Some Americans Willing to Work for 25 cents/Hour

[Cute Tink]

If employers in our system were simply bent on paying employees as little as possible (minimum wage) and competition is not a factor at all (as implied above), then why are fast food employers paying above minimum wage in my area where fast food places are everywhere? Taco Bell was hiring around $9 an hour when minimum wage doesn't compel that.

 

[Paulos23]

I think you're missing out on what exactly Mechanical Turk is. Go check it out on Amazon's website. http://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome

Ah, that explans a lot. Ya, this is not a good representation of what people will work for. There is a lot of jobs there for under 25 cents to free. Not many that are over $1 per hour.

 

[Harpuia]

Anyone who tries to get a programmer at minumum wage or even 2 to 3 times minimum wage is asking for trouble. At best they will get a somewhat competent and poorly motivated employee. In a job where 1 bad keystroke can destroy things minimum wage employees are a very poor idea.

Heck, I know a guy who runs a landscaping and general fix up company, he doesn't have a single guy working for him at minimum wage. The minimum is about 1 1/2 times that.

Programmers/engineers are non-union. So they try to take advantage of their lack of bargaining skills. Since there aren't many jobs around here that pay that well, most just go to a place like Robert Half and take whatever they can. The pay of many of their jobs currently range anywhere from $8.50-$18/hr. There are some salaried jobs in the $40k range but they require 50+ hour work weeks.

So yeah, it hasn't been a great ride, so to speak. CEOs of smaller companies can hire them for quarters on the dollar because of the employee's lack of bargaining skills, desperation in troubled times, and the lack of respect CEOs seem to place on engineers/programmers... at least around here.

 

[contango]

So yeah, it hasn't been a great ride, so to speak. CEOs of smaller companies can hire them for quarters on the dollar because of the employee's lack of bargaining skills, desperation in troubled times, and the lack of respect CEOs seem to place on engineers/programmers... at least around here.

Yep, and when your IT guy is hacked off with what you pay him, you find things don't work too well. It's remarkable how quickly things can start to run down when routine maintenance isn't done well.

Ultimately if someone is desperate for a few bucks why is that anyone else's problem?

 

[SithDoughnut]

If employers in our system were simply bent on paying employees as little as possible (minimum wage) and competition is not a factor at all (as implied above), then why are fast food employers paying above minimum wage in my area where fast food places are everywhere? Taco Bell was hiring around $9 an hour when minimum wage doesn't compel that.

Because competition is potentially a factor where you are, or they are trying to get rid of the common view that fast food and similar jobs are for part-time work and those temporarily working before they find something better. Are they stressing long-term career benefits by any chance?

Competition can be a factor and sometimes the market value of labour is above minimum wage. However, in most places it isn't. All the fast food places both where I live here in Japan and where I live in the UK are paying exactly the minimum wage.

 

[Harpuia]

Yep, and when your IT guy is hacked off with what you pay him, you find things don't work too well. It's remarkable how quickly things can start to run down when routine maintenance isn't done well.

Ultimately if someone is desperate for a few bucks why is that anyone else's problem?

Someone? Try almost everyone I know...

It's why these companies never post expected salaries. They always ask the programmer what salary they think they should get. Usually out here, the lowest bid wins, regardless of qualifications.

 

[contango]

Someone? Try almost everyone I know...

So why is that anyone else's problem?

It's why these companies never post expected salaries. They always ask the programmer what salary they think they should get. Usually out here, the lowest bid wins, regardless of qualifications.

I'm sure that's reflected in the quality of the work sooner or later.

For the record it's not just your area where salaries aren't posted. Some places will pay what it takes to get the right person, others want to pit one against another to try and get the cost down a bit. The latter approach is short-sighted because it usually results in demotivated staff and/or high staff turnover.

What gets me is all the complaints when companies use the fact it's a buyer's market to push salaries down but you don't hear people complaining when it's a seller's market and they use the leverage they have to push their own salaries up.

 

[BondiHarry]

Part of the problem with wages is that in the name of separation of church and state God's word is being driven out of the schools so kids are not being properly raised up understanding who God is and what their duties are to Him and to their fellow man. As a result for many businesses the goal is to maximize profit in a carnal manner which does lead to an effort to minimize compensation to employees. If businessmen understood that it is God who enables them to acquire wealth (Deuteronomy 8:18) and that by doing God's will in fairly compensating their employees and looking to provide for the least among us they will actually realize good profits. Chick Fil A restaurants are a good example as they are closed on Sundays allowing their employees to attend church if they choose to. This in man's logic should put Chick Fil A at a competitive disadvantage compared to those food places that are open every day yet it doesn't.

 

[Harpuia]

So why is that anyone else's problem?



I'm sure that's reflected in the quality of the work sooner or later.

