If your business can't function without underpaying employees it shouldnt exist

[hakujinbakasama]

Paying a living wage was the best thing I could do for my business and workers. I have workers that care about their jobs and care about what they do. I have a 98% customer retention rate in an industry that is around 70%. A turnover rate of less than 5% in an industry that is closer to 30%, and NPS(Net Promoter Score) of 90 where the industry average is around 20. I do this, while paying all of my employee's benefits while they are laid off without reimbursement, share profits, and still take home enough to live extremely comfortably. Of course I am not public, and the bottom line is not my first and only concern. BTW, my workers start off at $18/hr when the industry average is $10.

Good to you. Not every business can afford to do so nor does every owner wish to do so.

I'm aware of a few who try and others that simply cannot.

And here is my little counter to this whole thing. How many Pokemon cards does one need to sell to have an employee and pay said employee a $50,000 package? I mean, should we just say fuck it to all the little local game stores because they are being greedy fucks not paying their counter jockeys $15 an hour plus full benefits?

[Zython]

Point of interest, while the minimum wage wast set to .25 in 1938, historical data shows many of the labor jobs we well above the wage in the 1920's. What is often historically missed by idiots is that FDR was trying to deal with the post-depression labor force, a time when wages for most all fields took a dramatic dive.

So like today?

Just as an example, laborers in the meat packing industry prior to the depression were upwards of $0.65 an hour not including bonuses.

Historical context is extremely important. The employment market at the time of 1930-1940 was a million leagues away from cashiering at Wal-Mart or Drive Thru at McDonald's.

It's funny that the asshats who try to use FDR as a save all for minimum wage also ignore the fact that there is a night and day difference between the labor he was considering and that of 2017 technology easy street.
Fuck all, you don't even have to be capable of simple addition to work as a cashier anymore. They certainly aren't in actual factories or in the fields either.

What is so pathetic is that the labor jobs which FDR once defended by and large pay the damn rates you little brats keep complaining about. The difference is that not a 1 of the fucks are willing to work one of those jobs.

Most Garbage positions start at upwards of $18 an hour. Coal mining is about $28 an hour.

https://www.payscale.com/research/US...ve/Hourly_Rate

Auto...$15 an hour. The single greatest difference is that when minimum wage was fabricated YOU actually had to lift shit, carry shit, move shit, and make shit. Now it's so nearly automated all you have to do is stand still and occasionally flail your fingers.

This is why Cat stopped hiring workers. It was absolutely insane to pay $25-30 an hour for someone to push a button absent any need for actual education.

You seem to be obsessed with the idea of how physically demanding labor is (ignoring how customer service requires MASSIVE emotional labor), rather than look at how much value that labor provides. Clearly, the labor is worth a LOT more than CEOs are paying, otherwise, they wouldn't have massive bonuses, record profits, or record productivity.

[hakujinbakasama]

So like today?



You seem to be obsessed with the idea of how physically demanding labor is (ignoring how customer service requires MASSIVE emotional labor), rather than look at how much value that labor provides. Clearly, the labor is worth a LOT more than CEOs are paying, otherwise, they wouldn't have massive bonuses, record profits, or record productivity.

Only if your completely uneducated on business and or economics then sure.

But fuck it... let's have a class.

https://ycharts.com/companies/WMT/gross_profit_margin

So what we see is that Wal-Mart makes about $0.30 ish on each dollar of good. But wait... There's more!!! We forgot to mention that out if the $0.30 per dollar Wal-Mart has to pay its operating costs. Wha-wha....

So, Wal-Mart pays $9 an hour plus additional costs. If I recall the close metric is $3 an hour (been a bit) in additional costs and taxes. So... your costs is $12 an hour. You work 8 hours a day, consuming $96 of operating costs alone. Going back to that $0.30 per dollar, you are requiring $320 in sales each day.

"That's not much Haku."

OH FUCK YOU'RE RIGHT Timmy, that's because it's not correct. Remember that $0.30 isn't just required to pay you, oh no Billy, it has to cover the massive global distribution and rent costs of the store and system.

"Well what does that mean Haku?"

Well Johnny, what it means is that of the $0.30 only $0.05 is actually comprising your contribution. Let's look at that $96 a day again.

