A Republican ideal, work until you die

[BCP1928]

That isn't necessarily true.



So? Do you have some vested interest in maintaining some hierarchy or pay strata?

I don't think it's good that a company pays an employee with that much tenure that little, but that's not a good reason to keep the floor even lower, to allow that guy to be beating somebody. If anything, the increased minimum should be a wakeup call to both the 20yr employee and his employer that his wages ought to be rising, too.

I saw an interview on the news (which unfortunately I can't link to) about California's minimum wage for fast food workers. The respondent complained that the new law would raise food prices, impact raises for management and might even cut into profits! I wish I could show it to you, it really was the laugh of the day.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So? Do you have some vested interest in maintaining some hierarchy or pay strata?

I think most organizations have a vested interest in some form of hierarchy (to some degree or another).

Even unionized labor forces have certain tiers of pay and min/max (overlapping) pay ranges that are somewhat linked to tenure.

I think part of the reason that's done is to attempt to strike a balance between meritocratic and retention aspects.

On one hand, even for a "middle of the road" employees, there's still some value in them getting a pay bump after a certain amount of time simply due to the reality that nobody likes the idea of "the new guy is making as much as me", and speaking from experience, there's no way of explaining that to a staff member that's going to sit well with them.

On the other hand, a younger/newer employee who can see that they're objectively better than the guy who's been there for 10 years isn't going to stick around for very long if they realize that their earnings potential is being hamstrung by not being allowed to make more than the other person.

...so it is a bit of a delicate tightrope to walk in that regard between skill and tenure.

Appealing to tenure is basically a lever management can pull to allow "lesser skilled" employees (for lack of a better) to have something that puts them above someone else in some sort of category (even if that category isn't talent), and to have some monetary benefit linked to that.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think most organizations have a vested interest in some form of hierarchy (to some degree or another).

Within an organization, sure. I understood the other poster's comments to be supporting strata across organizations, e.g. now that minimum wage is going up, Dwight at Dunder Mifflin is making no more than the kid at McD's.

 

[BPPLEE]

That isn't necessarily true.



So? Do you have some vested interest in maintaining some hierarchy or pay strata?

I don't think it's good that a company pays an employee with that much tenure that little, but that's not a good reason to keep the floor even lower, to allow that guy to be beating somebody. If anything, the increased minimum should be a wakeup call to both the 20yr employee and his employer that his wages ought to be rising, too.

Prices go up and the people in the middle don’t get raises.
I worked for a wholesale company when the minimum wage went up.
Prices started going up before it even went into effect

 

[BCP1928]

I think most organizations have a vested interest in some form of hierarchy (to some degree or another).

Even unionized labor forces have certain tiers of pay and min/max (overlapping) pay ranges that are somewhat linked to tenure.

I think part of the reason that's done is to attempt to strike a balance between meritocratic and retention aspects.

On one hand, even for a "middle of the road" employees, there's still some value in them getting a pay bump after a certain amount of time simply due to the reality that nobody likes the idea of "the new guy is making as much as me", and speaking from experience, there's no way of explaining that to a staff member that's going to sit well with them.

On the other hand, a younger/newer employee who can see that they're objectively better than the guy who's been there for 10 years isn't going to stick around for very long if they realize that their earnings potential is being hamstrung by not being allowed to make more than the other person.

...so it is a bit of a delicate tightrope to walk in that regard between skill and tenure.

Appealing to tenure is basically a lever management can pull to allow "lesser skilled" employees (for lack of a better) to have something that puts them above someone else in some sort of category (even if that category isn't talent), and to have some monetary benefit linked to that.

Right, and none of that needs to change. There'll always be an income gradient, it just doesn't need to be as steep as it is across the board. There is no good economic reason that the GINI coefficient in the US is 44% while in most of the rest of world's modern economies it's down in the 20a.

 

[BCP1928]

Prices go up and the people in the middle don’t get raises.

Why not? The people at the top still get raises.

I worked for a wholesale company when the minimum wage went up.
Prices started going up before it even went into effect

And the companies blamed the minimum wage laws, and increased their profit anyway.

 

[BPPLEE]

Why not? The people at the top still get raises.

And the companies blamed the minimum wage laws, and increased their profit anyway.

Of course. We end up paying for it

 

[rjs330]

So? Do you have some vested interest in maintaining some hierarchy or pay strata?

Where is all this money going to come from?

Are you telling us that there shouldn't be any pay hierarchy or pay strata?

 

[BCP1928]

Where is all this money going to come from?

Are you telling us that there shouldn't be any pay hierarchy or pay strata?

