A Republican ideal, work until you die

[rjs330]

It won’t improve. Businesses will cut hours, eliminate jobs and raise prices. The guy who got a raise will see it eroded by price increases and fewer hours on his schedule
Of course everyone else will be paying more too.

You are responding to a lot of statements that want to complain about things but offer no real solutions. We hear a lot about managerial pay and worker pay and CEO pay etc etc. But they haven't actually offered ANY solutions to the issues except "you should pay the workers more and the boss should earn less. It's not fair.".

Little to no thought is out into how this "pay th more" is going to work not just for the company but for everyone. And how are you going to make sure this happens?

 

[BCP1928]

Then what do you want and how do propose to make it happen?

No you are not. Apparently you are struggling here. You do an aweful lot of complaining about this pay issue and then offer absolutely zero ideas on what to do about it. Make a complaint about hierarchies and pay and then say something about how you are not trying to do away with hierarchies, geez man you are all over the place.

Let's make it simple shall we?

McDonalds pays their line staff $15 an hour. The staff gets raises based upon their evaluations. So not all are making exactly the same.

Shift managers make $25 an hour also based on performance and experience

Store managers make $35 an hour etc.

What exactly to you propose to do and how do you propose to make it happen?

Tells us exactly what you want to do about it. That way we can be clear about what you think should be going on and how you make sure it does.

One other financial fact iluvitar should consider while he forms his response: McDonald Corporation's annual gross profit for 2023 was $14.563B, a 10.26% increase from 2022.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, but it still is a choice the individual should make. In particular, there is no reason at all that "work" must be done as an employee. I'm a retired vocational trainer and training designer. I took my retirement as early as possible and now do work for free for non-profit orgs which would not be able to afford my rates. Consequently, since I've retired I have been able to spend months or years at a time on training projects in places like Samoa, Vanuatu, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. I wouldn't have been able to do any of that without the backup of my Social Security. Alternatively I could have been a good citizen, hewing to the "work ethic" and continuing to be employed, but Pooh on that.

I think what you are doing is admirable. I have never stated we shouldn't have social security. I am all for it. I have simply said it's better for us as humans not to retire. And you haven't. We should be doing something. Social Security should NOT be the only thing we depend on. It's not meant and never has been meant to be "retirement".

What you are doing it exactly what should be done. At least until you are no longer capable. We were not meant to retire completely. That's obvious.

I wouldn't be opposed at all to a supplement retirement plan requirement. If all you want is social security then fine you can't retire and collect until you are 75. (Or have a debilitating issue). Otherwise, if you put into a supplemental retirement like a 401K starting at 25 yoa and have a minimum monthly amount then you can retire sooner because you are not solely depending on everyone else to take care of you while you are still healthy and able.

 

[BCP1928]

I think what you are doing is admirable. I have never stated we shouldn't have social security. I am all for it. I have simply said it's better for us as humans not to retire. And you haven't. We should be doing something. Social Security should NOT be the only thing we depend on. It's not meant and never has been meant to be "retirement".

Why not? My wife and I live on it. Other funds we have saved are in place for special fun things or emergencies.

What you are doing it exactly what should be done. At least until you are no longer capable. We were not meant to retire completely. That's obvious.

I wouldn't be opposed at all to a supplement retirement plan requirement. If all you want is social security then fine you can't retire and collect until you are 75. (Or have a debilitating issue). Otherwise, if you put into a supplemental retirement like a 401K starting at 25 yoa and have a minimum monthly amount then you can retire sooner because you are not solely depending on everyone else to take care of you while you are still healthy and able.

What's the point? Is raising the retirement age supposed to save money? If so there are other solutions. Or is it to force people to continue to be employees until a later age (unless they have made lifestyle choices you approve of?) You are really beginning to sound like a Social Darwinist.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Then what do you want and how do propose to make it happen?

If I'd wanted to propose anything, I would have done so.

No you are not. Apparently you are struggling here. You do an aweful lot of complaining about this pay issue and then offer absolutely zero ideas on what to do about it.

No, I was responding to a single comment by another poster, which then spawned some subsequent comments. You apparently are reading a bunch of things into my comments that weren't there, expecting me to have been making some kind of points that I wasn't.

Make a complaint about hierarchies and pay and then say something about how you are not trying to do away with hierarchies, geez man you are all over the place.

Perhaps if you'd read my comments a little more closely, you'd have noticed that I made a distinction (on more than one occasion IIRC) between pay grades within a single organization and pay hierarchies across multiple organizations. And I said that I was perfectly fine with there being pay bands within an organization. The comment to which I responded that kicked off this whole thing suggested that it was important to maintain pay hierarchies ACROSS MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS. THE GUY WHO HAD "WORKED FOR 20 YEARS" WAS NOT WORKING AT MCDONALDS.

Is that clearer now?

Let's make it simple shall we?

McDonalds pays their line staff $15 an hour. The staff gets raises based upon their evaluations. So not all are making exactly the same.

Shift managers make $25 an hour also based on performance and experience

Store managers make $35 an hour etc.

What exactly to you propose to do and how do you propose to make it happen?

Tells us exactly what you want to do about it. That way we can be clear about what you think should be going on and how you make sure it does.

Other than the fact that I think that's hideously low for anybody with "manager" in their title, I don't propose doing anything about it. And, as I hope I've made clear now, it's not germane to my earlier comments.

 

[rjs330]

There is no comparison. The CEO of Boeing was just fired for incompetence. Do you want to compare his severance package to the severance package an incompetent local department store manager is likely to get?

Thank you for makingy point. They are not comparable in the least. Are you complaining over the severance package? Are just making a statement? Are you saying he shouldn't have gotten a severance package or are you just pointing out they are different?

