Big Employers are out of touch with reality

MayCaesar

As one person is able to produce more and more thanks to the modern technology, the expectations grow accordingly. 10,000 years ago you were a legend if you could kill 1 deer in a week and feed your tribe for two weeks. Nowadays one person can revolutionize the world and change billions people's lives by creating the first affordable smartphone, so it only makes sense that being able to kill 1 deer in a week no longer elevates you above others.

It seems strange to me to point fingers at the employers that pay their employees the market wage (as they always have, throughout the entire history), and not at the employees who do not take advantage of the knowledge of the modern world and stick to practicing skills that have been around for millennia. Take a random person from 10,000 years ago and get them through a day worth of training, and they will be able to work as a cashier at Walmart - so why would the position of a cashier at Walmart be enough to buy a house? If you truly want to use the same skills that people 10,000 years ago could, then you probably should do other things that they did - such as build your own house with your bare hands. Of course, you probably would not to want to live in that house... You would like to live in a house made of the cutting edge materials and having all the modern amenities. Is it reasonable to want to live the life of a 21st century human, but do the work of the -100th century human?

On a more general note, it is unreasonable to compare someone who was a part of the middle class 50 years ago to someone who is not today. Not everyone used to make the wage of a worker at Ford and afford a house. The private house ownership has actually been slowly growing over the past century. Something people often do not take into account is the size of families: the average US household in 1930 consisted of 4.11 people, while today it is below 2.5. It is natural to expect one person to pay more for housing when fewer people live in a house on average.

I simply do not see any support of the popular claim that people today materially are worse off than they were decades ago. People nitpick statistics and take them out of context. When we look at relevant aggregate metric, then it is undeniable that the quality of life has significantly increased across the board even without considering the benefits of the modern technology (such as the ability for us to instantly communicate with each other wherever we are) that cannot be easily captured in monetary estimates.

just_sayin

@RexTheDog01
First, I think it is important to talk about who is a minimum wage worker and why that matters.  Statistica says In 2022, 1.3 percent of workers in the United States were minimum wage workers.  Bureau of Labor Statistics say that 48 percent of minimum wage workers are under 18.  Many people working a minimum wage job are doing so to pick up extra money as they have a regular job.  Others are either low skilled or have a police record.  

The CBO claims that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would hurt the poorest workers most, the minimum wage workers.  It projects that it would cause over 1 million workers to be unemployed.  Further, it predicts that it would cost minimum wage workers as they would lose hours, benefits, and of course their jobs.  Further, it would make it harder for some to get jobs.  Why hire a guy with a prison record when you can hire someone who was making $14 to do the same job without a record.  That's why when there was a minimum wage hike in Seattle, the report claimed that some minimum wage workers were no longer able to be employed in the new working environment.  A rung on the ladder of success was removed.  By the way, the Seattle minimum wage law resulted in a reduction in the actual take home pay of the minimum wage worker - at about $125 a month less income.

Minimum wage jobs are the bottom rung.  They aren't intended to be where someone stops, just starts.  California has discovered that making restaurants pay $20 an hour has resulted in massive job cuts and reduced work schedules for minimum wage workers.  Restaurants have notoriously low profit margins.  When you artificially increase their costs, they have to make up that somewhere - increased prices, and reduced labor costs are how they respond.  It isn't rocket science but economics 101.  Minimum wage laws destroy those bottom rungs and make it harder for a low skilled worker to get a job and climb up to higher income brackets.

The idea that every job is a good paying job is silly.  You can't pay someone more than their labor generates for you.  To think that someone who takes a risk and starts a business should not make a profit shows how ignorant some people are.  Why would anyone take such huge financial risks, to at best break even?  

Joeseph

Nowadays minimum wage barely covers rent food and gas, in order to facilitate one job a person requires another to cover the basics of attending the first, one job covering a family's needs is far beyond reach to the extent people actively choose not to have families crippling the birth rate world wide. When an employer expects 'above and beyond' in exchange for crumbs they should surly be spat on and ridiculed i mean the thing we are giving up to work for them is life itself, $15 per hr is way too cheap for an hour of 'life itself'. as modern employees turn to self made influence and power via technology employers scratch their heads and wonder why nobody wants to 'work' anymore.


LETS LOOK AT THE US AS AN EXAMPLE .........


BUSINESS INSIDER

Fifty years ago, it was easier to buy a house 

As housing prices have increased over the decades, it has become increasingly more difficult to buy a home. According to the US Census Bureau, a median home cost $11,900 in 1960, while the household median income was $4,970 (or nearly half the cost of a home). In 2010, the median home cost $221,800, while the median income was $49,445

It's nearly impossible to afford a family if only one parent is working, but that hasn't always been the case. In the 1960s, 70% of fathers were the only source of income, according to the Pew Research Center. Today, more than 60% of families have dual income, says Pew. 

Advertisement

If a minimun wage doesn't cover the basic necessities of life its exploitation. The argument will be used " oh well if you don't like it you don't have to do it" which is similar to the arguments  the victorians made regards servants and staff working 15 hour days with no holidays or sick pay.

What infuriates me is that people will actually accuse those who demand decent minimun wages of being greed driven individuals bent on ruining society yet they will applaud the naked greed of big corporations and praise them for implementing more cost cutting measures that drive down wages of workers.

I heard a prime example of this yesterday over here  from a spokesperson for one of the worlds biggest multinationals who moaned and whined about profits being down 10 % and "measures will have to be taken" which basically means the workers are about to suffer , what the greedy little piggy forgot to mention was the company was still up 25% in profits as they made 35% profit for the year less the 10% she whined about , this all in an effort to gull the public into feeling sympathetic towards her brand.

When I  got married I could afford a house in what's regarded as very desirable area  , my wife and I payed the mortgage on my salary easily with enough left to live on and built up quiet a nest  egg by banking  her monthly cheque ,if we were back in that situation now this would not be possible as the same house in the same area would cost one really good monthly salary to cover the  mortgage alone.

The take home salary I received 20 years ago people in the same position are still not getting now , when the last huge worldwide crash came most salaries were halved overnight and and wage raises since are only catch up on previous salaries.

My wife works for an American multinational she hires for the team she leads and  the basic wages the company offers have not much changed in 20 years.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Here Boy.

@RexTheDog01


Hey Rex.

Reality is an ongoing assumption for sure.

Nonetheless.

If someone is employing big, then that is real enough within that context.

If it was unreal then it wouldn't be real.


Sounds like you might be a tad frustrated by the disproportionate nature of the human hierarchical condition.

People usually fall into line though.

Better with a carrot than a methinks..