96÷.05=1920

You are responsible for $1920 in sales per shift. Now if you think your putting cans of geenbeans on the shelf is worth more, let's talk about wtf you are going to do to get those numbers up Sally.

[Zython]

Dude. Take a deep breath. There's no reason for you to be so hostile.

Edit: Seems like they're doing quite well for themselves. And that value is coming from SOMEWHERE, right?

[d00mGuArD]

People are far more likely to be successful in school if they don't have such financial burdens or have to worry about holding down a full time job. (You can't afford 400/month plus other expensives with a part time job). Some people also can't get student loans and it's a fucking insane notion in the first place that your suggestion for poor people is to just go in MORE DEBT to then hopefully one day get a job to get them out of debt. Especially if you're going to a community college. Good luck competing with other people who have a bachelor's degree or more.

Those people don't have google University of London distance learning is so cheap, it is cheaper than free really - or around that
There are many reasons for not getting education, but COST is not one of them when UoL offers so cheap bachelors

[hakujinbakasama]

I'll give you just one example - Right to Work. Look it up.

That's not a bad thing btw. I hate to break it to you that while Union Participation Rates do go down in some sectors, the State GDP as well as over all wages increase under RTW. I know that facts suck but it's just how it is.

[jakeic]

When I was a child I held the idea that if someone worked at a successful company then they would be a well paid employee.

[hakujinbakasama]

When I was a child I held the idea that if someone worked at a successful company then they would be a well paid employee.

When I was a child I was taught that you get what you earn and you work for what you get.

Interestingly enough mine and yours are not mutually exclusive but they are not dependent either.

[Gorgodeus]

Good to you. Not every business can afford to do so nor does every owner wish to do so.

I'm aware of a few who try and others that simply cannot.

And here is my little counter to this whole thing. How many Pokemon cards does one need to sell to have an employee and pay said employee a $50,000 package? I mean, should we just say fuck it to all the little local game stores because they are being greedy fucks not paying their counter jockeys $15 an hour plus full benefits?

I am a former owner of a game store. The first year the store was opened, it generated over $1 million in gross revenue. By the 3rd year, I was selling over $1 million worth of MtG and Yugioh cards alone per year, with gross revenues of ~ $3 million. Any competently run business makes more than enough to pay a living wage.

[hakujinbakasama]

I am a former owner of a game store. The first year the store was opened, it generated over $1 million in gross revenue. By the 3rd year, I was selling over $1 million worth of MtG and Yugioh cards alone per year, with gross revenues of ~ $3 million. Any competently run business makes more than enough to pay a living wage.

Wow, what an awesome claim that requires you to provide any fucking substantive support or evidence. By golla gee willikers we should all be doing what you did!

I mean, look at all the great information you didn't need to provide.

1. State
2. Location
3. Year
4. Tax Records

Nah, fuck that. All you had to do was say "Blah blah blah, MILLIONS DAWG!"

But hey, let's look at a more important part of your bullshit for a second. "Any competently run business makes more than enough to pay a living wage." Really? Can you prove that at the fuck all? I mean, you're taking a whole mountain load of the world and throwing it into the garbage simply because internet claims.

"ANY" .... "A N Y"? Wait... fuck that "competently" let me punish you for this word for a moment. Care to define what constitutes "competently" in any scope or metric? No no, that's sarcasm because you fucking can't.

For the kids at home, all business is derived from demand not supply. Any business can be "competently" run and still not generate the revenue you're claiming. Anyone who has taken Econ one-oh-fucking-one knows this.

But here, let's for the sake of argument say that you're not full of absolute shit. I mean, it's not like you'll ever have the balls to prove it so why not right?

Let me translate your post into more digestible language.

"I opened a gaming store in 2000, coming off the hype of Pokemon but right before Yugioh busted onto the US market. MtG was still strong as was table top gaming because this is before the wide spread consumption of pc and console gaming (thanks internet.) I opened my doors just a ways out of a major US city and capitalized on internet sales through Ebay. My experience has little to zero fucking connection to today's market and thus is pretty irrelevant. Just thought I'd add my two useless cents."

[tyrlaan]

All the bullshit posturing aside, if someone works 40 hours in a week, it should be sufficient to sustain them. This concept doesn't need to be propped up on the pedestal of an FDR quote.

