If we want to help the poor, just help them. Let's drop the "every job should pay a living wage" charade. Every job should pay commensurate with whatever value it creates. If we find that people need more assistance after that, then do it directly, instead of trying to maintain some cognitive dissonance that you're avoiding giving money to "freeloaders" by creating some warped economic behavior.
Mechanic weighing in here. I've been working on machines (class A/B/C vehicles, Ag and off highway equipment. No motorcylces or boats, though.) since I was 14. I have an associate's degree in diesel technology. I've worked independently, at the dealership level, and at "Jiffy Lube" level shops. Being a successful mechanic/technician is a lifetime long education, if for no other reason than the technology is always changing. My formal education was great (great facilities, terrific instructors), but I still had A LOT to learn once I got out, and I'm still learning all the time. By no means would I call myself a master technician. I've done in-depth repairs in all areas of a motor vehicle over the years (but no body work). I've seen successful mechanics with more years of experience than I've been alive overlook problems because they were unfamiliar with new technology, or they just assumed that their diagnosis was correct because they'd "seen a bunch of cars with the same problem over the years." As has been mentioned above, there are a SHIT-TON of problems that can't be diagnosed with computers. Also, over the years you will see strange failures that don't seem to have any logical explanation. And it's your job to fix it, and make sure it doesn't happen again. If you want to see what it can be like to diagnose a problematic vehicle, Hot Rod magazine has a monthly article where they diagnose a reader's problem vehicle. Most of those cars have been to a few experienced mechanics who were stumped. The articles spell everything out in an easy to understand way, and a lot of the root causes surprise even me. Popped Cherries, yes, the average Joe-six pack can replace a battery, change oil and spark plugs, an alternator etc. But is he sure that the battery/spark plugs are his problem? Do you have any idea how many times someone has brought a car to me because his car won't start, and he had just replaced the battery "Because the guy at the parts store said it was bad"? Or a poorly running car with new spark plugs, because his Uncle said that new plugs would fix the problem? There's plenty of "parts changers" in the world, and not that many trained, knowledgeable mechanics.
Let me restate this yet again. Do master mechanics make 40k a year? People that have trained for 20 years at their job and have multiple certificates and years of training? You guys are missing the entire point. Those young guys you reference Nett, they are making a living wage while doing basic work that someone with very little training could do. Eventually they will become more experienced and move up in their chosen profession. Until that point in time when they actually become educated and trained, they are an entry level worker making more money than another entry level worker and getting on the job training to become better at their job.
I did happen to work on race cars, but literally everything in my post after the second sentence was about my current job in a plant. Obviously things differ from plant to plant, but it's not some unheard of super specialized field. Actually I would bet factory/plant mechanics are the second most common right after auto mechanics. The fact that you couldn't even tell which industry I was talking about is just a bit telling. Crown never said anything atypical either. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you didn't understand anything in his post. Since when is running a mill highly specialized or have anything to do with neutron bombs? The fuck? I can't speak for the hiring practices everywhere, but at my place of work there is a fairly simple procedure regarding new hires. 8 weeks probation with periodic feedback and if you suck you don't make the cut and we find someone else. If someone's skill set stops at unscrewing a bolt and being able to read a manual in English they get canned. I don't expect them to know everything under the sun, but if that's all you're capable of at the start we can and will find someone way better. It couldn't be more obvious that you know nothing about the field. Why you are trying to tell people who actually do know what's what is really strange. Also I don't think Nett was saying the young guys know fuck all. He's saying it's the experience from the older guys that really keeps shit afloat, and in my experience that is very much the case.
