Workers are applying for jobs left and right, but hearing nothing back

[Vol423]

Again, you are correct. That was not the point he was making.

...and notice that, unlike you (who attempted to attribute points to me that I never once said), I'm not stating that he made that point. I'm making the point.

 

[Vol423]

Assuming him and some others work, I would challenge them to share the same opinions that they shared on here with their companies and fellow co-workers Monday morning when they arrive to work.

Some of these opinions that were shared make me even more thankful that I am self employed now.

That actually explains a lot. You don't seem to understand how companies function.

 

[Vol423]

I don’t disagree that low level employees like janitors and kitchen staff workers are woefully underpaid. They should be paid more, however I also understand why that hasn’t always been the case but that doesn’t mean it is right. Those types of positions have generally gone to teenagers or low skilled workers and businesses can pay them less because they are easily replaceable due to immigration, people with criminal records, high school students, drop outs, etc.

Correct. It's that pesky supply/demand relationship that NorthDallas40 referred to previously. Companies don't pay a lot for workers that are easily replaceable due to excess supply over demand. If those individuals are in short supply, then wage rates generally increase. If individuals start working in a low wage rate position but then prove to their employer that they provide more value to the employer than alternative workers, then that individual's wage rates generally increase over time due to the company perceiving higher value from that employee. If that employee receives additional education and/or training or otherwise acquires or demonstrates additional incremental, highly valued skilled or traits, then that employee's wage rates will generally increase over time. What doesn't change is that a company's assessment of employees' value to the company is not equal. A company's assessed value of an employee to the organization (not to be confused as the perceived value of the employees as human beings) is measured through total compensation.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

That actually explains a lot. You don't seem to understand how companies function.

Really?. He's self employed and you say he doesn't understand how companies function.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Correct. It's that pesky supply/demand relationship that NorthDallas40 referred to previously. Companies don't pay a lot for workers that are easily replaceable due to excess supply over demand. If those individuals are in short supply, then wage rates generally increase. If individuals start working in a low wage rate position but then prove to their employer that they provide more value to the employer than alternative workers, then that individual's wage rates generally increase over time due to the company perceiving higher value from that employee. If that employee receives additional education and/or training or otherwise acquires or demonstrates additional incremental, highly valued skilled or traits, then that employee's wage rates will generally increase over time. What doesn't change is that a company's assessment of employees' value to the company is not equal. A company's assessed value of an employee to the organization (not to be confused as the perceived value of the employees as human beings) is measured through total compensation.

Nobody ever said that the janitor needs to be paid more than other skilled people in the company. You created a strawman and then began to tear it apart.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Correct. It's that pesky supply/demand relationship that NorthDallas40 referred to previously. Companies don't pay a lot for workers that are easily replaceable due to excess supply over demand. If those individuals are in short supply, then wage rates generally increase. If individuals start working in a low wage rate position but then prove to their employer that they provide more value to the employer than alternative workers, then that individual's wage rates generally increase over time due to the company perceiving higher value from that employee. If that employee receives additional education and/or training or otherwise acquires or demonstrates additional incremental, highly valued skilled or traits, then that employee's wage rates will generally increase over time. What doesn't change is that a company's assessment of employees' value to the company is not equal. A company's assessed value of an employee to the organization (not to be confused as the perceived value of the employees as human beings) is measured through total compensation.

Question: What's the most important part of a car or truck? The $1500 dashboard computer or the $20 lug nuts on the wheels?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Question: What's the most important part of a car or truck? The $1500 dashboard computer or the $20 lug nuts on the wheels?

Both parts reflect the cost of acquiring them and their availability. Just like the cost of acquiring the skills and experience for a job. I just don’t understand the equal value argument. The pay is the only measure of value that matters for a job. There are other factors that reflect ones satisfaction in a particular job but the pay is the only quantified measure that matters. If I can earn the same pay in the same job and not be miserable or work for an azz hole then that improves my satisfaction. But it doesn’t change the value measure of the same two jobs.