And then the worker gets fired if he messes up.

For the record it's not just your area where salaries aren't posted. Some places will pay what it takes to get the right person, others want to pit one against another to try and get the cost down a bit. The latter approach is short-sighted because it usually results in demotivated staff and/or high staff turnover.

I'd like you to try to convince 90-98% of the small businesses in this town of that, and maybe we'd be a little better off.

What gets me is all the complaints when companies use the fact it's a buyer's market to push salaries down but you don't hear people complaining when it's a seller's market and they use the leverage they have to push their own salaries up.

I don't know if there'll ever be a seller's market in my lifetime. Most economists are saying my generation will almost assuredly be worse off than yours due to low savings rates and the lowest real wages in quite a while.

Part of the problem with wages is that in the name of separation of church and state God's word is being driven out of the schools so kids are not being properly raised up understanding who God is and what their duties are to Him and to their fellow man. As a result for many businesses the goal is to maximize profit in a carnal manner which does lead to an effort to minimize compensation to employees.

Wait wait, you are saying that maximizing profits are NOT Christian ideals? Could've fooled me. Between the neocons of the Bush era and the conservatives of the current era, I'd have erred to think there was a Bible verse I had forgotten that read that Jesus only blesses the top 1% economically of a country.

If businessmen understood that it is God who enables them to acquire wealth (Deuteronomy 8:18) and that by doing God's will in fairly compensating their employees and looking to provide for the least among us they will actually realize good profits.

Maybe I should read the Bible a little more, admittedly...

Chick Fil A restaurants are a good example as they are closed on Sundays allowing their employees to attend church if they choose to. This in man's logic should put Chick Fil A at a competitive disadvantage compared to those food places that are open every day yet it doesn't.

One thing you might like about Las Vegas are the Bible verses that are in the bottom of drinks and fries of every In N Out Burger establishment here. I'm sure some of the religious here would explain that's why In N Out's quality is so much better... well, that and also they pay $2/hr. more for a fry cook.

Then there's others that argue that it makes little difference in the productivity between a Walmart worker and a Costco worker even though the Costco worker gets paid almost twice as much for the same work.

 

[contango]

And then the worker gets fired if he messes up.

There's a difference between messing up and doing the bare minimum required. A happy worker is more likely to go the extra mile or take extra steps to deliver a better product. A worker who hates his boss is unlikely to do those things, so they'll do what is required and nothing more.

I'd like you to try to convince 90-98% of the small businesses in this town of that, and maybe we'd be a little better off.

Why not convince them of it yourself?

I don't know if there'll ever be a seller's market in my lifetime. Most economists are saying my generation will almost assuredly be worse off than yours due to low savings rates and the lowest real wages in quite a while.

"your generation" vs "my generation"? Do you even know what age I am, or what skill set I have?

Things move in cycles, and different markets move in different phases. Rest assured that for all it's very much a buyer's market now things can change very fast.

Of course if you don't like any of the local businesses as employers you're always free to start your own business to compete against them. Then you can pay your staff whatever you want. But most people would rather not deal with the hassle, the paperwork, the uncertainty. They want Someone Else to deal with the uncertainty and guarantee them a regular salary, but complain that the salary isn't enough.

 

[Umaro]

What gets me is all the complaints when companies use the fact it's a buyer's market to push salaries down but you don't hear people complaining when it's a seller's market and they use the leverage they have to push their own salaries up.

Probably because usually the people that get their salary pushed down are the workers at the bottom, and then the people that get their wages pushed up are the owners at the top. For 40 years real wages for the grunt workers just haven't moved, despite increasing productivity. We've seen sellers markets, and our wages don't move, our boss' do.

 

[Cute Tink]

Are they stressing long-term career benefits by any chance?

I think they were offering benefits and they always seem to be stressing that you can make it into a career in management and so forth.

For 40 years real wages for the grunt workers just haven't moved, despite increasing productivity. We've seen sellers markets, and our wages don't move, our boss' do.

I wonder if this isn't a symptom of the fact that it includes a lot of lineworker jobs with high turnover and low skill level. Usually you would see an increase in an individual's salary the longer he stays in a field and works his way up in a company. You probably wouldn't see increases in the starting salary for a particular job unless demand increases or necessary skill level increases. It follows that the boss' salary would increase over time provided that he is running a successful business given that his time in the position is increasing over time.

However, I cannot draw much in the way of conclusions without knowing for sure what information goes into the graph of yours. It's not very detailed and I gather it wasn't meant to be. It seems like it was meant to be interpreted as bosses = evil and worker = screwed.

 

[contango]

Probably because usually the people that get their salary pushed down are the workers at the bottom, and then the people that get their wages pushed up are the owners at the top. For 40 years real wages for the grunt workers just haven't moved, despite increasing productivity. We've seen sellers markets, and our wages don't move, our boss' do.

