Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:
To be honest, the stated mission of the company I work for is "To improve lives". It's an incredible place to work for that , in looking out for the employees, has created an extremely loyal workforce of well trained veterans. The result is a company that is very profitable and looked at as an industry standard. Other companies send their top people to us to learn our methods.

That doesn't stand at odds with what I said, but I'm sure you're aware of that.

After all, if they're genuinely having issues with the ACA, they could always simply get out of the for-profit game and become a non-profit that treats its workers quite well. Most of them do, after all. So why doesn't it?

 Valion wrote:

Relapse wrote:
To be honest, the stated mission of the company I work for is "To improve lives". It's an incredible place to work for that , in looking out for the employees, has created an extremely loyal workforce of well trained veterans. The result is a company that is very profitable and looked at as an industry standard. Other companies send their top people to us to learn our methods.

That doesn't stand at odds with what I said, but I'm sure you're aware of that.

After all, if they're genuinely having issues with the ACA, they could always simply get out of the for-profit game and become a non-profit that treats its workers quite well. Most of them do, after all. So why doesn't it?

Simply stated, to assure continued existance, they have to make a profit, as most businesses do.

Relapse wrote:
Simply stated, to assure continued existance, they have to make a profit, as most businesses do.

Which is why simply shouting, "Greed!" is stupid. I'm not sure why our Canadian friends do it so often.

 Valion wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Simply stated, to assure continued existance, they have to make a profit, as most businesses do.

Which is why simply shouting, "Greed!" is stupid. I'm not sure why our Canadian friends do it so often.

Yup, I see your point. It's interesting how some companies, like mine, build a workforce up, giving them sets of skills people pay thousands of dollars to acquire in universities, to the point where companies world wide take our people for a couple of years to be in their managment. Then there are other companies that yearly drop the bottom 10% of their workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve

Valion wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This is actually a point I often have to bring up whenever anyone talks about how a business would never abuse and take advantage of its employees.

That's good. But you missed the point. It's not "greed" that drives such hypothetical decisions, it's the fact that the point of the business is profitability. You seemed to be speaking from a perspective that one of these hypothetical companies of yours should prioritize its workers over competing, which is nutballs.

But there is a difference between profitatility and trying to squeeze blood from a stone.

Valion wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Simply stated, to assure continued existance, they have to make a profit, as most businesses do.

Which is why simply shouting, "Greed!" is stupid. I'm not sure why our Canadian friends do it so often.

Because our your Canadian friend considers the Wal-Mart model to be a horrible travesty that is not even necessary. Consider the comparison between Wal-Mart and Costco: the former treats its employees like crap, pays them almost nothing, and most definitely cuts back hours to avoid paying out health care. Costco, on the other hand, pays closer to a liveable wage and provides health care. Its employees actually give enough of a gak to put out a fire should one start.

So please, do not try to dismiss things out of hand by merely claiming I'm simply saying "profit is bad!". But there is a difference between viewing the employee as a cost of doing business and nothing more, thus looking upon said employee with resentment, which oftentimes leads to the expectation that the employee owes the company something beyond however much labour the hourly wage buys; and between viewing the employee as a necessary facet of the business and thus as an investment towards future profitability.

Still, its unfair to say that any company that cuts hours because of obamacare is fething its employees for the sake of profits, not all are doing that for that's sake. Or that a company would be wrong in cutting hours to protect profits. That's like blaming a dog for panting on a hot day.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Because our your Canadian friend considers the Wal-Mart model to be a horrible travesty that is not even necessary. Consider the comparison between Wal-Mart and Costco: the former treats its employees like crap, pays them almost nothing, and most definitely cuts back hours to avoid paying out health care. Costco, on the other hand, pays closer to a liveable wage and provides health care. Its employees actually give enough of a gak to put out a fire should one start.

Leaving aside the fact that they operate on different business models, neither is a stellar example of making it in America as a low-level employee. In fact, there are very few stellar examples of that. The unfortunate truth is, if you want job security and good benefits, you need to either educate yourself in something valuable (I recommend STEM, or learning how to be the best fry cook on the line if you choose the liberal arts path), or learn an in-demand trade. The bottom rungs of retail are never going to be paradise, and pretending as though we can make it otherwise is strange.

So please, do not try to dismiss things out of hand by merely claiming I'm simply saying "profit is bad!".