 

[Vol423]

Nobody ever said that the janitor needs to be paid more than other skilled people in the company. You created a strawman and then began to tear it apart.

I never created anything. I quoted the other guys' statement. He has since repeated the same statement over and over again. You appear to have a severe reading comprehension problem.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Both parts reflect the cost of acquiring them and their availability. Just like the cost of acquiring the skills and experience for a job. I just don’t understand the equal value argument. The pay is the only measure of value that matters for a job. There are other factors that reflect ones satisfaction in a particular job but the pay is the only quantified measure that matters. If I can earn the same pay in the same job and not be miserable or work for an azz hole then that improves my satisfaction. But it doesn’t change the value measure of the same two jobs.

You understand perfectly what he was saying. Just like the $20 lug nuts are just as important to a vehicle as the $1500 dashboard computer, the same is true of the janitor and CEO. They all work together in the system to make it function.

It really isn't that hard to understand what he was expressing. He didn't come out and say the lower paid workers needed to be making CEO pay. He simply said that they might need to be paid more. That's it. But you guys got triggered and went into attack mode over that.

 

[Vol423]

You understand perfectly what he was saying.

No. I don't. The statement is 100% complete non-sense. I pointed that out, and he continued to repeat the same garbage over and over again. You have then continued to try to make the same point. It is liberal non-sense.

 

[Vol423]

It really isn't that hard to understand what he was expressing. He didn't come out and say the lower paid workers needed to be making CEO pay. He simply said that they might need to be paid more. That's it.

For about the 20th time, this is 100% irrelevant to the statement that I pointed out was factually inaccurate. I don't need an interpretation of what he meant. He made a specific statement. I quoted it and pointed out that it was incorrect. He continued to argue it anyway. He is wrong.

 

[Vol423]

But you guys got triggered and went into attack mode over that.

No. We pointed out that his statement was 100% factually incorrect. He then continued to argue that it was accurate. Then you joined the party, but you're continuing to argue some other point that is totally, 100% irrelevant to his factually incorrect statement that he keeps repeating.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I agree. It takes a one minute call to cancel.
However, the person working in shipping is just as valuable to the organization as anyone else is. If the pay is less than 30K a year based on a 40 hour work week in 2021 then that's a problem. We are approaching 2022. Pay should be respectable and should allow someone to make a decent living. Well Pay raises and performance bonuses should be in line with the rest of the company.

I think that's more than fair.

No the person in shipping isn’t as valuable as anyone else, hence the lower pay than the shipping supervisor, logistics manager, plant manager, president, etc.

That literally is what the pay represents, the value of the position.

This is where it all began. @DonjoVol simply stated that the pay might need to be pushed up and said that the lowest worker in the company is just as "valuable" as the highest person.

Both of those can be true at the same time.

In today's labor market, the pay may have to be bumped up.

And, just like those $20 lug nuts, they are just as important (or "valuable", however you want to say it) as any other part of a vehicle.

@allvol123 replied to his comment with regards to a lower rung worker in the company shouldn't be paid the same as people higher up because of skill levels, supply and demand, etc... which is 100% true, but that wasn't the point that @DonjoVol was making. He clearly was not suggesting paying lower skilled workers CEO or even entry level management pay. He simply said pay them more... and you guys went off the deep end.

 

[NorthDallas40]

You understand perfectly what he was saying. Just like the $20 lug nuts are just as important to a vehicle as the $1500 dashboard computer, the same is true of the janitor and CEO. They all work together in the system to make it function.

It really isn't that hard to understand what he was expressing. He didn't come out and say the lower paid workers needed to be making CEO pay. He simply said that they might need to be paid more. That's it. But you guys got triggered and went into attack mode over that.

I didn’t get triggered. In fact I’ve made only two statements (three now) in here and neither were about or to him. I think people are confusing measurement methods as they relate to a broad range of jobs or professions. The only one that matters is pay. That’s it.