Ok, I've been real busy but I'm caught up. A couple of things about wages, since that seems to be a discussion at the moment. Minimum Wage: sure, it sounds great to raise it to a living wage, but we must delve deeper. Back when I was younger, kids took minimum wage jobs. Those jobs required little training or skill. It was never presumed that such jobs would actually support you or a family. I also don't buy the 'if we raise minimum wage, it will put people out of work.' This is propaganda, pure and simple. Most major companies have moved their manufacturing jobs out of the country, and by and large all that is left in this country are service industry jobs (which you can't move). As a country, during the Reagan years (notice a trend here? At some point, I'll lay out why America is still living in the Reagan years and why his Presidency changed the face of America - what you see in this country now is a direct result of the rhetoric and policy goals of that administration. One of the big things Reagan did was get rid of unions. He also championed 'free trade' which actually means 'corporations can move expensive labor jobs out of the country to places where you pay abominable wages to third world people.' Meanwhile, wages in this country have remained stagnant since @1980 (there's that year again!). Frankly, you folks are hunting the wrong quarry - and it's the quarry that certain elements in this country want you to chase, because you'll never catch it and all the while think that it's your fault that you're not skilled or educated enough for a decent paying job. The real issue is that we have made it more profitable for corporations to conduct operations elsewhere through a triple pronged approach which was absolutely intentional. The prongs are: get rid of unions in this country (keeps labor costs down, which is often the biggest expense of any corporation); get rid of trade barriers in third world countries (because labor is so cheap there); and finally tax incentives for doing so. This is not accidental. There has been a class war in this country since 1980. No one will talk about it, other than some vague reference to income inequality, but 1% of America got smart and bought the government while telling the other 99% it was their own fault for not working hard enough. I will get more into this later when I have time. And the sad part is most Americans still buy into the rhetoric despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The 1% vs 99% thing is a misnomer, though. If you're household makes north of $340K a year, you are part of the top 1%. Even if you make multiple millions per year, you are still not wielding influence with politicians. Theres an enormous range of "wealth," its not just a bunch of guys buying elections. I saw a reddit post a while back that breaks down how wealth levels works. I cant find it ATM, but Ill try and paraphrase from what I remember because its pretty on-point: $1MM Net Worth You can buy a pretty nice house without a mortgage, put your kids through college without student loans or financial aid (which you are not qualifying for any way) and get a Porsche and take a super nice vacation every year. If you make some conservative investments, you could possibly turn that into 2 or 3 million over 20 years or so. You have a decent emergency fund, but a medical or home-related disaster could break the bank and ruin you. $10MM Net Worth You dont have a lot of material needs anymore. You can buy a decently priced Italian sports car (as long as its not the exact car that won Le Mans in the 60s or something), have a vacation home, travel first class almost exclusively, eat at 5-star restaurants any time you want, go to Monaco for the Grand Prix, and might be on a first name basis with a few celebrities. .Emergencies dont have the potential to ruin your life and you are pretty well insulated financially, but you are not rich where money isn't an object. You might donate to a few Super PACs, but you get a nice thank you card in the mail or a personal phone call from the Senator you are backing. $50MM Net Worth Now you are getting up there. You dont fly first-class, you charter a G5 to go where you want but probably dont own one. You have more than 1 home and you vacation in the south of France or in an Italian villa for 6 weeks at a time and can have any extravagant thing you want. You likely have a controlling interest in a company and you rub elbows with Congressman and Senators at exclusive art gallery events or high-priced charity balls. You can do and have almost anything you want. A 150 foot yacht? You can have it and staff it with a small crew when you want to sail the Mediterranean. In any city that isnt New York, LA, Washington DC, Hong Kong, London or Moscow, you are a high roller. $100MM Net Worth You have your own jet, multiple residences with live-in staff, and a controlling stake in more than one company. You likely well-known to the public at this point. Politicians know and care about who you are. You can get a table at any 3 Michelin star restaurant without a reservation, even if the place is booked. Not only do you have multiple vacation homes, you likely have more than 1 estate at this point thats fully staffed. You host political fundraisers and invite celebrities who show up. You donate $1MM or so to a PAC. You have the ability to take over small, non-blue chip companies if you're in the mood. You have lunch with the Governor or Senator of your state a few times a year, but you dont get to wield that influence with the President or his inner circle, but you do get invited to the White House for special events. Otherwise you can start wielding your wealth as a tool and get influence in many areas, including politics. $1B Net Worth The only thing money buys you at this level that it doesnt at the previous one is visibility and access. You can command an audience with anyone you wish. You can call the CEO of Goldman Sachs and he will return your call personally. Want to have lunch with Jeffrey Immelt? Done. Hire Bobby Flay come to your house and prepare a meal for you. The assistants on both sides will set it up. You have an entourage of assistance who do your bidding so you dont have to get your hands dirty with mundane aspects of life. Want to go to New Zealand on the fly? Great. Pack your bag and head to the airport without booking a reservation. Your plane is waiting for you around the clock. Like politics? Cool. Have Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney show up for a fundraiser and give a speech for something. You want the exact Ford GT40 that won Le Mans in 1969? You can have it for a cool $15MM and store it in the warehouse you own with all the other cars. You dont call Senators and Governors, they call you. You dont donate to Super PACs, they are run for you. The President and CEOs of Fortune 100 companies see you as their peer. You get invited to the Bilderberg Group every year. At this point you can truly start wielding influence on a scale that actually impacts a large amount of people's lives. Start a water treatment plant in East Africa, or improve the infrastructure in Bosnia because you have relatives from there. Money isnt an object, and hasnt been for a while. The only thing that matters now is time, and you spend your money to conserve it as much as possible. You seriously consider making a run at politics at some point. $10B+ Net Worth The top of the top. You are Bill Gates, the Saudi Prince, someone very similar, or you are the President/Prime Minister of a G8 country.
