is a sociopath then. A quick google search revealed what is the norm (http://www.yeodoug.com/articles/text/procon.html):
So?
"After passing an initial probationary period (of one to three years depending on the orchestra's policy), tenured members enjoy job protection and security as members of the American Federation of Musicians. Dismissal can only be made for cause which must be proven to an arbitration panel, often made up of peer members of the orchestra." I'm pretty sure those peer members aren't deaf. A single misplayed note can ruin a symphony and with it leave them all jobless.
As for your ridiculous standards of getting "100% every time otherwise it's crap"-attitude, well... I don't really see a need to comment on such nonsense.
Oh, you misunderstand... 95% is crap. 99.5%+ is acceptable unless you're the 1st violin, in which case it really has to be 100%.
Papewaio
03-20-2014, 01:11
First string is not a line worker and certainly not on minimum wage.
First string is 2IC. They are generally called the concert master or leader. He or she is Riker to Piccards conductor ship.
It's a senior leadership position not a check out minimum wage clerk.
So yes the comparison fails. Miserably.
First string is not a line worker and certainly not on minimum wage.
First string is 2IC. They are generally called the concert master or leader. He or she is Riker to Piccards conductor ship.
It's a senior leadership position not a check out minimum wage clerk.
So yes the comparison fails. Miserably.
Put your money where your mouth is. Drive a 95%-reliable car, live in a 95%-finished house, put your money in a 95%-accurate bank. Oh and while you're at it, undergo a surgery done by a 95%-qualified doctor using 95%-calibrated equipment.
Papewaio
03-20-2014, 01:29
Not all baselines are accuracy.
The 95% baseline is about speed more then accuracy. Accuracy is probably another metric and possibly in the 3 nines category.
Is the checkout person getting the output done at 95%+ of the baseline speed.
So it would be a baseline for how quick the car or house is built
I work on telephony systems and the base uptime for them is 99.999% This is not a measurent of how quick they are built. Which can and is often months to do it in a manner that is not disruptive to business.
Not all baselines are accuracy.
The 95% baseline is about speed more then accuracy. Accuracy is probably another metric and possibly in the 3 nines category.
Is the checkout person getting the output done at 95%+ of the baseline speed.
So it would be a baseline for how quick the car or house is built
I work on telephony systems and the base uptime for them is 99.999% This is not a measurent of how quick they are built. Which can and is often months to do it in a manner that is not disruptive to business.
Speed is money. That 5% difference eats directly into the profit margin. 95% is unacceptable for purposes of meeting sales goals, or quality or just about anything else for that matter. Speed is no different. There's no reason to keep a 95%-cashier when you can have 99.5% cashier. The 95%-guy can do something else instead. Businesses aren't stupid, they won't replace a 95%-guy if there's noone better available. Chances are though that there is.
a completely inoffensive name
03-20-2014, 02:11
There are too many nines and fives in this thread. Which nines are the important ones again?
Tellos Athenaios
03-20-2014, 02:16
Speed is money. That 5% difference eats directly into the profit margin. 95% is unacceptable for purposes of meeting sales goals, or quality or just about anything else for that matter. Speed is no different. There's no reason to keep a 95%-cashier when you can have 99.5% cashier. The 95%-guy can do something else instead. Businesses aren't stupid, they won't replace a 95%-guy if there's noone better available. Chances are though that there is.
This is not exactly HFT, "speed" matters at peak hours but at other times of day probably a lot less. At least from the article it appears that there is already a marked dissatisfaction with the arrangement from the elderly customer segment...
By the by the store simply set arbitrary time limits on specific actions. It's hard to quantify how this affects profits outside of peak hours (number of customers per queue does not automatically increase proportionally to the decrease in waiting times).
This is not exactly HFT, "speed" matters at peak hours but at other times of day probably a lot less. At least from the article it appears that there is already a marked dissatisfaction with the arrangement from the elderly customer segment...
By the by the store simply set arbitrary time limits on specific actions. It's hard to quantify how this affects profits outside of peak hours (number of customers per queue does not automatically increase proportionally to the decrease in waiting times).