(graph cut to save space)

So why should the bosses automatically give the workers more? Are the workers adding more value to the process? If not, why should they get any more?

Let's be frank here. If someone were willing to sell you an item for $2 how many people do you honestly think would go out of their way to pay $3 for it? Yet that's exactly what people seem to expect bosses to do. Someone is willing to do the job for $7/hour, in fact there's a line of people willing to do the job for $7/hour and yet for some reason the boss is supposed to pay $10/hour?

Yet oddly enough when there's nobody willing to do the job for less than $10/hour nobody expects the workers to accept $7/hour to give the boss a break, even if the boss is running a small company and barely breaking even.

Ultimately it comes back to a very simple concept. Nobody else is responsible for my well-being. If my skill set is so limited that I can be replaced at a moment's notice that's nobody's problem except mine.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Ultimately it comes back to a very simple concept. Nobody else is responsible for my well-being. If my skill set is so limited that I can be replaced at a moment's notice that's nobody's problem except mine.

The UK used to work like that. It was called the Industrial Revolution, and it took a lot of work to drag ourselves out of that mentality and that situation. You're right, people will work for less, because in the end you have to work. Without the protection of the law there is nothing to stop companies going back to the 19th century. Many companies would probably love the chance, given that they're re-enacting that time in other countries where what you're saying here is true.

Perhaps history really is doomed to repeat itself.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

The UK used to work like that. It was called the Industrial Revolution, and it took a lot of work to drag ourselves out of that mentality and that situation. You're right, people will work for less, because in the end you have to work. Without the protection of the law there is nothing to stop companies going back to the 19th century. Many companies would probably love the chance, given that they're re-enacting that time in other countries where what you're saying here is true.

Perhaps history really is doomed to repeat itself.

Pish posh. Everyone knows that "regulation" just really means "socialism/communism, rampant corrupt red army worker unionization and kills jobs and makes it impossible for poor poor corporations(and remember boys and gals, corporations are people too!).

I mean think of the children who will have to suffer without corporate welfare!

 

[Umaro]

So why should the bosses automatically give the workers more? Are the workers adding more value to the process? If not, why should they get any more?

Did you even read my post? Over the last 40 years, each worker has seen an increase in value added of about 80%. The bosses should be giving the workers more because the workers are literally adding more value to the process.

If you worked for $1 and created $1 of value in 1979, today as a worker you'd be making about $1.08 and creating $1.80. The bosses should be giving you that money because you created it, and deserve a fair share.

The bosses on the other hand, if they were making $1 in 1979, today would be making $2.40. Bosses wages grow much faster than production, workers wages grow much slower than production. Funny, that.

 

[contango]

Did you even read my post? Over the last 40 years, each worker has seen an increase in value added of about 80%. The bosses should be giving the workers more because the workers are literally adding more value to the process.

If you worked for $1 and created $1 of value in 1979, today as a worker you'd be making about $1.08 and creating $1.80. The bosses should be giving you that money because you created it, and deserve a fair share.

The bosses on the other hand, if they were making $1 in 1979, today would be making $2.40. Bosses wages grow much faster than production, workers wages grow much slower than production. Funny, that.

Does your chart show the actual salary paid to the worker or the total cost of hiring them? As workplace regulations increase so the costs associated with each member of staff rises, regardless of what their salary does.

ETA: it's also difficult to draw much in the way of conclusion from averages. Averages are pulled upwards by strong employees who produce more and earn more, and pulled downwards by deadbeat employees who produce little but play the system just enough to avoid getting fired. In much of Europe it can be hard to get rid of a bad worker (I don't know much about US employment laws) so you do get so-called zombie workers who do little beyond collecting their salary.

To give you a very simple example. As soon as I'm over the threshold to pay income tax, every £1000 salary I am paid results in approximately £660 in my pocket and costs the company more like £1200. (my share goes down once I move into a higher tax band). That's before the company deals with the expenses of administering payroll, workplace insurances, health and safty legislation, costs associated with providing workplace equipment etc.

It also overlooks the way that bosses often receive what's left of profits. If I own the company and hire you, you get a fixed salary and I get what's left. If the company struggles then I can't just impose a pay cut on you without your consent, so I take the hit myself. In exchange for that when times are good I take a bigger share. If you don't like it, start a company yourself so you take the bigger share when there is one.

It also overlooks the simple fact of the free market. If someone is willing to work for $7/hr why would anyone pay them more than that? If the worker is being paid $1.08 and thinks they are worth $1.80 it's for them to make the case why they should be paid more. If the boss thinks they should be paid more then the boss will pay them more. If they are readily replaceable by someone else who will work for $1.08 then their value is $1.08. It's the eternal divide between what something is worth to the buyer and what it's worth to the seller.