You and I are both electrical engineers. We can do the janitors job. Could the janitor do our jobs? And our pay reflects the higher valuation put on our more developed skills. That’s it.

We are also arguing on points which are completely unbalanced due to government interference in the free market determining the correct wage. If that interference maintains then the equilibrium point on wages will move. But it won’t maintain and then employment levels will be disrupted again. The simple fact is unskilled workers have an over inflated opinion of their actual worth due to government interference. That isn’t in reply to you or anybody else I’m not attacking anybody I’m just stating the obvious.

 

[TheDeeble]

The simple fact is unskilled workers have an over inflated opinion of their actual worth due to government interference. That isn’t in reply to you or anybody else I’m not attacking anybody I’m just stating the obvious.

This is the way it looks to me.

 

[NorthDallas40]

This is the way it looks to me.

I think it’s fairly obvious to anybody paying attention If anyone wants to say “maybe employers should pay more” are they also willing to admit that employers should go back to paying less once the interference stops? Yeah… who am I kidding on government interference stopping …

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

@DonjoVol actually started it here. All he said was pay a bit more for that position. That is all he said.

If you don't mind me asking. What's the pay rate for the position?

No idea
Point being most offensive is scheduling and just being so many no shows, speaks to the character of those applying

I am not disagreeing with you there.

But maybe if the pay was higher for that position then it might attract higher quality candidates. Then there might not be so many no shows. Just my opinion.

And in response to him simply saying that it might be a good idea to bump the starting pay, unfortunately, @Orangeburst replies with a typical Boomer answer... "I walked uphill both ways going to school in my day..." That was a disappointing reply.

Wasn’t way I was raised and I worked shipping in my 20’s for less than $4 hour.
Cancellation call takes 1 minute
Our nation is screwed

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I didn’t get triggered. In fact I’ve made only two statements (three now) in here and neither were about or to him. I think people are confusing measurement methods as they relate to a broad range of jobs or professions. The only one that matters is pay. That’s it.

You and I are both electrical engineers. We can do the janitors job. Could the janitor do our jobs? And our pay reflects the higher valuation put on our more developed skills. That’s it.

We are also arguing on points which are completely unbalanced due to government interference in the free market determining the correct wage. If that interference maintains then the equilibrium point on wages will move. But it won’t maintain and then employment levels will be disrupted again. The simple fact is unskilled workers have an over inflated opinion of their actual worth due to government interference. That isn’t in reply to you or anybody else I’m not attacking anybody I’m just stating the obvious.

I agree with everything you said up until the highlighted. I even think @DonjoVol agrees with what you are saying. The janitor shouldn't be paid as much as the engineer. We all agree on that. All @DonjoVol said was that in these times, you may have to consider raising the pay of the lower level workers. That's all he said. Then someone took him using the term "valuable" and made it about equal pay for all employees across the board, which is not what @DonjoVol was saying at all.

Now with regards to the highlighted above... I originally believed that the wages for some of these guys may have been over-inflated. But right now, I'm on the fence. These companies could have possibly been able to pay these guys a bit more than they have in the past and still remained profitable. And with a lot of the turnover that occurs in some of these lower rung jobs, they may have actually been better served to pay more and reduce the amount of turnover.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I agree with everything you said up until the highlighted. I even think @DonjoVol agrees with what you are saying. The janitor shouldn't be paid as much as the engineer. We all agree on that. All @DonjoVol said was that in these times, you may have to consider raising the pay of the lower level workers. That's all he said. Then someone took him using the term "valuable" and made it about equal pay for all employees across the board, which is not what @DonjoVol was saying at all.

Now with regards to the highlighted above... I originally believed that the wages for some of these guys may have been over-inflated. But right now, I'm on the fence. These companies could have possibly been able to pay these guys a bit more than they have in the past and still remained profitable. And with a lot of the turnover that occurs in some of these lower rung jobs, they may have actually been better served to pay more and reduce the amount of turnover.

