What should jobs pay?

[Zippyjuan]

Just some thoughts I came up with while replying to another post in this section. Decided to have a discussion separate from it.

I hear conflicting ideas about jobs. First, that we don't want a minimum wage. That will lower labor costs for employers and mean lower priced goods. Companies will be able to hire more workers. "Living wages" is a bad idea.

On the other hand, we need more well-paying jobs so people can "make a living". Living wages are good. High wage jobs tend to be union jobs or government jobs but we don't want unions or government workers- they are bad.

Unemployment is too high- people have given up on looking for work. Well, some have given up because they are unable to find a job which pays the income level they were accustomed to. If you worked for the same company for ten or 20 years, you earned seniority and higher pay and benefits. If you can find a similar job in the same industry, they are going to start you out at entry level pay- not senior pay. "Well, I got $xxx at my old job- no way am I taking this one."

Jobs HAVE been getting created- we now have more jobs than we did in 2007- granted still not enough but things have been improving on that front. "But they don't pay enough". "But we need more low wage jobs so employers can hire more people and more people can find work". But people aren't as willing to take a lower paying job so they instead drop out of the labor market. Things contradict each other.

We want low paying jobs for people making the things we buy so we can get them cheaply but we don't want lower paying jobs for ourselves. Hence the conflict. Getting rid of the minimum wage is fine if we aren't in a minimum wage position. If you ARE in a minimum wage job, you would definately like an increase in minimum wage.

Comments?

 

[acptulsa]

What should jobs pay?

Silver.

No more 'hidden' wage cuts due to inflation. No more soft currency adding problems to the market. No more wealth being robbed from people's savings so they can't buy what they need and want. No more economy-killing wars we couldn't afford any other way, and which benefit only the oil companies, the MIC and the Fed.

Problem solved.

 

[Zippyjuan]

How does changing the kind of money companies use increase or decrease wages or jobs? Wars? The biggest wars we ever fought were done under metal standards. The Great Depression was under a metal standard. Our highest unemployment rates happened under a metal standard.

 

[acptulsa]

How does changing the kind of money companies use increase or decrease wages or jobs? Wars? The biggest wars we ever fought were done under metal standards. The Great Depression was under a metal standard. Our highest unemployment rates happened under a metal standard.

It doesn't increase or decrease wages. That's the point. Fiat money does. The biggest wars we fought in were both since 1913, and so was the Great Depression. As were our highest unemployment rates.

This is all review. Didn't the old Zippy fill you in and bring you up to speed before you took over his account?

 

[Zippyjuan]

And we were on a gold standard when they happened. Exactly my point. So a silver standard would work better than a gold standard?

(Unemployment data wasn't really tracked before 1920 so it is hard to compare anything before then).

 

[VIDEODROME]

Well, how about Labor Unions. Have they been stifled to much from helping workers try to organize and negotiate for better pay?

 

[acptulsa]

And we were on a gold standard when they happened. Exactly my point. So a silver standard would work better than a gold standard?

What are you saying happened before 1913?

(Unemployment data wasn't really tracked before 1920 so it is hard to compare anything before then).

So why are you pretending to speak authoritatively about the unemployment rate before 1913?

Seriously, it isn't our job to break in new trolls. Bring the original Zippy back, make him bring you up to speed, or go troll someone else.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Unions were fairly effective, once established, to control their industries with protections from competition domestically (particularly manufacturing) and even non- union competitors offered union- type pay and benefits to attract quality workers but as international trade grew, they faced more competition from low wage countries like Japan in the 1980's and more recently China and other Asian countries. It meant lower priced goods for us but also meant losing those desired "high paying jobs".

 

[Zippyjuan]

What are you saying happened before 1913?



So why are you pretending to speak authoritatively about the unemployment rate before 1913?

Seriously, it isn't our job to break in new trolls. Bring the original Zippy back, make him bring you up to speed, or go troll someone else.

I said nothing about before 1913 so no, I was not "pretending to be an expert" on unemployment at that time but estimates do list unemployment in the 1890's as being over 18%. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p1-05.pdf

Perhaps you have some data on the issue you can share with us? Thanks!

Metal standards have not allowed any country to avoid economic problems. They have occurred no matter what has been used for money.

So what about jobs? What are your thoughts on that?

 

[acptulsa]

I said nothing about before 1913 so no, I was not "pretending to be an expert" on unemployment at that time but estimates do list unemployment in the 1890's as being over 18%.

