Are we using the wrong metric to talk about economic improvement?

[FLVOL69]

My wife used to be a Habitat for Humanity candidate review team member and I used to help with homeless and indigent at one of the poorest UMC congregations in Hattiesburg, MS. I'm pretty familiar with some populations and their experiences. I also understand that you are too, and I'm not discounting your experiences.

Say hello to Jimmy Carter for me, your anecdotal evidence doesn’t sway me one bit.There's plenty of studies out that will confirm my assertion.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I said: food, shelter, basic medical care
Reponse: 3000 sq ft house, family of four, leather couch, cell phones for every family member.

Yes, I'm the one with issues.

@AshG What do you believe " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" entails?

 

[AshG]

Say hello to Jimmy Carter for me, your anecdotal evidence doesn’t sway me one bit.There's plenty of studies out that will confirm my assertion.

I know I have no chance of ever changing any minds here, except to convince people I'm not worth their time. Those are my and my wife's experiences. As I said, yours are yours. Both of us could find studies to support our opinions.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Why don't we talk equally about median income, jobs with health and retirement benefits, and income indexed to inflation as well? Median income has increased, but it's not tracking well against inflation.

I believe you could connect with a lot of people on the right side of the aisle if there was a real attempt to have a discussion about inflation. IMO, if you started with that discussion and we were able to solve that problem, then the subject that I crossed out above would take care of itself... or at least the subject of retirement benefits. The discussion of health benefits would be better addressed if we focused on diet and returned to the days of having a meal planner and food preparer in each home...

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Why such exaggeration?

If we are going to be honest, I think both of you are exaggerating or missing out on the facts. On the one hand, minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be jobs that support a family. On the other hand, the 3000 sf home is a new concept. If you go to a lot of the post WWII homes/neighborhoods, most of those were not more than 1200 sf homes that a single blue collar wager earner could finance.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

One bedroom apartment in GA averages $821 per month. Groceries trend below the national average, while transportation costs are above the national average. Atlanta and the surrounding area jumps over over $1000 for a studio apartment.

The good thing about low wage jobs is that they are plentiful... meaning that if you cannot afford to live in ATL on minimum wage, you may be able to afford something outside of ATL for minimum wage. But again, minimum wage is not meant to be a "living wage". It is an entry level job.

 

[ajvol01]

I believe that 40 hours of work a week, even at the entry level, should be able to provide enough income for food, shelter, and basic medical care. In the cheapest city in the country to live in, Harlington, TX, that requires 40 hours a week at almost $11 per hour to meet the most basic of expenses without including any extras. That's well above minimum wage.

So yes, I see it as a problem, Putting individuals in a position where they have to deny themselves dignity and forgo the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in exchange for food, shelter, and basic medical care is neither humane nor American.

Now how do we go about doing this? That's the trillion dollar question. I do not believe in national minimum wage initiatives because they're divisive and ineffective one-size-fits-none solutions that do more harm than good. I have to set aside my Pollyanna beliefs that companies will do the moral and ethical thing for their employees; shareholders and dividend payments pretty much eliminate that option.

If you examine the data, there is a direct correlation between the increase in suicide and depression rates among low-wage earners and increased hours required to afford basic necessities. And while there are some really ****** human beings who want to work the system rather than experience the dignity of an honest day's labor, most people I've met in the soup kitchens and church lunches receiving our services want to do more with their lives than work 60 hours a week to make money for someone else and spend what little time they have left standing in indigent services lines.

Why are we in a situation where adults are choosing to work minimum wage jobs to try and support themselves?

Unemployment is so low that employers must make choices to either raise wages and benefits to attract and keep workers or simply accept a never-ending revolving door of high turnover.

Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be career positions for the family breadwinner.

 

[Roustabout]

No, I'm not trying to take a dump on the stock market gains. They're an important measure to consider. I'm also not trying to play down unemployment numbers. Things are looking better for many people because of it.

Why don't we talk equally about median income, jobs with health and retirement benefits, and income indexed to inflation as well? Median income has increased, but it's not tracking well against inflation. Many of the added jobs provide little or no benefits beyond a paycheck, which results in newly employed people at the bottom often having to work two jobs to cover basic needs.

So much of how we talk about the economy - the stock market - benefits shareholders rather than the bulk of the population. Why are we reticent to directly discuss the metrics that directly affect the largest number of people in the country?

Agree.

 

[LouderVol]

I believe that 40 hours of work a week, even at the entry level, should be able to provide enough income for food, shelter, and basic medical care. In the cheapest city in the country to live in, Harlington, TX, that requires 40 hours a week at almost $11 per hour to meet the most basic of expenses without including any extras. That's well above minimum wage.

So yes, I see it as a problem, Putting individuals in a position where they have to deny themselves dignity and forgo the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in exchange for food, shelter, and basic medical care is neither humane nor American.