 

[BPPLEE]

You are responding to a lot of statements that want to complain about things but offer no real solutions. We hear a lot about managerial pay and worker pay and CEO pay etc etc. But they haven't actually offered ANY solutions to the issues except "you should pay the workers more and the boss should earn less. It's not fair.".

Little to no thought is out into how this "pay th more" is going to work not just for the company but for everyone. And how are you going to make sure this happens?

Some people don’t care. It just makes them feel better think the poor people got raises and something was done. It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t help

 

[rjs330]

Why not? My wife and I live on it. Other funds we have saved are in place for special fun things or emergencies.

Just because you have doesn't mean others have or can. Haven't you heard all the complaints about it not being enough?

What's the point? Is raising the retirement age supposed to save money? If so there are other solutions. Or is it to force people to continue to be employees until a later age (unless they have made lifestyle choices you approve of?) You are really beginning to sound like a Social Darwinist.

Yes it will save money. We shouldn't be depending on our fellow citizens to support us completely. We should have some responsibility to support our selves if we are able. It's the same principal for every government hand out.

What's wrong with that? Why should you tell everyone else they have to take care of you?

 

[BCP1928]

Thank you for makingy point. They are not comparable in the least. Are you complaining over the severance package? Are just making a statement? Are you saying he shouldn't have gotten a severance package or are you just pointing out they are different?

Generally speaking, the incompetent manager of a local department store wouldn't get anything but the boot--and doesn't deserve anything more. Neither does Calhoun but he will get at least $24 million, plus stock options.

 

[BCP1928]

Just because you have doesn't mean others have or can. Haven't you heard all the complaints about it not being enough?

No, the complaints in this forum are not about how much the payment is, but when you can start collecting it.

Yes it will save money. We shouldn't be depending on our fellow citizens to support us completely. We should have some responsibility to support our selves if we are able. It's the same principal for every government hand out.

What's wrong with that? Why should you tell everyone else they have to take care of you?

Because it's an insurance policy I paid into all my working life, not a welfare handout.

 

[BCP1928]

Some people don’t care. It just makes them feel better think the poor people got raises and something was done. It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t help

It helps poor working people, and the people just above them in the hierarchy and several tiers above that.

 

[RDKirk]

I think what you are doing is admirable. I have never stated we shouldn't have social security. I am all for it. I have simply said it's better for us as humans not to retire. And you haven't. We should be doing something. Social Security should NOT be the only thing we depend on. It's not meant and never has been meant to be "retirement".

What you are doing it exactly what should be done. At least until you are no longer capable. We were not meant to retire completely. That's obvious.

As I was retiring, that was counseling I actually gave to my younger director. I advised him to start preparing a decade out for what he'd do to keep himself useful in retirement. However...that's not saying that anyone will be able to work at something businesses will find worth paying a salary to do.

I wouldn't be opposed at all to a supplement retirement plan requirement. If all you want is social security then fine you can't retire and collect until you are 75. (Or have a debilitating issue). Otherwise, if you put into a supplemental retirement like a 401K starting at 25 yoa and have a minimum monthly amount then you can retire sooner because you are not solely depending on everyone else to take care of you while you are still healthy and able.

Sounds like something said by someone less than 70 years old. Those are the old people you see tottering around the MacDonald's fryer. If they're lucky, they're in Home Depot.

 

[BPPLEE]

It helps poor working people, and the people just above them in the hierarchy and several tiers above that.

How does it help the people above them?
And I think $12.50 may be possible, it’s still going to cause some of the problems I mentioned but I would not oppose it, but $20 an hour for a minimum wage is not realistic

 

[AlexB23]

How does it help the people above them?
And I think $12.50 may be possible, it’s still going to cause some of the problems I mentioned but I would not oppose it, but $20 an hour for a minimum wage is not realistic

A good compromise would be $12.50-15.00 an hour, and putting profit caps on corporations, limiting maximum profits to <25% above normal operating costs, so products can be cheaper. Some healthcare companies have profit margins in the 50% range, such as with Pfizer.

Pfizer profit margins: https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/PFE/financials/annual/income-statement

 

[BCP1928]

How does it help the people above them?
And I think $12.50 may be possible, it’s still going to cause some of the problems I mentioned but I would not oppose it, but $20 an hour for a minimum wage is not realistic

Once again, because we're not talking just about a minimum wage as a magic bullet.

 

[BPPLEE]

Once again, because we're not talking just about a minimum wage as a magic bullet.

If you’re going to do other things that you talked about yes, but I haven’t heard anyone proposing anything like that

 

[BCP1928]

If you’re going to do other things that you talked about yes, but I haven’t heard anyone proposing anything like that

There have been several other related proposals, (what has worked in this country in the past, what is working in other modern industrial countries now) but they have been drowned out by what is apparently the real argument here: whether working people "deserve" it or not.

 

[NxNW]

Your head is in the past. That waiter won't get past the bank's HR department these days.

There's never any shortage of people telling you what you can't do. A determined applicant might have to silly to several, but it can be done. Tellers are the bottom of the financial food chain, so banks aren't all that picky.

 

[RDKirk]

There's never any shortage of people telling you what you can't do. A determined applicant might have to silly to several, but it can be done. Tellers are the bottom of the financial food chain, so banks aren't all that picky.

I'm going to go back for a moment to your first premise.

A person serving tables does not need to know how to count money. Your head is still in the past.

 

[NxNW]

I'm going to go back for a moment to your first premise.

A person serving tables does not need to know how to count money. Your head is still in the past.

A person who handles cash learns how to count it.