And if you can't bring yourself to care about your fellow man (because clearly not making a living wage from 40 hour work weeks means your lazy, right?), instead think about the benefit to the economy of having a larger base of consumers with spending power and how that helps you out personally.

If you think people don't deserve a living wage, that means you think we're better off with more power in the hands of the corporation than in the individual consumer. Unless you've missed a few decades, we've seen how trickle down economics doesn't work, so why do you support it.

Until we get to UBI, just pay people enough to fucking live. This isn't a hard concept.

[Eviscero]

Why don't you try not giving your money to any business that doesn't pay its employees that "livable wage?"

Precisely a reason to have a minimum wage! The free market doesn't really require or allow for all businesses to be pressured by consumer choice into paying their employees a living wage. At least not directly.

That said, one eonomic principle responsoble for wage growth is competition for labor due to a need for increased productivity caused by higher consumption demand. We don't really have that at the moment, so wages stagnate. Corporations are seeing record profits and has enormous stockpiles of cash which could be used to increase productivity by reinvestment in the business, but if you're meeting demand why do that?

[Allenseiei]

All I can say is that you americans greatly amuse me. Fun fact the wanting as little government is actually brainwashing done by said government you guy so greatly fear its like they are winning and you are helping them do it



What EU based companies are facing ruin since you are stating this as a fact? Also how does not paying for stuff like healthcare and education lower consumption lvls? last I checked this means all your money can go towards buying products and services made and provided to you by companies instead of being buried beneath a mountain of debt.

When did I ever said EU companies are facing ruin though? EU companies are not forced to pay what the OP suggested, its the government that covers and ups the adquisition rates of citizens. Which is why they are not facing that said ruin.
Because you have a fixed rate that you take away from consumption. A 30 year old worker who pays 25-30%(or up to 44% depending on the country) taxes of his income, loses that income that he could've used to buy more things.
What taxes does is that it makes people who wouldn't normaly pay for something, pay it. So you estimulate to some degree the lower class while you take away from the middle class and the high class. Does the balance work out? Depends, some countries balance out the increase in low income home consumption by taking it away from middle to high income consumers. However, this also reduces consumption on newly developed technologies, since they are usualy pricier and not bought by the new low income consumers.
Society in the EU embraces the risk of the balance not working out, which I don't think its bad.
What makes this bad is if government cover becomes too big that people can live quite comfortable with just the unemployed salary and the government providing for them, like it happens in Spain for example.

Please don't forget the OP when bringing things into context of my responses. He said that companies should be forced to pay a wage that can cover most of the things you need, whichever your job is (some people estimating 2000-3000$ monthly income).

[Machismo]

You do realize a lot of jobs require a two week notice of you quitting and if you don't provide it they are allowed to keep your final check and/or bonuses?

Also its clear u don't know what Right to work is.

If you are referring to Union security contracts, I agree with not requiring people to join unions. People should not be forced to unionized, and they should not be obligated to pay dues to a union in which they do not belong. Do you think people should be forced to pay dues if they don't want to be in a union?

- - - Updated - - -

Come back after you look up what Right to Work actually is, because you don't know if that's your response.

I'm aware of what right-to-work statutes are. I do not support forcing people into unions, or forcing them to pay dues into a union against their will. I fully support the existence of unions. I do not support forcing people into them.

- - - Updated - - -

Precisely a reason to have a minimum wage! The free market doesn't really require or allow for all businesses to be pressured by consumer choice into paying their employees a living wage. At least not directly.

That said, one eonomic principle responsoble for wage growth is competition for labor due to a need for increased productivity caused by higher consumption demand. We don't really have that at the moment, so wages stagnate. Corporations are seeing record profits and has enormous stockpiles of cash which could be used to increase productivity by reinvestment in the business, but if you're meeting demand why do that?

There is no reason to have a minimum wage, it can be solved by more responsible and responsive consumers and employees. They simply need to put their money where their mouths are, and boycott companies that do not operate as they see fit.

[pionock]

-snip for space concerns-

1) To address your contention wth my first point, I don't think it's a shit argument. Being underpaid means you're paid less than what you're worth. But when you signed onto a job, you agreed to a certain wage. That wage is what you're worth. No one forced you to take it, there are always options. You can complain about unfair all you want, but it's pointless since you can't seem to come up with a solid number or even standard of what you consider a "living wage." It's all arbitrary because none of you pro raising min. wage people can seem to agree on exactly what that should mean.

