No one is Underpaid

[Vol8188]

Ok, I am going to bite on this one. Please explain how claiming somebody is underpaid absurd and elitist. And I don't mean to just repeat the phrase over in different ways, I mean really explain what you mean when you say that. Especially the elitist part. I am very keen to learn more about that.

But until then, your argument seems to be that anybody that feels underpaid can just quit their jobs and go find the same job somewhere else that will pay them commensurate with their contribution? Brilliant! We should let them know immediately. They will be so relieved to hear that.

I'll let all the teachers, police officers, and firefighters who are clearly underpaid know. And on that note, do you think those are the best opportunities that those people have? Likely not, but they do it anyways. Why do you think that is? And if they did all decide to go look for better paying jobs, what then? So we have less experienced, less qualified people in those jobs? So instead of being elitist and arguing for increased wages, we should instead give those menial tasks to people who value their time much less than all the teachers and cops that currently keep us safe and educate our children.

Finally, by definition, almost all women are underpaid. There is no profession where a woman, on average, does not make less than a man with equal credentials. Literally, they are getting paid less than somebody else in the same area doing the same job. Any idea why they don't leave for better paying jobs?

There are many reasons why somebody might not leave a job that is underpaying them. That does not mean they are not underpaid.

1. It’s absurd and elitist because you’re proclaiming the best job they can get is not good enough by your standard.

2. Your second paragraph makes my point for me. The fact that they can’t quit and find better employment naturally implies they are not underpaid. To be underpaid would mean their current employer undervalues their work. If they are truly undervalued, wouldn’t another business be glad to hire them for more? The idea of underpaid employees is normally based in the idea that companies are evil and greedy. If so, wouldn’t they want to hire all these undervalued people so they can make money off them?

Seriously, if you believe there’s so many underpaid people in America you should start a business. You’d make billions if what you believe is correct. Here’s an example. There’s a false claim that women make .75 to the dollar that a man makes. If you believe that’s true you could start a business only employing women, pay them .80 to the dollar and save 20% over all your completion while offering them a better situation.

3. Firefighting is a great profession. I know multiple firefighters and paramedics making over 100k. I know a lot making 80k. If police officers and teachers don’t like their pay, they’re welcome to do something else.

You’re really asking too many question for me to provide detailed answers to any of them. But if you’d like me to focus in on any one area I gladly will.

For example you’re the first person I’ve heard in probably 5 years who still believes the myth that women are underpaid. It’s an example of a statistical myth from the left and I’d gladly explain why

 

[Vol in Buckeye Land]

1. It’s absurd and elitist because you’re proclaiming the best job they can get is not good enough by your standard.

2. Your second paragraph makes my point for me. The fact that they can’t quit and find better employment naturally implies they are not underpaid. To be underpaid would mean their current employer undervalues their work. If they are truly undervalued, wouldn’t another business be glad to hire them for more? The idea of underpaid employees is normally based in the idea that companies are evil and greedy. If so, wouldn’t they want to hire all these undervalued people so they can make money off them?

Seriously, if you believe there’s so many underpaid people in America you should start a business. You’d make billions if what you believe is correct. Here’s an example. There’s a false claim that women make .75 to the dollar that a man makes. If you believe that’s true you could start a business only employing women, pay them .80 to the dollar and save 20% over all your completion while offering them a better situation.

3. Firefighting is a great profession. I know multiple firefighters and paramedics making over 100k. I know a lot making 80k. If police officers and teachers don’t like their pay, they’re welcome to do something else.

You’re really asking too many question for me to provide detailed answers to any of them. But if you’d like me to focus in on any one area I gladly will.

For example you’re the first person I’ve heard in probably 5 years who still believes the myth that women are underpaid. It’s an example of a statistical myth from the left and I’d gladly explain why

1. This is not some superficial value judgment about someone’s job. No one is objecting to the aesthetics of being a cashier or something. “Your standard” the standard is that the average person should be able to live and provide a reasonable standard of living for themself and their family working a 40 hour a week job. It’s far less subjective than you’re pretending it is.

2. You keep making this argument as though it’s an obvious truism. It isn’t. You also act like there are an abundance of companies who are willing to pay more for x job. Newsflash: the vast majority of companies exist to maximize profit. How do you do that? You pay workers less. How much less? As little as you can possibly get away with. Saying “oh those workers should go elsewhere” doesn’t work when the prime directive for literally every publicly traded company is to maximize profits.

3. You think you’re being cute, but you’re not. This is not a cogent argument; it’s the equivalent of waggling your tongue at us.

 

[AshG]

If police officers and teachers don’t like their pay, they’re welcome to do something else.