If the business upsets the elderly segment, the business will be punished by losing the elderly segment... Actually, who am I kidding, the elderly generally hate change of any kind and will most likely keep shopping at that store. The management needs to do something truly atrocious to lose the elderly.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-20-2014, 06:47
... Which nines are the important ones again?
[in cheesy merchant voice] Glock, Sig-Sauer...either's fine with me.
Papewaio
03-20-2014, 07:28
"The Terminator: [Looks around] The Uzi nine millimeter."
Ironside
03-20-2014, 09:57
Speed is money. That 5% difference eats directly into the profit margin. 95% is unacceptable for purposes of meeting sales goals, or quality or just about anything else for that matter. Speed is no different. There's no reason to keep a 95%-cashier when you can have 99.5% cashier. The 95%-guy can do something else instead. Businesses aren't stupid, they won't replace a 95%-guy if there's noone better available. Chances are though that there is.
Not really. For that speed to matter, you would need costumers that avoids the store because the cashiers are too slow.
And I would be very amused by the ones never going below 99.5% speed as a cashier. They'll pull 110-120% more than once. And would never have to deal with the wierdo costumers (they also have to eat you know).
HoreTore
03-20-2014, 13:08
Not really. For that speed to matter, you would need costumers that avoids the store because the cashiers are too slow.
And I would be very amused by the ones never going below 99.5% speed as a cashier. They'll pull 110-120% more than once. And would never have to deal with the wierdo costumers (they also have to eat you know).
I just loved the costumers who would put their stuff up one at a time, waiting for me to register it before putting up a new one...
I just loved the costumers who would put their stuff up one at a time, waiting for me to register it before putting up a new one...
Mine were usually barely sober enough to even realize what they were buying (I worked night shift at a party store).
Ironside
03-20-2014, 17:48
Mine were usually barely sober enough to even realize what they were buying (I worked night shift at a party store).
Since their actions are included in your performance evaluation (that's only based on data), enjoy.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-20-2014, 18:49
This Michigan checkout oversight process has garnered a lot of response.
Doesn't an employer have the right to gauge the productivity of an employee? Does not the use of an electronic monitoring approach LIMIT the potential for a manager to be arbitrary and capricious in their treatment of said employee? In short, doesn't this approach adhere to the non-arbitrary/non-particular treatment of organization members suggested by Weber over a century ago?
This Michigan checkout oversight process has garnered a lot of response.
Doesn't an employer have the right to gauge the productivity of an employee? Does not the use of an electronic monitoring approach LIMIT the potential for a manager to be arbitrary and capricious in their treatment of said employee? In short, doesn't this approach adhere to the non-arbitrary/non-particular treatment of organization members suggested by Weber over a century ago?
The ironic part is that Michigan is an At-will employment state: the employer doesn't need a reason to terminate an employee.
HoreTore
03-20-2014, 19:49
This Michigan checkout oversight process has garnered a lot of response.
Doesn't an employer have the right to gauge the productivity of an employee? Does not the use of an electronic monitoring approach LIMIT the potential for a manager to be arbitrary and capricious in their treatment of said employee? In short, doesn't this approach adhere to the non-arbitrary/non-particular treatment of organization members suggested by Weber over a century ago?
Can you then explain to me why the extreme measures are found in low-paying jobs, while higher paying jobs have far less rigid oversight?
Can you imagine a lawyer having an electronic device monitoring his every move?
Its not about needing an excuse to terminate employees, its about systematically crushing the humanity out of low wage jobs, and breaking the will of the working poor.
You make it sound as if businesses do this for some personal sadistic pleasure. It's all dollars and cents. Businesses that invest resources into this kind of monitoring will expect tangible results from it. If it proves fruitless, it will be scrapped for being nothing but a financial drain. If it delivers savings, then it's a sound business practice.
HoreTore
03-20-2014, 19:51
You make it sound as if businesses do this for some personal sadistic pleasure. It's all dollars and cents. Businesses that invest resources into this kind of monitoring will expect tangible results from it. If it proves fruitless, it will be scrapped for being nothing but a financial drain. If it delivers savings, then it's a sound business practice.