2) My contention about your business example with the 5 employees comes from your arbitrary numbers and lack of perspective. And I don't mean your $100, that's fine. But you've just decided that 40% of the revenue should go to the workers. Where does that come from? What if that's not enough given the area where they live? Why do you draw the line at something like 40% of total revenue?

You say that your uncle owned a McD's and you got to see the numbers. One question I forgot to ask earlier is if you ever asked your uncle why didn't he pay his employees more if he could totally afford it? Or did you tell him he's a greedy capitalist pig? Because if, after all the employees, rent, utilities, and other costs were paid off, there's leftover profit, why couldn't he pay them more? There's more to this story than you either know or aren't telling us.

But let's not tear until the big guys because they have corporate backing to possibly help them stay afloat should things go pear shaped. What about the people that go and rent out some building and start a business from scratch? Have you seen their expense reports? Do you have any idea what they possibly make in revenue? If a small business that has maybe 10 or so employees can only afford to pay them $10/hr while still keeping the lights on and able to generate some profit, how is that a shit business model? Small businesses are great for competition because they can offer a better price, more personal service, or are simply more convenient than a larger business. But often, they can't afford to pay what the big boys can because, by virtue of being a small business, they don't bring in the volume the large ones do. That doesn't make them any less successful, and they could also be just starting out.

If you believe employees should be paid more and companies make less profit, how is any business supposed to expand? Or improve their current building? Can they hire more workers?

I'm having trouble understanding your position. If a company can't survive without underpaying its employees, then it's a shit business. How does that make sense in almost any context? Where do you draw the line at how much profit a company is allowed to earn, and does that take into effect slow times of the year? Maybe just slow years? Should the employees pay fluctuate based on how well or poorly the business did?

I can't help but think that trying to force all business owners to pay their workers some arbitrary number relevant to the living costs of each area is a Sisyphean task, or potentially kill almost all smaller businesses and leave nothing but the corporate giants to run everything. No thanks.

[tyrlaan]

If you are referring to Union security contracts, I agree with not requiring people to join unions. People should not be forced to unionized, and they should not be obligated to pay dues to a union in which they do not belong. Do you think people should be forced to pay dues if they don't want to be in a union?

I'm aware of what right-to-work statutes are. I do not support forcing people into unions, or forcing them to pay dues into a union against their will. I fully support the existence of unions. I do not support forcing people into them.

There is no reason to have a minimum wage, it can be solved by more responsible and responsive consumers and employees. They simply need to put their money where their mouths are, and boycott companies that do not operate as they see fit.

And that's what kills unions. The less people that join a union, the less power it has to support its members, and therefore the less reason it has to exist. This should be abundantly clear.

I'm also curious how unions "force" people to pay dues "against their will", and people don't have the power to do anything about it (based on how you worded that), yet you think people do have the power to fix the poor wage problem.

1) To address your contention wth my first point, I don't think it's a shit argument. Being underpaid means you're paid less than what you're worth. But when you signed onto a job, you agreed to a certain wage. That wage is what you're worth. No one forced you to take it, there are always options. You can complain about unfair all you want, but it's pointless since you can't seem to come up with a solid number or even standard of what you consider a "living wage." It's all arbitrary because none of you pro raising min. wage people can seem to agree on exactly what that should mean.

Are we seriously retreading the bogus victim blaming argument? I feel like everyone that touts "there are always options" should live life as a poor person for a few months and not be able to use any of their existing experience to help them find work.

Also a bogus argument - living wage is BS because you can't tell me a dollar amount for living wage. Because clearly 100% of the details need to be fleshed out before people can decide it's something worth doing. That's the way it works.... um... nowhere.

But let's not tear until the big guys because they have corporate backing to possibly help them stay afloat should things go pear shaped. What about the people that go and rent out some building and start a business from scratch? Have you seen their expense reports? Do you have any idea what they possibly make in revenue? If a small business that has maybe 10 or so employees can only afford to pay them $10/hr while still keeping the lights on and able to generate some profit, how is that a shit business model? Small businesses are great for competition because they can offer a better price, more personal service, or are simply more convenient than a larger business. But often, they can't afford to pay what the big boys can because, by virtue of being a small business, they don't bring in the volume the large ones do. That doesn't make them any less successful, and they could also be just starting out.

