There is no doubt that govt interference definitely was a catalyst for all of this. I have not denied that.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.
Just an opinion and an observation. Not rooted in fact, because I do not know. I'm just saying that there is always room for doubt.…and a very dangerous one that our younger generations are being brainwashed to believe is appropriate. It is economic nonsense.
In many instances, I would say you are correct. Govt interference played a role.We’re not far off Ras. It’s a good discussion and I’m not going to attack anybody. I just don’t agree on the valuation changing for the same job pre vs post COVID
I’m inclined to say they stand pat if they believe they are offering a fair wage for the job. This too like bad Mexican food and gas station sushi shall passIn many instances, I would say you are correct. Govt interference played a role.
But now we are here. And these employers have jobs that need to be filled. What do they do? Do they continue to grind along and still offer pre-COVID wages or do they do like they would do whenever anything else goes up in price (materials, energy, taxes, etc.) and just bare the cost of higher labor? They continue to operate with higher costs when it comes to govt intervention when it comes to energy, taxes and materials, but suddenly want to get alligator arms and b*tch/complain when it comes to a once in a generation spike in labor.
I understand how companies function perfectly fine. You are some real piece of work resorting to insults on here.That actually explains a lot. You don't seem to understand how companies function.
And here is the problem that everyone is arguing about but won't fess up to the actual reasons. We don't have a manufacturing base anymore and until we do wages will go down and down and down. We can't continually recycle money in places like Best Buy, Home Depot and Walmart and expect wages to go up, it's never going to happen. We need to make high value items in the US again. Buying weedeaters made in Mexico is fine, buying a new phone made in China isn't.In many instances, I would say you are correct. Govt interference played a role.
But now we are here. And these employers have jobs that need to be filled. What do they do? Do they continue to grind along and still offer pre-COVID wages or do they do like they would do whenever anything else goes up in price (materials, energy, taxes, etc.) and just bare the cost of higher labor? They continue to operate with higher costs when it comes to govt intervention when it comes to energy, taxes and materials, but suddenly want to get alligator arms and b*tch/complain when it comes to a once in a generation spike in labor.
Hell, about the only thing we haven't seen inflate over the last 20 years is wages.
That is a different concept than employees being “paid what the market could stand to pay”. Your comment in this post is fine. The prior comment was straight out of a socialist propaganda piece (although I actually doubt that was your real intention. I think you just mis-worded your statement).Just an opinion and an observation. Not rooted in fact, because I do not know. I'm just saying that there is always room for doubt.
I don't think what I'm saying is dangerous commie talk. I'm just saying that some of these lower wage jobs could have probably (probably) been paying a bit more even before govt intervention. Sorry if you consider that capitalism heresy.
All he has is insults at this point.Really?. He's self employed and you say he doesn't understand how companies function.
I have stated repeatedly that companies‘ assessment of their employees’ relative value to the company are based on total compensation. They are not equally valued. The fact that you and several others find that simple ecconomic fact controversial is disturbing but not at all surprising. It illustrates the impact of the liberal indoctrination of the country’s youth through the incredibly deficient educational system.I understand how companies function perfectly fine. You are some real piece of work resorting to insults on here.
Assuming you are still working. Why don't you share the thoughts you shared on this forum on how you value employees Monday morning when you arrive to work. See how well that goes over.
If you are going to quote me, quote me in proper context.That is a different concept than employees being “paid what the market could stand to pay”. Your comment in this post is fine. The prior comment was straight out of a socialist propaganda piece (although I actually doubt that was your real intention. I think you just mis-worded your statement).
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.
So you don't know what the average price is. Thanks.
It sounds like you just have a lot of walk up customers. No problem. Just trying to figure out how you can justify the pay you were offering. Because as it sounds like, it is not the usual set up like most restaurants. You have a unique situation going on.
You even got the "I made $4/hr in 1975 and liked it" rant.All he has is insults at this point.
I simply stated pay should be more at this point for positions in shipping, janitorial, etc. People went off the deep end like you said. Rather unexpected to hear this behavior from self proclaimed conservatives.
You seem to not understand the difference between saying someone may be underpaid versus saying that people should be “paid what the market could stand to pay.” Those are VERY different statements. If you don’t see the difference, just let me know and I’ll explain the problem of the latter statement. As I said previously, that statement has a meaning that I don’t think you really mean to convey. I have no issue with saying some people may be underpaid. I’m quite certain that is the case.If you are going to quote me, quote me in proper context.
I was simply speculating and offering an opinion. I wasn't saying that every low wage worker needs to be making $20/hr. I'm just saying that there could be instances where people were being under paid.
I actually have worked as restaurant manager in the past. So I have seen first hand employees being under paid. Seen many good employees come and go over the years. The main reason they left was pay. Also had some part timers who were working there as a second job. Most of them even stated they liked working there better than their full time job. However, the pay wasn't enough which was the reason they were only working there part time.You seem to not understand the difference between saying someone may be underpaid versus saying that people should be “paid what the market could stand to pay.” Those are VERY different statements. If you don’t see the difference, just let me know and I’ll explain the problem of the latter statement. As I said previously, that statement has a meaning that I don’t think you really mean to convey. I have no issue with saying some people may be underpaid. I’m quite certain that is the case.