If businesses always chose the rational and most beneficial choice, slavery would never have existed in the first place.
If businesses always chose the rational and most beneficial choice, slavery would never have existed in the first place.
Rational and most beneficial for them. Slavery is very lucrative and beneficial for the perpetrator.
HoreTore
03-20-2014, 19:59
Rational and most beneficial for them. Slavery is very lucrative and beneficial for the perpetrator.
It is not.
A slave is far less profitable for the slave-owner than a free man.
It is not.
Slavery is far less profitable for the slave-owner than a free man.
Today with the advent of automation, perhaps. 200 years ago it was worth it practically everywhere. Still is today in isolated areas largely untouched by technology or modern values.
HoreTore
03-20-2014, 20:12
Today with the advent of automation, perhaps. 200 years ago it was worth it practically everywhere. Still is today in isolated areas largely untouched by technology or modern values.
No. I am talking about back in the age where slavery existed, back in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The first chapter of the second book(iirc) of Wealth of Nations explains the reasons in simple terms. Go have a read.
No. I am talking about back in the age where slavery existed, back in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The first chapter of the second book(iirc) of Wealth of Nations explains the reasons in simple terms. Go have a read.
No need. Slavery existed because it was profitable. It started to wane with the rise of industrialization. Had a viable alternative existed earlier, it would have pushed slavery out earlier.
HoreTore
03-20-2014, 20:18
Slavery existed because it was profitable.
I will allow you some time to ponder and reflect on that statement, and see how it is not relevant to the discussion.
I will allow you some time to ponder and reflect on that statement, and see how it is not relevant to the discussion.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Spare me your philosophy. To you anything that doesn't support your views is automatically irrelevant.
HoreTore
03-20-2014, 20:26
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Spare me your philosophy. To you anything that doesn't support your views is automatically irrelevant.
Try again.
Try again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J6dP09jZhQ
:tongue2:
Ironside
03-20-2014, 21:01
This Michigan checkout oversight process has garnered a lot of response.
Doesn't an employer have the right to gauge the productivity of an employee? Does not the use of an electronic monitoring approach LIMIT the potential for a manager to be arbitrary and capricious in their treatment of said employee? In short, doesn't this approach adhere to the non-arbitrary/non-particular treatment of organization members suggested by Weber over a century ago?
By it's formulation in this, it's not part of the total accessment.
It's a part of the company whip. It reduces employer satisfaction, -> costumer satisfaction (small talk? Too much risk of it being time consuming) and gives rewards for those who cheats the system (the data clearly shows that he's super effective).
Arbitary numbers treated as hard facts, without understanding its consequences and what it means are a recipie for self-destruction. See for example the vitality curve (aka forced ranking) and Microsoft.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-20-2014, 21:09
HoreTore:
The performance standards for attorneys are far less rigid but no less pervasive. I knew several junior attorneys in the DC area who were well aware, thoughit was never written down, that they had to bill 50-60 hours a week or consider a new career. Some of them used to compete to bill more than 24 hours in a day by traveling westbound while working. Weber would suggest that THAT system is far more prone to exploitation than an electronically standardized one that conforms to reasonable policies established in advance.
Are you bothered by management oversight/control inherently, or only by the overtness of the Michigan example?
As to slavery, you are completely correct that it makes no economic sense today. Industrialized and/or mixed economies simply need more creativity and flexibility in the work force to function well. Sadly, early agro/simple mining economies found slavery cost effective precisely because so little innovation and flexibility was required, hence the prevalence of servitude in most early civilizations.
Gelatinous Cube:
You are presuming an intent that may, or may NOT, be present. If it is there, then employees will churn and this organization will never have long term employees or any hope of a better and more productive work staff. Used intelligently, however, this could be a better tool to spot those in need of re-training or who are burnt out and need to be rotated to a different position within the organization to do something different. It need not simply be a "they're all scum" tool that you have in mind.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-20-2014, 21:12
By it's formulation in this, it's not part of the total accessment.