Lower pay in these fields leads to lower quality of applicants and higher turnover within the first five years. Why do we have so many ****** cops and teachers? Because we're only paying enough to attract ****** cops and teachers.

 

[Vol8188]

1. This is not some superficial value judgment about someone’s job. No one is objecting to the aesthetics of being a cashier or something. “Your standard” the standard is that the average person should be able to live and provide a reasonable standard of living for themself and their family working a 40 hour a week job. It’s far less subjective than you’re pretending it is.

2. You keep making this argument as though it’s an obvious truism. It isn’t. You also act like there are an abundance of companies who are willing to pay more for x job. Newsflash: the vast majority of companies exist to maximize profit. How do you do that? You pay workers less. How much less? As little as you can possibly get away with. Saying “oh those workers should go elsewhere” doesn’t work when the prime directive for literally every publicly traded company is to maximize profits.

3. You think you’re being cute, but you’re not. This is not a cogent argument; it’s the equivalent of waggling your tongue at us.

1. We have the second highest standard of living in the world. Our poor live better than middle class of Europe. People in this country do provide a great standard of living for themselves and their families. Idk where you’re getting anything that says otherwise. Although I do object to the notion that they should be able to do it by only working 40 hours a week. I would frequently work 96 hours a week in EMS and 60-70 as a teach/coach/small business owner. If you want more, you should expect to work more than 40.

2. It’s obviously true. There’s a massive number of companies needing help. More than anytime in American history. You seem to be ignoring (intentionally I assume) that companies compete for workers. Here’s an honest question for you…what do you think would happen if we changed the minimum wage tomorrow to 0. Would you go to work for $1 tomorrow? Or do you except the fact that your wages are determined by competition for you as an employee?

3. I’m not being cute at all. I’m being honest. Also if we intend on getting anywhere with this debate we need to drop out future replies to 1-2 topics at a time. I’ll gladly come back to anything you wish, but it will go better if we go in more depth on these issues instead of being all over the place

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

if you cannot afford rent, you are underpaid. that's top down economics. if you want people to spend money, they have to be able to spend money. if people cannot spend money it's because of you, it's because YOU hold too much debt, and are charging it back to your employees to cover your own ass. stop holding too much debt.

 

[Vol8188]

Lower pay in these fields leads to lower quality of applicants and higher turnover within the first five years. Why do we have so many ****** cops and teachers? Because we're only paying enough to attract ****** cops and teachers.

Plenty of cities have high paid s**** cops and teachers. Some of the issue is the fields themselves don’t always attract the best. I will say you do see a better return on your investment in places that pay better than surrounding areas. For example Oak Ridge pays very well for fire fighters and teachers. As a result they have the best schools and fire departments around because the best come there.

But if you increase every teachers wage all you’ve done is pay more for the same crappy product.

 

[Jauan't Some?]

The example of teachers, fire-fighters, and police is an appeal to emotion in this argument. They are high social value or danger. And raw wage statistics make people say “wait that doesn’t seem right.” However, the fringe benefits of these positions are rarely taken into account. Teachers only work 2/3 of the year, for instance, and are free to seek supplemental employment during that break. Same for the shift-oriented work of fire and police, many have highly lucrative side-gigs.

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

it's not about money, it's about debt.

 

[Vol8188]

if you cannot afford rent, you are underpaid. that's top down economics. if you want people to spend money, they have to be able to spend money. if people cannot spend money it's because of you, it's because YOU hold too much debt, and are charging it back to your employees to cover your own ass. stop holding too much debt.

Holding too much debt? Idk what you’re talking about. You lost me?

Also do you see the ability to afford to live alone as a right or a privilege?

 

[Vol8188]

The example of teachers, fire-fighters, and police is an appeal to emotion in this argument. They are high social value or danger. And raw wage statistics make people say “wait that doesn’t seem right.” However, the fringe benefits of these positions are rarely taken into account. Teachers only work 2/3 of the year, for instance, and are free to seek supplemental employment during that break. Same for the shift-oriented work of fire and police, many have highly lucrative side-gigs.

Fire fighters get paid well to sleep.

 

[Vol8188]

it's not about money, it's about debt.

What’re you talking about

 

[AshG]

Plenty of cities have high paid s**** cops and teachers.

And high costs of living to balance it out.

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

I am free from debt. I started with nothing. I started with dirt. I can now do what ever the **** i want, as long as it does not put me back in debt. i am 50 yrs old.

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

stop living in debt.

 

[Vol8188]

And high costs of living to balance it out.

True but the key is to just not live there and commute

 

[Vol in Buckeye Land]

And by the way…

Is this 1921, or do you have a lot of options where you can work? You live in a world of cars and great roads. Driving up to an hour a day isn’t difficult and if you can’t find anyone willing to pay you more than you make within an hour radius, the company isn’t the problem. You are.