The factors that make labor in this country so expensive have nothing to do with it? Mandated benefits, social programs, minimum wage, etc. People hire illegal immigrants in this country expressly so they can avoid all of those government imposed costs. I for one don't blame them. Making labor regulations more onerous doesn't seem like the best way to fix that. If you think these are things that you think must be kept don't be surprised when in 20 years this problem hasn't improved in the least no matter how much political bloviating goes on.
So in macroeconomic news, the big 4 airlines are being sued for collusion. This hopefully makes flying cheaper. I've thought it was suspicious for a while that these airlines were all downsizing their fleets and decreasing capacity at the same time. Their record profits were also suspicious. If its found they were communicating with each other and planning this in a step by step fashion, an antitrust lawsuit will follow and these airlines will likely be broken up and hopefully some competition enters the market again This is where government is needed, left alone to do what they like, collusion and monopoly are almost inevitable results of an unmonitored unregulated market Switching topics, it seems like a lot of people are concerned with CSR, how can people force a company to act morally and spread a bit more of the wealth among the lowest in the ladder. Karl Marx had an answer for this, but that didn't really work out either. I think however distasteful it is, people at the bottom rung will always get a raw deal, I don't think there is anyway to force companies to pay more than they have to to the bottom line. I think there is a way to force safe working conditions, there is a way to force safe products, but deciding what is the least someone can be paid and enforcing that is a problem that really has no solution despite populists answers or despite people sitting in ivory towers concocting a way in which industries are compelled to do so. At the end of the day, if there is not a profit incentive to raise what the people at the bottom get paid, they simply won't get paid any more than the market deems necessary, and by market I mean the invisible hand, not the Federal Gov't. Right now, working at that golf course I am part of that bottom rung, I am not making a killing. I believe part of the issue is simply labor supply and labor demand, when viewed with that lens its simple economics. With a large supply of labor labor prices naturally stay low, the only way to offset this is to increase labor demand, but for the time being there is a surplus of people willing to work these jobs so wages stay low. Decrease the labor supply and wages will increase. This is the invisible hand, this is market forces at work. Creating and enforcing an higher minimum wage is not a market force,
And where do you think those illegal immigrants go to get health care and food that they can't afford with the wages they are given?
I also wonder how much gas price hedging has played into the airline's prices? They tend to commit to a price years in advance, so with the drop in gas prices, they aren't able to reflect that in their current pricing. I remember seeing a doc on this and it was insanely complex and convoluted.
Makes sense, so they'd basically project average pricing, bring that into the economic and accounting forecasts, plan future purchases and business plans with these projections now made real numbers and any deviation from that will cause some sort of deviation or suplus/deficit. I also wonder how they purchase fuel. They obviously don't go to the pump to get it, so any gas they purchase must be done using some sort of futures strategy. The collusion aspect seems much more real. The industry consolidated and its much easier to control prices when there are only a few players in the game. Assuming no one gets greedy and breaks ranks they could keep making insane fortunes over that period
I think that is perhaps the least common reason why people hire illegal immigrants. Think about the types of jobs that they do. It's easy to say that they are displacing American workers, but American workers would rather not work at all than spend 12 hours a day in a field picking grapes, bussing tables, or cutting my grass. Furthermore, most of these positions are seasonal, making them even les attractive to American workers so hiring illegal immigrants is often the only way to fill these positions. In addition, many of the construction trades, carpentry, plumbing, drywall, or landscaping for example, are unpredictable in workload. I can swing down to the corner and get a Venezuelan dude to work for me for a day or three on an as-needed basis, and work his ass off, and not have to worry about actually "hiring" him. And for what its worth, when I drive by those areas, I never see a white face or an American citizen trying to get some work. Some aspects of labor in the this country are very expensive- ask anyone (me) who has had to budget for union work in or around New York. But the used-to-be factory jobs, that nestled between the seasonal grape-picking jobs and the union construction guys, are gone oversees, and there is one reason and one reason only - the amazingly low wages overseas are great for corporate profits. You can talk all you want about mandated benefits, social programs, minimum wage etc, etc,. but even if those things were equal, there is no way we can compete with countries where workers get paid $5 a day.