It's a part of the company whip. It reduces employer satisfaction, -> costumer satisfaction (small talk? Too much risk of it being time consuming) and gives rewards for those who cheats the system (the data clearly shows that he's super effective).
Arbitary numbers treated as hard facts, without understanding its consequences and what it means are a recipie for self-destruction. See for example the vitality curve (aka forced ranking) and Microsoft.
Your last statement is spot on. Is this system arbitrary? How is it being used? Too much that isn't in the piece to be sure.
Tellos Athenaios
03-20-2014, 21:27
Well as mentioned, Microsoft is probably the epitome of faith in numbers taken to depressingly destructive outcomes.
As for the slavery bit rvg the question is which is more profitable: the slave which has no incentive to do more than bare minimum or the free person who can expect ROI. It's been a staple of slave owning societies to contrast 'liberal' (for want of a better word) attitudes towards 'discipline' of the slaves with more 'authoritarian' approaches and finding that the liberal approach is better because it gives the slaves an incentive to work harder than strictly necessary. Same with slaves versus free workers.
Heck, it's the logic behind the whole government services versus private enterprise argument!
This is not to be confused with the actual reasoning behind the emergence of the slavery triangle. It's nothing to do with profitability, it's mostly limited economies of scale coupled with a scarcity of workers. Turns out that if you put out a job advert "wanted, person working himself to death in the tropical sun for the profit of others; need to pay for your own relocation and we regret that we cannot assure a safe passage" any European with alternatives (nevermind how poor) would tend to say "thanks but no thanks". Recruitment for navies and merchant fleets was also not yet based on the notion of a "meeting of the minds" and it was 'perfectly acceptable' to trick or abduct unwilling victims.
HoreTore
03-20-2014, 21:28
or only by the overtness of the Michigan example?
This. I am opposed to the "rule by fear"-attitude.
I expect my manager to judge me on my performance. Heck, I work in a school system(IB) which is based on the idea of rigorous assessment to further learning and achievement.
It's not a question of doing it or not. It's a question of doing it in a smart way or a retarded way. The Michigan way is the latter. Further, I would like the first response to "this employee isn't performing as well as he should" to be "how can we make him better" rather than "how can we fire him?"
As to slavery, you are completely correct that it makes no economic sense today. Industrialized and/or mixed economies simply need more creativity and flexibility in the work force to function well. Sadly, early agro/simple mining economies found slavery cost effective precisely because so little innovation and flexibility was required, hence the prevalence of servitude in most early civilizations.
The Wealth of Nations was written in 1776, and Smith argued it didn't make sense at that time. This was the time period I had in mind when mentioning slavery; how the Romans(et al) did I can't say. I note that there is some debate on whether the monuments of the Egyptians were built by forced or free labour, but I make no conclusions.
HoreTore
03-20-2014, 21:31
As for the slavery bit rvg the question is which is more profitable
...And this, rvg, is what I asked you to ponder.
You stated that slavery is profitable. That's quite irrelevant when the discussion is on what is more profitable.
Ironside
03-20-2014, 21:32
Your last statement is spot on. Is this system arbitrary? How is it being used? Too much that isn't in the piece to be sure.
The 95% rule is a big hint. It's designed to scare your employees to never go under that line. Not using the line a control bell if passed too often. To be fair, that's according to the possibly biased article.
On slavery. It's very good at expanding your workforce through hostile means (as in those people would never, never accept that work as workers for various reasons). After that stage, it's quite possible that it's better to convert them into workers, but you will have a lot of traction from the slave use.
Being able to check out quickly is an important part of the cashier's job. Lines at grocery stores can get long, and longer waiting times will result in customer dissatisfaction and losing business to the competition.
A cashier who takes his/her sweet time probably needs to be fired or put in another position in order to run the store well.
To me it really depends on how fast they expect the checkout times to be. If their expectations are easily met as long as one is actually trying, I see no problem with monitoring performance electronically. If they are expecting elite performance from all people at all times then I agree that it is unfair.
We've been given the metric, 95%, but we don't know what that really means in terms of checkout speed. I didn't read the article though so forgive me if I'm wrong.