Now how do we go about doing this? That's the trillion dollar question. I do not believe in national minimum wage initiatives because they're divisive and ineffective one-size-fits-none solutions that do more harm than good. I have to set aside my Pollyanna beliefs that companies will do the moral and ethical thing for their employees; shareholders and dividend payments pretty much eliminate that option.

If you examine the data, there is a direct correlation between the increase in suicide and depression rates among low-wage earners and increased hours required to afford basic necessities. And while there are some really ****** human beings who want to work the system rather than experience the dignity of an honest day's labor, most people I've met in the soup kitchens and church lunches receiving our services want to do more with their lives than work 60 hours a week to make money for someone else and spend what little time they have left standing in indigent services lines.

Support yourself. That is the thing long forgotten in the arguments on costs and differences between generations. 50 years ago many people grew their own food, lived in ancestral multigenerational homes. DIY wasnt just a thing some people did, it was how people lived. No day cares, you had stay at home moms. Tons of studies show it's cheaper for one parent to stay home and take care of kids than daycare is even with a second wage.

You take away people's ability to care for themselves it's no wonder they need more money to support themselves now. There are a ton of hidden costs that have come with the welfare government that has eroded our self care and made living more expensive. For many it's not a better job, or more education they need. It's being able to care for oneself where you can make a ton of difference up between the 9-5 and cost of living.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

The good thing about low wage jobs is that they are plentiful... meaning that if you cannot afford to live in ATL on minimum wage, you may be able to afford something outside of ATL for minimum wage. But again, minimum wage is not meant to be a "living wage". It is an entry level job.

Jimmy Johns is hiring drivers for $10-12 an hour. And those guys get tips. I’ve not seen many unskilled positions paying minimum wage.

Median income is not going to behave as it has historically. Boomers are leaving the workforce and are either being replaced by cheaper workers or the job is just split up amongst current employees and they hire a new staff eventually. So you have high earning people dropping out and their replacement is being paid much less or not at all. It’s why wage growth has not acted like most would expect when unemployment is so low. On the flip side you are seeing a lot more companies offer things like telecommuting, paternity leave, unlimited PTO, etc. The young people are more concerned with work life balance than salary.

 

[hog88]

Jimmy Johns is hiring drivers for $10-12 an hour. And those guys get tips. I’ve not seen many unskilled positions paying minimum wage.

Median income is not going to behave as it has historically. Boomers are leaving the workforce and are either being replaced by cheaper workers or the job is just split up amongst current employees and they hire a new staff eventually. So you have high earning people dropping out and their replacement is being paid much less or not at all. It’s why wage growth has not acted like most would expect when unemployment is so low. On the flip side you are seeing a lot more companies offer things like telecommuting, paternity leave, unlimited PTO, etc. The young people are more concerned with work life balance than salary.

One thing I have been noticing, in a lot of cases you have to hire 2 people to replace one old timer. It's getting increasing difficult to find people willing to put the hours in, overtime is almost a curse word now.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

One thing I have been noticing, in a lot of cases you have to hire 2 people to replace one old timer. It's getting increasing difficult to find people willing to put the hours in, overtime is almost a curse word now.

I don’t see how construction is going to deal with it. Watch any site with heavy equipment and there’s a lot of white haired dudes running the machines. What are those outfits going to do when the old guys decide the money isn’t worth it anymore?

 

[hog88]

I don’t see how construction is going to deal with it. Watch any site with heavy equipment and there’s a lot of white haired dudes running the machines. What are those outfits going to do when the old guys decide the money isn’t worth it anymore?

Many of those machines are capable of being operated by computer now.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Many of those machines are capable of being operated by computer now.

I saw Terminator 2 so no thank you.

 

[Sandman 423]

One thing I have been noticing, in a lot of cases you have to hire 2 people to replace one old timer. It's getting increasing difficult to find people willing to put the hours in, overtime is almost a curse word now.

I love the morons who argue that you actually make less when you work overtime.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

One thing I have been noticing, in a lot of cases you have to hire 2 people to replace one old timer. It's getting increasing difficult to find people willing to put the hours in, overtime is almost a curse word now.

Hmmm… I've seen employers "reward" the hard workers by getting them to work a bunch of overtime, which in turn helps them employer a bit because all of that employees benefits are paid for in 40 hours. Anything else over 40 is essentially benefit free. So do you hire 2 people plus benefits and work them 60-70 hrs a week or do you pay one guy plus benefits 60-70 hrs?

 

[Sea Ray]

I believe that 40 hours of work a week, even at the entry level, should be able to provide enough income for food, shelter, and basic medical care. In the cheapest city in the country to live in, Harlington, TX, that requires 40 hours a week at almost $11 per hour to meet the most basic of expenses without including any extras. That's well above minimum wage.