A guesstimate. Gee. The old Zippy would actually delve into whether they used the old methodology for determining how many people are out of work or the modern methodology. If you count women, the way they do today, it would be a hell of a lot higher than 18%.

Even so, there was high unemployment in 1893--for a year or so. Since we had solid currency, however, no one could jack with the interest rates and kill the recovery, so by 1895 that was over. Otherwise, the decade would never have come to be known as 'The Gay Nineties'.

Your deplorable lack of grasp on history and on methodologies makes you a poor imitation of the original Zippy, by the way. I think we deserve better trolls. But, you know what they say, close enough for government work I guess...

 

[Zippyjuan]

Please share your expertise on the job situation with us. Thanks for your input on the thread topic.

What happened with interest rates back then since "no one could jack" with them as you say?

List of recessions and depressions in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Did metal standards prevent them?

 

[Zippyjuan]

But we are getting far off topic. This was intended to be a discussion about jobs and wages.

Enough with the personal stuff though and more information please. It doesn't bother me but it does detract from having a discussion.

 

[acptulsa]

Thanks for your input on the thread topic.

You're so welcome.

And you might convince someone you're the old Zippy--maybe--if you learned to use a U when you type 'labor'...

 

[dannno]

The minimum wage decreases production, output and standard of living for everybody.

The nominal bullshit is all details, what you want is increased standard of living and people on the bottom will live better.

 

[Zippyjuan]

So if we lower wages- particularly the minimum wage, the standard of living will improve? Especially for those at the bottom (who are more likely to be minimum wage workers)? This is one of those conflicts I want to look at. The economy has been expanding low wage jobs the most (helping those at the bottom the most) since the recession started so we must be getting better off, yes? Increasing our standard of living?

(and thank you for returning to the topic!)

 

[tod evans]

What should jobs pay?

Americans have already answered that question with a resounding "as little as possible"...

That is so long as the job they're employed in continues to be lucrative...

We're reaping the fruits of the offshoring labor debacle now, just wait until government work and healthcare is outsourced.......

 

[VIDEODROME]

Zippy what about Incentive Bonuses instead of just raising the base wage? It seems to me that the idea of bonuses has fallen away in many jobs.

From my personal experience, I had job that started with yearly Christmas bonuses and then suddenly that was gone. I think part of that was from the Private company becoming Public. From what I could tell, if we had a good productive year, the money we used to get as bonuses then went to the stock holders.

Does that mean we need to encourage low earners and employers to come together to help people workers hold stocks? I think even Walmart actually has a stock program like this, but it's hard to say how many employees have an investment mindset or would even know what to do with their stock.

 

[acptulsa]

(and thank you for returning to the topic!)

LOL the government can't even be bothered to provide us with a Nixonesque non-denial denial these days?

Sweet.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Zippy what about Incentive Bonuses instead of just raising the base wage? It seems to me that the idea of bonuses has fallen away in many jobs.

From my personal experience, I had job that started with yearly Christmas bonuses and then suddenly that was gone. I think part of that was from the Private company becoming Public. From what I could tell, if we had a good productive year, the money we used to get as bonuses then went to the stock holders.

Does that mean we need to encourage low earners and employers to come together to help people workers hold stocks? I think even Walmart actually has a stock program like this, but it's hard to say how many employees have an investment mindset or would even know what to do with their stock.

You do raise a valid point. Worker productivity has risen but wages have not kept pace with that productivity. More and more has gone to stock holders and the executives- who have been getting record compensation. People have not shared the benefits of their improved output.

With the way the economy is currently structured, the most important thing for a company is their latest quarterly report- to satisfy the shareholders. They expect increasing profits every quarter. Management often has their own bonuses tied to that stock price so they too want to cut costs. The best way a company can do that is to raise prices or cut back on labor costs (wager or hours or both). That means people get paid less and have to spend more for the same goods. If you got rid of quarterly reports, then perhaps a company would theoretically focus more on long term growth of the company.

My company is in the process of being sold (I am just an employee- not any sort of owner or management) and will be private. I hope it is to focus on the long term growth of the company and not just to try to chop it up smaller to try to resell it for more profit. But we will see.

 

[acptulsa]

If you got rid of quarterly reports, then perhaps a company would focus more on long term growth of the company.

Get rid of quarterly reports? Come on. You of all people know the government won't let anyone do less paperwork.

Besides, aren't quarterly dividends, not reports, what causes that stress?