Perhaps I would not have done so had you not made such a staggeringly simplistic claim as, to paraphrase, "All employers who will cut hours or jobs or other benefits in the face of the ACA are greedy." I mean, you don't really think that, do you?

Relapse wrote:

 Valion wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This is actually a point I often have to bring up whenever anyone talks about how a business would never abuse and take advantage of its employees.

That's good. But you missed the point. It's not "greed" that drives such hypothetical decisions, it's the fact that the point of the business is profitability. You seemed to be speaking from a perspective that one of these hypothetical companies of yours should prioritize its workers over competing, which is nutballs.

To be honest, the stated mission of the company I work for is "To improve lives". It's an incredible place to work for that , in looking out for the employees, has created an extremely loyal workforce of well trained veterans. The result is a company that is very profitable and looked at as an industry standard. Other companies send their top people to us to learn our methods.

Correct. A company that does not look after its employees will suffer for it.

Valion wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
So please, do not try to dismiss things out of hand by merely claiming I'm simply saying "profit is bad!".

Perhaps I would not have done so had you not made such a staggeringly simplistic claim as, to paraphrase, "All employers who will cut hours or jobs or other benefits in the face of the ACA are greedy." I mean, you don't really think that, do you?

"I'm cutting your hours so that I don't have to pay for your health insurance" is basically the same as saying "the government says I have to pay you, but I've found a way around that". I see the ACA as a cost of having employees, just like a minimum wage. And thus, I view any attempt to skirt around that as an employer taking advantage of a way to not pay employees. Granted, I recognize that there are some small businesses that cannot afford to operate within the confines of the ACA. However, I think the number of small businesses that face legitimate threat from ACA costs is so far below the number of companies claiming that threat.

And if you want me to take a hardline capitalist approach, then I'll put it in these terms: the ACA is a rule of playing the game. If you cannot keep your business profitable despite it, then your business deserves to die. Survival of the fittest. Such is the open market. Sometime in the last 20 years, many, many Americans seem to have conflated the Free Market with the idea that they are entitled to make a profit; and this is just not true. And it is from this attitude where I notice many (not all) anti-ACA attitudes stem from.

And its pretty well proven that the minimum wage hurts everyone, but mainly the minorities.

Why should I need to pay some 15 year old kid who lives at home $9 an hour for counting cans and breaking down cardboard at the local store. (oh yea the government says so) His work is worth what.. maybe $5 an hour.

With every minimum wage, you see less and less of these jobs, and the responsibilities just get heaped on to another employee.

Remember when we had kids bagging groceries, carrying them to your car and counting cans and bottles?

Oh and companies have found out how to get around paying minimum wage. I can name you one evil company that does this notoriously: Goodwill Industries.

You know that Not for Profit, thrift store. They hire people with disabilities to "help them" but get a waiver to be able to pay them as low as 5 cents an hour. The arguement is "their work is not worth more."

I remember getting paid $5.15 an hour to bag groceries. I then moved onto greener pastures at Taco Bell where I made $6 an hour. After a few months I got a pretty hefty raise up to $6.55 an hour.

I had these jobs in high school. When I graduated, I went onto find a real job. I do have to wonder why it's an employers responsibility to pay more then what a job is worth, because some adults made poor choices in life and ended up only being employable by fast food places and grocery stores.

Now yes... there is always that small population of folks who the responsibility for their situations isn't entirely on their shoulders, but the majority of folks who work those jobs are there because they put themselves there.

exactly. cashier at walmart is not supposed to be a lifelong career. it is an entry level job that takes next to no skill. Expect these jobs to pay low and not provide benefits, that is not what they are for.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
exactly. cashier at walmart is not supposed to be a lifelong career. it is an entry level job that takes next to no skill. Expect these jobs to pay low and not provide benefits, that is not what they are for.

And yet, more often than ever before ,they end up being lifelong careers because the free market is failing to provide jobs to move up to.

 Melissia wrote:

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
exactly. cashier at walmart is not supposed to be a lifelong career. it is an entry level job that takes next to no skill. Expect these jobs to pay low and not provide benefits, that is not what they are for.

And yet, more often than ever before ,they end up being lifelong careers because the free market is failing to provide jobs to move up to.