Nope. They paid them what the market bore at the time prior to government interference. That’s it. And now due that interference the exact same job has somehow been elevated in value? Nope don’t think so that’s a manifestation of being paid more by the Feds to not work than the employers to work.

How about we tell them all “ok we’ll pay you $5 more an hour now because you’ve got an over inflated value of your worth due to the dumbass feds planting that seed in you mind, but I’m gonna cut your pay back down by $5 once this is over and you owe me a day at the lower wage for every day I paid you at the inflated wage.”

Deal?

 

[Orangeburst]

@DonjoVol actually started it here. All he said was pay a bit more for that position. That is all he said.




And in response to him simply saying that it might be a good idea to bump the starting pay, unfortunately, @Orangeburst replies with a typical Boomer answer... "I walked uphill both ways going to school in my day..." That was a disappointing reply.

Why are you bringing me into this? I only commented as an open reply about the lack of showing up for appointments, which the applicants had an idea of the pay.
For all I know the pay is excellent which you guys assume is false, so if you want to spend a couple of days arguing the same things over and over, be my guest.

 

[TheDeeble]

I think it’s fairly obvious to anybody paying attention If anyone wants to say “maybe employers should pay more” are they also willing to admit that employers should go back to paying less once the interference stops? Yeah… who am I kidding on government interference stopping …

I agree. Seems to me like the people complaining that employers "weren't paying enough" just pulled an end around and used the govt benefits to set an artificial new floor as a competitor.

Goes back to this imo... ubi/routine govt payouts/ect. They couldn't get that through, but they can take advantage of Covid.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) tabled a Resolution on the United States House of Representatives (H.RES.109) which hinted, in a first version, that “the Green New Deal would take care of people who are “unwilling to work””. That last bit of the sentence started a political hurricane in the United States. In that country, work is seen as tightly linked to jobs, and jobs are conceived as essential to value, and so “unwilling to work” is simply understood as “lazy”. Period. So, taking care of the lazy just sounds nonsensical to most Americans.

Because most people and politicians in the United States equate “unwilling” with “lazy”, it’s very difficult to pass on the message that “unwilling” might actually mean unwilling to perform a certain job/task that can be revolting, disgusting, unfair, tedious, repetitive and/or badly paid. Rigid work ethics and years of living in an economic crisis has also helped to lower people’s expectations, and be more open to exploitation. What is at dispute, at bottom, is the nature of work.

United States: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gets to the point of what it means to be “unwilling to work” | BIEN — Basic Income Earth Network

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Why are you bringing me into this? I only commented as an open reply about the lack of showing up for appointments, which the applicants had an idea of the pay.
For all I know the pay is excellent which you guys assume is false, so if you want to spend a couple of days arguing the same things over and over, be my guest.

I don't think me or @DonjoVol know what the pay is. For all we know, it could be sufficient.

Again, all @DonjoVol suggested was possibly increasing the starting pay. I think it was a genuine effort on his part to try and fix a problem with the limited info he had.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Nope. They paid them what the market bore at the time prior to government interference.

We can agree to disagree on that slightly. I'm fully aware that government interference triggered all of this, but there is now some doubt in my mind that they were really being paid what the market could stand to pay.

 

[VolStrom]

There seems to be a lot of spirited conversations in the PF today, or maybe leading back to last night. I hope the Vols play good tonight or this place could get ugly for the next few days.

 

[NorthDallas40]

We can agree to disagree on that slightly. I'm fully aware that government interference triggered all of this, but there is now some doubt in my mind that they were really being paid what the market could stand to pay.

That’s fine with me on the red. Right now I don’t think there is a right answer we’re all guessing. I just don’t see the government interference getting the weight it should in this discussion but that’s my own opinion.

On the bolded both parties agreed and the individual took the job. So what the employer “could pay” is moot. Based on what my employer is paying retirees to come back doing the same job they did before I know they could pay me more too. But… I’m already paid more than the prevailing wage I think for my job so it’s dumb for me to focus on a retiree’s gig. Good for them though.