So yes, I see it as a problem, Putting individuals in a position where they have to deny themselves dignity and forgo the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in exchange for food, shelter, and basic medical care is neither humane nor American.

Now how do we go about doing this? That's the trillion dollar question. I do not believe in national minimum wage initiatives because they're divisive and ineffective one-size-fits-none solutions that do more harm than good. I have to set aside my Pollyanna beliefs that companies will do the moral and ethical thing for their employees; shareholders and dividend payments pretty much eliminate that option.

If you examine the data, there is a direct correlation between the increase in suicide and depression rates among low-wage earners and increased hours required to afford basic necessities. And while there are some really ****** human beings who want to work the system rather than experience the dignity of an honest day's labor, most people I've met in the soup kitchens and church lunches receiving our services want to do more with their lives than work 60 hours a week to make money for someone else and spend what little time they have left standing in indigent services lines.

Right now there are more jobs available than unemployed people. Aside from that we do currently have a safety net in the form of Medicaid, food stamps etc. Where's the problem? Seems to me that we're covered here

 

[hog88]

Hmmm… I've seen employers "reward" the hard workers by getting them to work a bunch of overtime, which in turn helps them employer a bit because all of that employees benefits are paid for in 40 hours. Anything else over 40 is essentially benefit free. So do you hire 2 people plus benefits and work them 60-70 hrs a week or do you pay one guy plus benefits 60-70 hrs?

What? Overtime is benefit free? I don't understand what you are getting at. How do you pay extra benefits?

 

[McDad]

No, I'm not trying to take a dump on the stock market gains. They're an important measure to consider. I'm also not trying to play down unemployment numbers. Things are looking better for many people because of it.

Why don't we talk equally about median income, jobs with health and retirement benefits, and income indexed to inflation as well? Median income has increased, but it's not tracking well against inflation. Many of the added jobs provide little or no benefits beyond a paycheck, which results in newly employed people at the bottom often having to work two jobs to cover basic needs.

So much of how we talk about the economy - the stock market - benefits shareholders rather than the bulk of the population. Why are we reticent to directly discuss the metrics that directly affect the largest number of people in the country?

My Econ class was over 25 years ago, so forgive me if my neurons are tangled. Doesn't increasing wages and benefits to employees contribute to inflation? The costs of production includes labor and labor costs are passed on to the consumer. The goods and services provided by those companies who employ entry-level workers would be the hardest hit to the consumers who buy those goods and services.

 

[McDad]

I believe that 40 hours of work a week, even at the entry level, should be able to provide enough income for food, shelter, and basic medical care. In the cheapest city in the country to live in, Harlington, TX, that requires 40 hours a week at almost $11 per hour to meet the most basic of expenses without including any extras. That's well above minimum wage.

I understand the sentiment. Your belief is rooted in noble concerns. I hired entry level employees for my business before I sold it. Here's how it looks on the other side (the business owner's) of the desk.

Entry level employee is hired. They are trained on how to do the job. Some vanish after a few days or weeks. Others are routinely unreliable because of family demands. Many will work for a few months until they find a "better" job. The demographic is very flighty and transient. All the expense of training is factored in to how much I can pay future employees.

There are only a handful who actually work long term and contribute (beyond their bare minimum of duties) to the bottom line. All of the risk is on the business owner. I cannot move my facilities on a whim. I cannot close for random weeks because mom and dad rented a cabin in the Smokies. If the employee is unhappy many can be working another job in a matter of days. If I am unhappy, it can take years to transition to something else.

 

[LouderVol]

One thing I have been noticing, in a lot of cases you have to hire 2 people to replace one old timer. It's getting increasing difficult to find people willing to put the hours in, overtime is almost a curse word now.

Overtime for a deadline is acceptable. General overtime overall is bad management with bad expectations.

As others said millenials place more of an emphasis on a work life balance. Why stay late? There will be more work the next day. It's not like you actually ever get done, or actually get ahead.

If I am expected to work overtime, just tell me work hours are 9-8 and let me go home without batching about me not putting in additional overtime. If you tell me its 9-5 why would I just give more time?

 

[LouderVol]

What? Overtime is benefit free? I don't understand what you are getting at. How do you pay extra benefits?

If a client is paying a lump sum for an agreed upon amount of work, are you just going to do extra work for them without changing the contract amount?

 

[DancingOutlaw]

If a client is paying a lump sum for an agreed upon amount of work, are you just going to do extra work for them without changing the contract amount?

If it’s not out of scope, yes. It’s called eating time and it happens a lot.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Why such exaggeration?

Leave out the 3000 sq ft house then and tell me what's wrong with what he said.

 

[VolStrom]

American companies have made their own bed by doing away with any incentive to remain loyal to a company, like a pension. Now millennials roll in, get 2 or 3 years of experience until the company match is vested and they are gone, usually to a higher job because they didn't make area manager in 2 years instead of 20 like was customary in my day.