If they can't pay their employees a living wage, then that would be how it's a shit business model.

If you believe employees should be paid more and companies make less profit, how is any business supposed to expand? Or improve their current building? Can they hire more workers?

You can't possibly be writing this with any sincerity. Unless someone is arguing that all profits must go to the employees, this is just dense or disingenuous.

[Machismo]

And that's what kills unions. The less people that join a union, the less power it has to support its members, and therefore the less reason it has to exist. This should be abundantly clear.

I'm also curious how unions "force" people to pay dues "against their will", and people don't have the power to do anything about it (based on how you worded that), yet you think people do have the power to fix the poor wage problem.



Are we seriously retreading the bogus victim blaming argument? I feel like everyone that touts "there are always options" should live life as a poor person for a few months and not be able to use any of their existing experience to help them find work.

Also a bogus argument - living wage is BS because you can't tell me a dollar amount for living wage. Because clearly 100% of the details need to be fleshed out before people can decide it's something worth doing. That's the way it works.... um... nowhere.



If they can't pay their employees a living wage, then that would be how it's a shit business model.



You can't possibly be writing this with any sincerity. Unless someone is arguing that all profits must go to the employees, this is just dense or disingenuous.

That just means that unions wouldn't survive on their own, which means the demand for them is not high enough. That doesn't make people a victims, forcing them into agreements they don't want to be in makes them victims. In some states, people are obligated to join unions, whether they want to, or not. That is not the case in right-to-work states.

[tyrlaan]

That just means that unions wouldn't survive on their own, which means the demand for them is not high enough. That doesn't make people a victims, forcing them into agreements they don't want to be in makes them victims. In some states, people are obligated to join unions, whether they want to, or not. That is not the case in right-to-work states.

You didn't really address my question though, you just argued against my first comment.

And I understand how Right to Work works. Remember, I brought it up.

[Gorgodeus]

Wow, what an awesome claim that requires you to provide any fucking substantive support or evidence. By golla gee willikers we should all be doing what you did!

I mean, look at all the great information you didn't need to provide.

1. State
2. Location
3. Year
4. Tax Records

Nah, fuck that. All you had to do was say "Blah blah blah, MILLIONS DAWG!"

But hey, let's look at a more important part of your bullshit for a second. "Any competently run business makes more than enough to pay a living wage." Really? Can you prove that at the fuck all? I mean, you're taking a whole mountain load of the world and throwing it into the garbage simply because internet claims.

"ANY" .... "A N Y"? Wait... fuck that "competently" let me punish you for this word for a moment. Care to define what constitutes "competently" in any scope or metric? No no, that's sarcasm because you fucking can't.

For the kids at home, all business is derived from demand not supply. Any business can be "competently" run and still not generate the revenue you're claiming. Anyone who has taken Econ one-oh-fucking-one knows this.

But here, let's for the sake of argument say that you're not full of absolute shit. I mean, it's not like you'll ever have the balls to prove it so why not right?

Let me translate your post into more digestible language.

"I opened a gaming store in 2000, coming off the hype of Pokemon but right before Yugioh busted onto the US market. MtG was still strong as was table top gaming because this is before the wide spread consumption of pc and console gaming (thanks internet.) I opened my doors just a ways out of a major US city and capitalized on internet sales through Ebay. My experience has little to zero fucking connection to today's market and thus is pretty irrelevant. Just thought I'd add my two useless cents."

Ah, here we go with the "where's your proof" bs.

Hate to break it to you, but a competently ran gaming store these days can make more revenue than my store did. You see, I had next to zero internet presence. I made sure my store was listed on all the major game websites' store locators and that is all. I had no internet storefront. 100% of my revenue was from in-store purchases.

If someone owns a business and can't pay a decent wage, they do not belong in business. Period.

[Spectral]

I am a former owner of a game store. The first year the store was opened, it generated over $1 million in gross revenue. By the 3rd year, I was selling over $1 million worth of MtG and Yugioh cards alone per year, with gross revenues of ~ $3 million. Any competently run business makes more than enough to pay a living wage.

What's kinda funny is how stylistically similar this is to the "I did it, why can't those losers do it?" posts that go on in threads telling people with low wages to get an education.