No, and I specifically explained that several times already, even provided some numbers.

 

[rjs330]

No, and I specifically explained that several times already, even provided some numbers.

I was addressing a different poster.

The GINI should not be a measuring stick. The reason being it does not address ANY reasons for any income inequality. Nor does it measure the values associated with various societies and groups. For example in many of your European systems they are VERY nationalistic. Their systems are meant only for the citizens of the countries. They also expect their citizens to participate in work in order to support the system. Many of them do not allow you to be unemployed and will force you to work by finding you a job somewhere. Your neighbors will not appreciate you if you are not working. And if you continue on that pathway you will be barely surviving.

They also don't have everyone going to College and taking whatever they want.

They don't have everyone going to the doctor for every little ache and pain.

GINI is not an accurate measurement of work ethic. Either for the wealthy OR the poor.

Lack of innovation is also a problem in some of these places because their is no incentive for doing so. So many of the innovations we have today have come from people who work in a very capitalist society.

Are their things wrong with our society in the US? Absolutely. Corporate welfare is out of control. The medical system is a mess. I'm not saying it couldn't be better, but to use something like the GINI as the measuring stick is extremely short sighted and does not take into consideration a LOT of other factors.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Where is all this money going to come from?

Same place all the rest of the wage money comes from: corporate revenues.

Are you telling us that there shouldn't be any pay hierarchy or pay strata?

If I’d wanted to make that argument, I would have. But if you’d care to explain why we should enforce pay hierarchies across businesses, I’m all ears.

 

[rjs330]

Same place all the rest of the wage money comes from: corporate revenues.

And where does corporate revenue come from?

 

[rjs330]

I’d wanted to make that argument, I would have. But if you’d care to explain why we should enforce pay hierarchies across businesses, I’m all ears.

You don't think pay should be commensurate with responsibility?

 

[Ana the Ist]

MSN

Honestly that is what this opinion piece advocates. No retirement. Not no mandatory retirement, which I'm OK with. No retirement at all.

Here is my proposal for their official theme song!

I don't think Ben Shapiro is "the Republican Party"...and this opinion piece comes off as disingenuous garbage. Shapiro seems to be talking about the tendency of retirement to shorten lives (its a fact that the two are correlated)

Links Between Early Retirement and Mortality

Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis

www.ssa.gov

Whether or not he understands it, or if he was even being serious about raising the retirement age...I don't care. It's a sad hit piece in a desperate year for Democrats.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm very sorry you think that. There are MANY MANY individuals who do not have the skills to do other work and are trapped doing that job.

Regardless, who CARES if it's not life long? Because it's not a lifelong job, you think people doing that job deserve to live in destitution while thye are performing that job?

Besides, as bad as wages are for some:
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1225957874

Well I suppose one solution would be flooding the market with cheap illegal labor. That's going to drive wages up....I'm sure of it lol.

 

[rjs330]

I don't think Ben Shapiro is "the Republican Party"...and this opinion piece comes off as disingenuous garbage. Shapiro seems to be talking about the tendency of retirement to shorten lives (its a fact that the two are correlated)

Links Between Early Retirement and Mortality

Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis

www.ssa.gov

Whether or not he understands it, or if he was even being serious about raising the retirement age...I don't care. It's a sad hit piece in a desperate year for Democrats.

I think Shapiro meant what he said. I think he's right. We should be working until.we die.
IF we can. There are a lot of obstacles to that for a lot of folks. Shapiro is still a young guy and he's in a profession where he could work until he dies. But a lot of us don't have that ability. I don't think we humans were meant to actually retire. When I say retire I mean cease working at all. We need to be challenged, to feel we are contributing and that we are a part of something. That's why so many people die shortly after retirement. They have little to live for.

I know there are circumstances such as illness, physical disabilities and even mental disabilities that can come with age and create a circumstance where we cannot work anymore. But if we are healthy enough we should be working fo our own sake. I don't necessarily mean 40 hours a week at back breaking labor. But part time work can add an important piece to our lives and help us feel we are still a part of things and participating in life.

I'm am going to be retiring from my job in a few years. Probably putting in 40 years in the same profession. But I don't plan on sitting around. I am going to do something else at least part time. I'll earn a few bucks and still be active enough and feel I am still contributing.

The other thing that gets missed is this societies lack of willingness.to hire older workers. I know some jobs need younger hands, but there are plenty out there that don't. Our society doesn't respect age as much as it should. They would rather shuffle them off into retirement social security than have them stay relevant.

It's better if we older folks are working if we are able. And the type job may depend on our ability to do it. Not all older people, just like younger people are the same.