Cost of living here is also substantially higher in the US. The worker in Sri Lanka may not be wealthy on $5/day, but it pays for a lot more than it does out here
You're making the assumption that all seasonal immigrant work is poor paying, and that's not the case... at least not around my neck of the woods. I live in Canadian wine country, and there is a ton of seasonal work available for picking fruit and berries. There are large numbers of students looking for summer work who are opting to do nothing instead of making GOOD money (much more than Wendy's or McDonalds, etc) picking fruit. A friend of mine manages a winery, and he was just telling me the other day how there were lots of job applicants for running the gift shop or wine tasting counter, but almost all of them turn down the much better paying field-work. Those immigrants living in trailers on the fruit fields are making 2-3 times what someone behind the fast food counter is... they're just not afraid of doing some hard, manual labour. Not saying that's the case everywhere, obviously, just speaking for my environment.
This is the most profitable era in history for private corporations and yet wages are stagnant, poverty is at historically unprecedented levels, and unions are barely hanging on. These things are related. All these "onerous labor regulations" are an express result of systemic abuse. We don't want children working 80 hours a week, because that's just not the society we wanted to be any more. Thus, regulation. The challenge has always been on businesses to innovate and exceed the regulation. In other words, if your business is losing money due to government laws, your model sucks and shouldn't be a business anymore. Also known as "slavery sure made for profitable plantations...." Hiring illegal immigrants is usually a way to circumvent laws that guarantee workers their rights, not as a form of protesting unjust regulation. Also known as, "the illegal Mexican can't file workman's comp when he gets hurt because we didn't provide safety gear." The issue with labor supply and demand, aside from the fact that even Adam fucking Smith said it was bad to treat people as economic objects in the same way we treated shovels and plows, is that it's difficult for many labor suppliers to differentiate and with a surplus of supply, the cost of alternating between one labor source and other is often lower than paying a fair market wage. Remember kids, companies' profit exists based on the idea that you produce more than they pay you. A glut of labor drives down the wages for everyone, which is unique in the supply realm because it impacts the entire system's ability to consume and perpetuate itself. Ie, those that don't work, don't spend money. That money that doesn't get spent means businesses don't earn, thus they can't pay wages, and so on. Economics has evolved beyond the whole premise that people and machinery are interchangeable, generally speaking, we are just waiting on policy and management theory to catch up. I have a subtle theory that if you substituted unions for human resources departments, most companies would earn more money in the long run. Regarding the European option to pay people to exist, I don't think that's so preposterous. You need money to exist in the developed world. Some people can get money from a job, some from a pension and some...just can't exist? Don't deserve a shot? In a land so plentiful even our poor people are fat, that sounds ridiculous.
The illegal immigrant job is a more complicated animal. No American/Canadian citizen wants those jobs, because there's no future in it. Those jobs don't have pensions anymore, and you can't lay brick into your 70's. A shit ton of college kids, etc will and constantly do those jobs, up until there's something else they can do to pad their resume for a job with long-term security. So, yeah if given a choice between picking grapes or standing behind a register, I'm applying for the job that gives me a skill I can sell to someone else. Also, college kids are a weird economic being, because they get refund checks and can take student jobs with a lot of protection from the scary real world businesses. High school kids not so much. So the math for a college kid is "my paycheck is shit, I can live off my refund check this semester, so fuck this job". Illegal immigrants can do them for 5-6 years and if it dries up, they have a nice stack of cash to go home and open a village business and semi-retire. If they can get citizenship, a whole different set of opportunities open up. Immigrant labor generally has a depressive effect on local wages (duh), but when it's illegal, the gap starts to be ridiculous. If you can pay an illegal immigrant $8 and I demand $16, I look like a crazy asshole and take a job paying $12, when the fair market wage in the free market is $16. I've worked harder loading fucking trucks in retail than I have pushing a broom or a trowel because there's the possibility of management. Laziness and entitlement have nothing to do with it.