If they are expecting elite performance from all people at all times then I agree that it is unfair.
Typically they measure for this, then use it as a excuse when it comes to firing someone, they can go "oh, they are constantly underperforming.."
Typically they measure for this, then use it as a excuse when it comes to firing someone, they can go "oh, they are constantly underperforming.."
Yeah, but this is Michigan: you do not need an excuse to fire anybody. You just do it.
It's a part of the company whip. It reduces employer satisfaction, -> costumer satisfaction (small talk? Too much risk of it being time consuming) and gives rewards for those who cheats the system (the data clearly shows that he's super effective).The article actually states that customer satisfaction is up. I can see where you'd get the opposite impression given pretty much every quote in the story is against the system. Why do you think they wrote it that way? :book2:
Seamus Fermanagh
03-21-2014, 00:29
This. I am opposed to the "rule by fear"-attitude.
I expect my manager to judge me on my performance. Heck, I work in a school system(IB) which is based on the idea of rigorous assessment to further learning and achievement.
It's not a question of doing it or not. It's a question of doing it in a smart way or a retarded way. The Michigan way is the latter. Further, I would like the first response to "this employee isn't performing as well as he should" to be "how can we make him better" rather than "how can we fire him?"
The Wealth of Nations was written in 1776, and Smith argued it didn't make sense at that time. This was the time period I had in mind when mentioning slavery; how the Romans(et al) did I can't say. I note that there is some debate on whether the monuments of the Egyptians were built by forced or free labour, but I make no conclusions.
Used for "rule by fear" would be misuse and, ultimately, self defeating by management. I hope that is not what they are doing here, but it is a possibility.
Yes, I was thinking more anciently. Smith saw the industrial revolution coming and from that point forward slavery would only be an anachronism.
a completely inoffensive name
03-21-2014, 08:48
Customer satisfaction goes up when you dehumanize the worker, no surprise there. Anyone who has worked for any period of time in a service industry will tell you that the company policy is to just smile back and just give the customer whatever he/she wants when he/she screams at you in front of everyone.
As for slavery being profitable. It was and it wasn't. Even by the early 1800s, industrialization was clearly out performing slave labor. I think a good example of how industrialization propped up slavery in the end was the revitalization of the cotton industry due to the cotton gin.
HoreTore
03-21-2014, 11:08
Customer satisfaction goes up when you dehumanize the worker, no surprise there. Anyone who has worked for any period of time in a service industry will tell you that the company policy is to just smile back and just give the customer whatever he/she wants when he/she screams at you in front of everyone.
As for slavery being profitable. It was and it wasn't. Even by the early 1800s, industrialization was clearly out performing slave labor. I think a good example of how industrialization propped up slavery in the end was the revitalization of the cotton industry due to the cotton gin.
The argument of Smith and others, was that the plantations in the south would have been more profitable if they had used free labour instead of slaves. Especially in the long term.
Sarmatian
03-21-2014, 13:21
The argument of Smith and others, was that the plantations in the south would have been more profitable if they had used free labour instead of slaves. Especially in the long term.
That is quite possible.
Slavery was just as often an effect of a lack of a willing work force, though. I'm not remotely qualified to talk about slavery in the antebellum South, but the question that must be asked is whether there was enough free workers in the beginning to cover the plantations.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-21-2014, 17:24
That is quite possible.
Slavery was just as often an effect of a lack of a willing work force, though. I'm not remotely qualified to talk about slavery in the antebellum South, but the question that must be asked is whether there was enough free workers in the beginning to cover the plantations.
At first, no. Climates being what they are, relatively few Euro settlers went to the South, preferring the more temperate regions from Virginia and to the North. The South and Caribbean did have the climate for Cotton, Tobacco, and Sugar but --following the virgin field epidemic brought on by the Conquistadors -- not enough people to really exploit the opportunity. Then internecine conflicts in Western equatorial Africa were exploited to enslave a population deemed "inferior" but already adapted to the hotter climates. Ta da, slavery becomes the tool of choice in the South. Our national shame.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.