The minimum wage in 1950 adjusted for inflation today would be $8.28 an hour, so idk where you got the idea that people were better off then. This is the wealthiest time in world history, our poor live better than the wealthy did a century ago. Every truck driver I know does very well, some making over 100k.

Your mother willfully accepted a job with a pension knowing what would occur if the pension went under. No one prevented her from working elsewhere or saving for her own retirement.

Yes, no one is underpaid. If you truly believe there are so many underpaid people, change it. What prevents you from starting a business and hiring all these wonderful people for more than they currently make?

Once again, the fact that no one is doing so (especially during a mass labor shortage), implies they are not underpaid.

8.28 vs 7.25 is a difference of about 2K a year at 40 hours/week. In 1956, the minimum wage was raised to $1.00, which is $10.17 today at purchasing power parity, which is an extra $6000 or so a year over $7.25 with a 40 hour work week.

There were cars and roads in 1921 too. Wishing yourself into a better job didn’t work for the thousands of coal miners last century and it doesn’t always work for people now.

As for my Mother’s pension: no one prevented her from working elsewhere? Make sure you tell the next person who loses their home in a natural disaster that they could have lived elsewhere, so it’s their fault, really. It’s the corrupt laws that let companies pay their executives fat bonuses before they pay employees in the event of a bankruptcy. It is categorically NOT her fault she wasn’t clairvoyant and thus didn’t see that the company would go bankrupt when she started working there over 20 years earlier. How dare you?

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

capitalism only works when you spread wealth. it is the fastest way to spread wealth. That's why it works. it fails when you hoard. what are you doing with money?

 

[hog88]

I’m underpaid, that SOB I work for don’t appreciate what I do and I’m about sick of that jerk.

 

[Vol8188]

And by the way…
8.28 vs 7.25 is a difference of about 2K a year at 40 hours/week. In 1956, the minimum wage was raised to $1.00, which is $10.17 today at purchasing power parity, which is an extra $6000 or so a year over $7.25 with a 40 hour work week.

There were cars and roads in 1921 too. Wishing yourself into a better job didn’t work for the thousands of coal miners last century and it doesn’t always work for people now.

As for my Mother’s pension: no one prevented her from working elsewhere? Make sure you tell the next person who loses their home in a natural disaster that they could have lived elsewhere, so it’s their fault, really. It’s the corrupt laws that let companies pay their executives fat bonuses before they pay employees in the event of a bankruptcy. It is categorically NOT her fault she wasn’t clairvoyant and thus didn’t see that the company would go bankrupt when she started working there over 20 years earlier. How dare you?

You’re still doing it. You’re trying to talk about 10 different things at once and as a result we get nowhere. I’ll gladly respond to everything you bring up but once again, it’ll help if you can limit the scope.

You falsely claimed earlier that you could raise a family of 5 on minimum wage in the 50s. Now you’re saying it’s only equal to $10 an hour? McDonald’s is paying more than that. So by your own logic McDonald’s is not underpaying people and you can raise a family of 5 (maybe even six since they pay more than $10) off a McDonald’s salary.

The roads of 1921 weren’t nearly as good as today. Nor were the cars. You’re talking about before the interstate and cars that could probably do 15-30mph tops between the poor road conditions, tires, and braking systems. I own a 1931 Model A. It’s an awesome car, but you’ll never see me hit 55mph in it. You have far, far more options than coal miners in 1921 and to even pretend they’re anywhere near equal is insane.

No one forced your mother to accept a pension. She was welcome to invest in her own retirement. Something else that’s easier to do today than ever before. Another reason this is the wealthiest time in American history even though you cling to a weird notion that people were better financially in the 1950s

 

[Vol8188]

capitalism only works when you spread wealth. it is the fastest way to spread wealth. That's why it works. it fails when you hoard. what are you doing with money?

Are you talking to yourself?

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

in a capitalist society you are suppost to be able to empower yourself to look for a better paying job. That's not how it works rn because we are in a debt based society.

 

[Vol8188]

I’m going to bed but I’ll respond as I can tomorrow. I’ll have more time in the afternoon than during the day, but I’ll respond to anyone who replies to me by tomorrow night

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

stop with the debt.

 

[Vol8188]

in a capitalist society you are suppost to be able to empower yourself to look for a better paying job. That's not how it works rn because we are in a debt based society.

We are in a debt based society. I agree. And if you want to get ahead in such a society the key is not less debt but more.

Inflation favors the indebted

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

we are now paying for this ish. this is what happens when you take the lid off debt. Trump’s Debt Now Totals An Estimated $1.3 Billion