Down and Dirty, I'm going to ask for some sources for your claims. Send them to me via PM or whatever, but you are making some really aggressive claims that just need something to back them up. Specifically: "This is the most profitable era in history for private corporations and yet wages are stagnant, poverty is at historically unprecedented levels, and unions are barely hanging on". Are we talking poverty versus mideval ages or versus industrialized era or? Also, most profitable era? Ok, show the data. "I have a subtle theory that if you substituted unions for human resources departments, most companies would earn more money in the long run." Ok, what? Why, again PM if thats easier, I'm just trying to understand your claims. And this one just bc I'm somewhat OCD and prefer things in three; "If you don't think it's ridiculous that some of the most respected and profitable countries in the richest civilization in history employ legions of working poor, then go read the definition of "indentured servant". Thereare a few, and I mean a precious few mom and pop stores that couldn't survive a wage hike"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/b...arger-as-slice-of-economy-as-wages-slide.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertl...rket-today-than-at-the-peaks-in-2000-or-2007/ http://qz.com/192725/what-another-record-year-of-corporate-profits-means-for-the-us-economy/ http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/23/union-membership-rate-falls-100-year-low/ http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/07/06/just-how-stagnant-are-wages-anyway/ http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/us-poverty-level-1960s_n_1692744.html http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html HR spends a lot of money on training, drug screening and dealing with employee fuckery. I think a lot of unions would do the exact same function as well as engender a bit of self-policing that an HR department can't do. Wal-Mart is the largest private employer in the US, and somehow the majority of their workers don't make a living wage.
I don't see how Wal-Mart being the largest private employer means that they have to provide what people qualify as a living wage, there's a step missing in that logic. They can therefore they must? Is that what you're thinking? Again, businesses will not behave morally. To Wal-Mart, like any other corporation and any businesses that has grown to the point where there is an emotional disconnect between the low level employee and owner, these people are simply numbers to be manipulated to create the most profitable business. Going up the chain of command everyone has to answer someone else, and the people at the top including board members and stock owners demand increasing profits, from there on down, its always the way business will be. To assume Wal-Mart has some sort of morality is absurd, I'm sure they did int he beginning but at a certain point Wal-Mart became like any other massive corporation, the bottom line is profit margin and growth, its not a matter of worrying about whether Jenna working in a store in Jacksonville has a living wage, its a matter of ensuring the stock holders, board members, CEO don't get pissed off and fire your ass. Thats why these wages exist, because of business pressure, not because the company is evil, its simply bc thats the nature of business Last wages comment I'll make because this is growing stale. People want a living wage? Demand it from the government, businesses simply will never provide what people consider that to their lowest level employees
I'm not really a pro or anti union guy, but I don't think they are going to do these things better than HR (not that I think HR is super great in general either). I think people should have a right to form unions, but I'm not sure they're always there to act in the best interest of the people they represent. Often, they want the work forces of companies to join because it means a shit load of money for them. A few unions have tried to recruit the labor force at my company (this would make them somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million a year) and had virtually no success. If you already offer health care, good benefits, and a reasonable wage the incentive to join disappears pretty quickly. Having dues taken out of your paycheck doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you probably aren't getting anything in return. The main reason I'm glad it's not a union force is I don't want shitheads refusing to do certain things because 'it's not in their job contract' or other such fuckery. I also don't want to deal with a work force that is going to damage the company because they think they deserve to work x number of hours a week no matter what. We recently had a (long story I won't get into) problem where we had to work a lot of overtime in a short period or we were going to take a big hit a couple months down the road. It sucked, but you got to do what you have to. I wouldn't want to deal with a union in that situation. In short, unions are necessary if it's a bad company. If it's a decent company they just get in the way and bog things down. *And I would rather have less union forces than have to deal with the shit employers in places like France do. I would also rather deal with employee problems myself than sit through a mediator. Again, you only need the mediator if management is shitty. Edit: I'm of the belief that if you can't pay career employees decent wages or give a benefits package it's because you aren't a good company. The local Aldis pays cashiers $20/hr, which is pretty high for unskilled labor. There's wal-mart, cash wise, cubs foods, and all that other shit here. They remain competitive all the same, and it goes to show that even in the current climate you can still do much better than some people in this thread have claimed in those cut throat industries. I'm going to guess Aldis can do this because their profits aren't so top heavy, but I don't know the industry well enough to say one way or the other.