And of course ultimately it keeps coming back to the issue of who is responsible for looking out for me. Most of the arguments around "the company should pay more" boil down to little more than expecting Someone Else to watch out for me. If I'm in a strong position I may use that strength to negotiate a better deal. If I'm in a weak position I can whine all I want but it's nobody else's responsibility to pander to me just because I think they should.

 

[Billnew]

You call them ignorant? Employed you are, receiving an acceptable paycheck every two weeks?

Are you aware how many are out of work and desperate for a job in America?

You're probably right about them losing money because of the need/cost to get to this fictional job but to call them ignorant isn't right. They probably just didn't think of that part of the equation.

Right now I would take 25¢ an hour if I could walk or ride a bike there. Why? Making a couple bucks in a day is better than sitting around making 0.

Anyone that loses money to do work is ignorant. Stay at home for zero, go out and spend more money then you earn.

I would like to know what the real unemployment rate is. Alot higher the 9.1% the goverment tells us.

 

[Umaro]

Does your chart show the actual salary paid to the worker or the total cost of hiring them? As workplace regulations increase so the costs associated with each member of staff rises, regardless of what their salary does.

ETA: it's also difficult to draw much in the way of conclusion from averages. Averages are pulled upwards by strong employees who produce more and earn more, and pulled downwards by deadbeat employees who produce little but play the system just enough to avoid getting fired. In much of Europe it can be hard to get rid of a bad worker (I don't know much about US employment laws) so you do get so-called zombie workers who do little beyond collecting their salary.

To give you a very simple example. As soon as I'm over the threshold to pay income tax, every £1000 salary I am paid results in approximately £660 in my pocket and costs the company more like £1200. (my share goes down once I move into a higher tax band). That's before the company deals with the expenses of administering payroll, workplace insurances, health and safty legislation, costs associated with providing workplace equipment etc.

It also overlooks the way that bosses often receive what's left of profits. If I own the company and hire you, you get a fixed salary and I get what's left. If the company struggles then I can't just impose a pay cut on you without your consent, so I take the hit myself. In exchange for that when times are good I take a bigger share. If you don't like it, start a company yourself so you take the bigger share when there is one.

It also overlooks the simple fact of the free market. If someone is willing to work for $7/hr why would anyone pay them more than that? If the worker is being paid $1.08 and thinks they are worth $1.80 it's for them to make the case why they should be paid more. If the boss thinks they should be paid more then the boss will pay them more. If they are readily replaceable by someone else who will work for $1.08 then their value is $1.08. It's the eternal divide between what something is worth to the buyer and what it's worth to the seller.

And of course ultimately it keeps coming back to the issue of who is responsible for looking out for me. Most of the arguments around "the company should pay more" boil down to little more than expecting Someone Else to watch out for me. If I'm in a strong position I may use that strength to negotiate a better deal. If I'm in a weak position I can whine all I want but it's nobody else's responsibility to pander to me just because I think they should.

You said:
"Originally Posted by contango
So why should the bosses automatically give the workers more? Are the workers adding more value to the process? If not, why should they get any more?"

Yes, the workers are indeed adding more value to the process. Thus, that is why they should be getting more. If you're going to argue they still shouldn't be paid any higher, at least admit the value created has nothing to do with what you're paid.

 

[SithDoughnut]

And of course ultimately it keeps coming back to the issue of who is responsible for looking out for me. Most of the arguments around "the company should pay more" boil down to little more than expecting Someone Else to watch out for me. If I'm in a strong position I may use that strength to negotiate a better deal. If I'm in a weak position I can whine all I want but it's nobody else's responsibility to pander to me just because I think they should.

The problem is that your post only works in an idealistic world that we don't live in. Bosses can always pay less, because the majority of workers are always in a weak position. So the companies pay less, and people earn less. Without the government, the workers have nothing to bargain with. Companies would be able to pay whatever they want, and the workers would have to suck it up - generally companies are not going to pay more than they have to, and if they don't have to pay anything then they're going to bring that number down as far as possible. The whole "you can start up your own company" idea is unrealistic, because where is the money to start the company going to come from? You're essentially arguing for the destruction of the few things we have that are protecting the poor from complete and total poverty. The market belongs to the rich, and anyone who thinks otherwise should probably go outside and actually have a look at the world.

Again, I refer you to times and places where what you are arguing is true - are those the conditions you want to live in? I hear the third world is a wonderful place to live. If companies actually cared enough to be willing to pay more to workers who worked hard, then you'd think that the children doing 18 hours shifts making shoes would be pretty well off now. There's a reason companies are outsourcing and hiring immigrants more and more; they want to pay as little as possible for as much as possible. We have minimum wage laws to protect people from that mentality, because they have no means to protect themselves.