Paying Your Employees So Little That Most Of Them Are Poor?
- Thread starter nutmeg
- Start date
I started in construction in 1986 at $4 an hour working for an ex-military drill sargent. It was hell and there was high-turnover. The highest paid fellow on the crew made $10. It wasn't till i started making $17 an hour that i felt like my wage fit what everybody else was charging for everything. When i started contracting, and averaging $30 an hour, it felt adequate but barely. Eventually, i adopted the attitude that i would not hire anybody for less than $20 an hour, after trying the whole $10-$12 an hour bit. Less than $20 i felt i was inviting problems that would not save me any money at all. Guys that made less than $20 had problems. You name it, transportation, tools, turn-over, needing frequent draws, and general unhappiness. My happiest time as a small contractor was just one other guy happy to make $20 cash, and to be paid when i got paid, which could vary from a week to three weeks. A guy making $15 could not go along with that program. I don't ever remember a time where i consistently made money on the labor of others. Later i realized that to really call it a business, someone making $20 would need to be producing $40 in output, which is what i did when i was happy and healthy. To expect that was unrealistic though. I was lucky to make $2 or $3 dollars more per hour with the help of my helper. Just too much competition in my market. I gave up on the idea of paying someone a small starting wage in exchange for me training them in efficient ways to get things done. It just didn't work. One or two mistakes they might make could easily eat up whatever i thought i could save AND for every ten minutes i spent training/explaining i lost (from my own production) what they might have been making per hour. So after years of experimentation, i decided my mates had to already know what to do, while i just tried to keep everybody happy with a sense of humor and not being too bossy.
lol, is this blog a joke or something?? back in HS I knew people who worked these types of jobs (McDonalds, etc). Dedication is the last word i'd use to describe them!! They'd call in sick friday or saturday because there was some big party that night.
there's a reason they're basically unemployable at a 'real' job: they either stupid or lazy
The conclusion you have reached is backwards.
What we have today is the result of gov't programs and the free market at work. If there were no gov't programs then no one would work for a wage that they could not survive on.
Gov't starts keeps creating support programs and as a result people can get by on lower wages so that is exactly what happens.
Supply and demand sets wage levels, as long as there is a supply of people willing to work for $5/hr then no business in the real world is going to pay them $10/hr out of charity. Gov't programs is what makes living on $5/hr possible.
This is what happens when gov't interferes where it shouldn't be - a distortion of the market (and a huge inefficient bureaucracy courtesy of the taxpayers). You reap what you sow.
Speaking of backwards, I'll tell you what went backwards,
When I went into business I had a goal of x dollars per day, week or whatever.I set up a 40 hr week.
Then if I wanted to make more money I'd add a few hours each week. (I had plenty of business).
Over time, regs, expenses, etc and being unable to pass along all of the extra costs to the customer. I then had to work 45 hours a week to generate the same pay. Then 50 hours a week, then 55 hours a week.
Now I'm more of a cash churning donkey than I was 5 years before.
But hey, at 60 hours a week, I could expand my business.
Yuppers, I could double down, (risk everything) have 2 - 30 hour a week business's and grow somemore.
I suppose that's how it is done. OTh, payback would take 18 months, then I could sit back and relax.(Ha fucking ha).
I made other plans.
When I went into business I had a goal of x dollars per day, week or whatever.I set up a 40 hr week.
Then if I wanted to make more money I'd add a few hours each week. (I had plenty of business).
Over time, regs, expenses, etc and being unable to pass along all of the extra costs to the customer. I then had to work 45 hours a week to generate the same pay. Then 50 hours a week, then 55 hours a week.
Now I'm more of a cash churning donkey than I was 5 years before.
But hey, at 60 hours a week, I could expand my business.
Yuppers, I could double down, (risk everything) have 2 - 30 hour a week business's and grow somemore.
I suppose that's how it is done. OTh, payback would take 18 months, then I could sit back and relax.(Ha fucking ha).
I made other plans.
Nutmeg:
Maybe you are asking the right question to the wrong people on the wrong continent on the opposite side of the globe.
What newly emergent international power is driving these low wages through their sweatshop dirt-poor manufacturing approach ? The same country that unilaterally devalued their currency by 50% overnight in the early 1990's in order to start this mess.
Maybe you are asking the right question to the wrong people on the wrong continent on the opposite side of the globe.
What newly emergent international power is driving these low wages through their sweatshop dirt-poor manufacturing approach ? The same country that unilaterally devalued their currency by 50% overnight in the early 1990's in order to start this mess.
I think that can't the the whole story because most of those low wage workers are illegals and most of them are not collecting government aid. Have you ever driven around the ghettos in a US city? You can see how they might be surviving on $5/hr. They eat mostly rice and beans. They live in the worst neighborhoods. They have no AC, open windows in the summer. No the government didn't create it. Ghettos and slums have existed since the beginning of time. It's a natural tendency of "free markets". There will always be an exponential distribution of wealth, mostly going to the top. That's just physics, not government.
There always has and always will be a cheap labor arbitrage for unskilled manual labor positions. And that includes scanning items across a cash register and then bagging them. Nothing new, always been that way since the invention of slavery.
When you inflate the cost of these wages through mandated minimum wages, those costs are simply passed on and reflected in the price of essential items for everyone and the disaffected are right back where they were before in terms of buying power.
The IT techs and the CPAs at WalMart and StarBucks are competitively payed compared to their peers in other companies as well.
When you inflate the cost of these wages through mandated minimum wages, those costs are simply passed on and reflected in the price of essential items for everyone and the disaffected are right back where they were before in terms of buying power.
The IT techs and the CPAs at WalMart and StarBucks are competitively payed compared to their peers in other companies as well.
Maybe some people are thinking of the problem from a different angle.
The low money hinders the prospect to have time to develop other skills and move up the corporate ladder. Or maybe, this is about giving the low-waged workers respect and treating them more like management or simply a human being; valuing their life in a greater way.
I understand it's not the best feeling when a guy does nothing and goes home to a 700k house, while one guy works all day and lives in a small apartment. From a management perspective, always make it seem as though you are poor. Never bring them back to your house. Don't brag about nice toys. Then they won't really see the in-equality.
From a human perspective, maybe sit down with them and try to see if you can help them reach their potential. Life will never be fair, and some pure socialism cannot work; however, it is nice to feel a little bit of guilt because you had some breaks in life.
The low money hinders the prospect to have time to develop other skills and move up the corporate ladder. Or maybe, this is about giving the low-waged workers respect and treating them more like management or simply a human being; valuing their life in a greater way.
I understand it's not the best feeling when a guy does nothing and goes home to a 700k house, while one guy works all day and lives in a small apartment. From a management perspective, always make it seem as though you are poor. Never bring them back to your house. Don't brag about nice toys. Then they won't really see the in-equality.
From a human perspective, maybe sit down with them and try to see if you can help them reach their potential. Life will never be fair, and some pure socialism cannot work; however, it is nice to feel a little bit of guilt because you had some breaks in life.
SOCIALIST BILGE! Nobody deserves ANYTHING except what they earn on their own... regardless of how competitive the marketplace or how "unfair" things seem. If it seems tough, well... so what.. things are tough all over.
PROVIDE FOR YOURSELF OR PERISH!!