 

[JustOneWay]

I don't think we humans were meant to actually retire.

Everybody retires.

When I say retire I mean cease working at all. We need to be challenged, to feel we are contributing and that we are a part of something. That's why so many people die shortly after retirement. They have little to live for.

Retiring is a choice, and just because one retires does not mean that a retiree sits around watching television waiting to die. One can keep busy without punching a time clock.

I'm am going to be retiring from my job in a few years.

Chock full of inconsistency here? What will you have to live for?

The entire point of the thread is that republicans are making it harder for people to choose when they want to retire, and not justifying whether retirement is something humans should do as a means to support allowing the retirement age to be delayed by republicans.

 

[iluvatar5150]

And where does corporate revenue come from?

Customers

You don't think pay should be commensurate with responsibility?

That would be nice, but that ship sailed a long time ago, otherwise investment bankers and FAANG software bro’s wouldn’t be making as much as surgeons or 10x as much as teachers.

But as long as we enforce that hierarchy on poor people, right?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You don't think pay should be commensurate with responsibility?

That would be nice, but that ship sailed a long time ago, otherwise investment bankers and FAANG software bro’s wouldn’t be making as much as surgeons or 10x as much as teachers.

But as long as we enforce that hierarchy on poor people, right?

Ultimately, I think it has to be some combination of responsibilities, rarity of the skill required to do the specific job, and tenure.
(overlaid with a modest layer of worker protections and the ability to do some form of collective bargaining in certain sectors)

...while still understanding realistic aspect of human nature that causes people to want to be viewed as "higher" in the social hierarchy.

I think both extremes have been shown to not have a long shelf-life.

Having a bunch of poor people line up in front of the plant and having the boss come out and pick the 20 guys he wants to allow to work that day while everyone else heads home didn't prove to be a very good model, you eventually end up discontent and worker uprisings.

Having high levels of guaranteed social equity and social security also comes with pitfalls that need to be accounted for. Leader of the Danish Moderate party (and former Danish PM) Lars Rasmussen said, in a speech he gave at Harvard, that his party was seeking certain reforms specifically because in a nation when so many things are guaranteed, it can be difficult to incentivize work/sacrifice and encourage personal progress in a career field.

It doesn't have to be as extreme as the common trope of "well everyone will just sit at home on welfare". I think the "comfort gap" between not working at all, and working, is still large enough to incentive the latter.

I think was Rasmussen was suggesting there is that in a (hypothetical) environment where, let's say, the worst software developer makes $65k, the best one makes $85k, and the department head makes $105k...combined with a high level of social security and taxation, there's not a huge incentive to want to advance for a lot of people. So you run the risk of having, what would be, your best people (who'd otherwise be incentivized by more money and perhaps innovate or develop something great) becoming complacent with "phoning it in" and doing the minimum if there's not going to be a massive fiscal benefit and/or "perceived elevated status" to advancing.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Ultimately, I think it has to be some combination of responsibilities, rarity of the skill required to do the specific job, and tenure.

Even that is extremely generalized. Profitability and scalability of the business are huge factors that have almost nothing to do with the characteristics of the workers. A noob CS grad can walk out of Stanford or MIT into a FAANG and immediately be making as much as a pediatrician and within a few years be out-earning most surgeons. That's not because there are fewer programmers, or that programming is harder than surgery, or that it requires more responsibility. That's not remotely true. It's because the guy working at Netflix can impact 260 million customers at a time, whereas a doctor is limited to one.

Even within a single organization, there can be wide discrepancies. It's not uncommon, for example, for management to try to depress wages of existing employees while offering higher sums to new employees.

...while still understanding realistic aspect of human nature that causes people to want to be viewed as "higher" in the social hierarchy.

I understand the inclination towards that, but I think it's important to point out and condemn, especially when it's predominantly used to keep others down rather than lifting them up.

I think was Rasmussen was suggesting there is that in a (hypothetical) environment where, let's say, the worst software developer makes $65k, the best one makes $85k, and the department head makes $105k...combined with a high level of social security and taxation, there's not a huge incentive to want advance for a lot of people. So you run the risk of having your best people (who'd otherwise be incentivized by more money) becoming complacent with "phoning it in" and doing the minimum if there's not going to be a massive benefit to advancing.

I understand that logic, but I think it misses a lot of other factors that motivate people. It also assumes that money really does correlate to skill, which is an extremely tenuous correlation at best. I look at my own industry, in my own field, and see who's doing the best work vs who's paying the most and... it's kind of obvious that some places are using their reputation as leverage to get away with paying less. In town here, Johns Hopkins is known for that, too.