The usual cop out to remove personal responsibility from the picture. "I had substandard grades in high school and never bothered with any other education, and it's all the systems fault my fat ass is stuck on a stool in a Walmart check out line."

 djones520 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
exactly. cashier at walmart is not supposed to be a lifelong career. it is an entry level job that takes next to no skill. Expect these jobs to pay low and not provide benefits, that is not what they are for.

And yet, more often than ever before ,they end up being lifelong careers because the free market is failing to provide jobs to move up to.

The usual cop out to remove personal responsibility from the picture. "I had substandard grades in high school and never bothered with any other education, and it's all the systems fault my fat ass is stuck on a stool in a Walmart check out line."

That's not entirely true. There are, after all, only a finite number of jobs available, even in the best of times. When you have X number of good quality jobs, but X+Y number of people qualify for them, the Y part will have to settle for less. And so on, down.
As Ted Knight said so eloquently in Caddyshack: "Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."

There are, after all, only a finite number of jobs available, even in the best of times.

The individual limits themselves on what they can actual do. What are they willing to sacrifice to get the "job" they want. If they have a piss poor education but pass on the ASVAB then bite the bullet and join the military. Most live in the "NOW" and not what the can do for themselves in the future.

This is not even close to true. you can make your own job. you learn how to do something, and you practice at it whatever the trade and you work to become the best.

And yes the world needs ditch diggers. One of the problems is our current public education systems fails to teach children anything about how to make it in the real world or prepare them for it.

Shop classes were mostly cut out a long time ago.

 djones520 wrote:
The usual cop out to remove personal responsibility from the picture. "I had substandard grades in high school and never bothered with any other education, and it's all the systems fault my fat ass is stuck on a stool in a Walmart check out line."

It's not a cop-out, it's the truth. Just because you're too deluded to realize that we live in a world of finite resources does not mean that we do not live in a world of finite resources.

Insulting people whose situations you don't know or understand to make yourself feel better doesn't change it, either.

Every year a person remains unemployed or ungainfully employed only further reduces their chances of becoming gainfully employed-- because employers count it against them, no matter what their previous job records say. And yet here we are, not enough jobs out there for all the college graduates-- and before the inevitable whining, no, I don't mean the liberal arts majors. There's not enough jobs for everyone graduating with Science/Engineering/Technology majors. And no matter how much work everyone who wants to get ahead puts in, there's only so many positions that are better than entry-level. More positions than there are people. The usual cop-out, to use your own words, that all of these people should become entrepreneurs is based on nothing more than intellectual laziness and pathetic ignorance of what it really takes to be an entrepreneur.

Frequently, even when someone is qualified for an entry-level position in a STEM field, the requirements for the positions are so ludicrously high that recent graduates can't actually find a job. It is not uncommon to have entry-level STEM positions state that you need to have 2 years of experience and a master's-- and I've even seen some openings for freaking internships have a year or more in their requirements. A recent graduate might stumble for quite some time before finding a job that they went to college for... if they find it at all. Because again, the market is not perfect, no matter how much you might scream that it is.

Many companies, these days, simply don't want to hire, instead preferring to work the people that they have harder to get more productivity-- especially in the USA.

Everyone I know who can't hold a job is in fact a total loser.

#anecdotal evidence

I think we are all arguing the same thing Melissia, just we see different reasons for the same problem.

At least we agree what the problem is.

Yes I have seen it too, lots of help wanted ads for entry level no skill jobs requiring a college degree.

This is a combination of things:

1. Employers are forced to pay higher wages for lower work, so they can insist on higher qualified people. This also helps cause in the heaping more work on the workers they already have.

2. Supply and demand. Tons of supply for workers, demand for workers is down.

3. Hiring someone new is more expensive than keeping someone you already have on payroll.

Now when employers are told "not only do you have to pay a higher wage, you also have to pay for these benefits" they will tighten up on hiring even more. The already employed will find themselves with way more work. You will need a bachelors degree in anything to get hired on to pour my coffee and serve my breakfast at the local diner.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
1. Employers are forced to pay higher wages for lower work

That's certainly not true. Besides, I was speaking specifically of STEM jobs, for which a bachelor's or master's degree in science, technology, engineering, or medicine actually makes sense. These are the kinds of jobs where a higher wage is completely justified. But the companies don't want to hire. They'd rather just pay overtime, or make them work without paying overtime if they can. Preferably the latter, no matter how illegal it is.

For jobs like the aforementioned Wal-Mart job, they most assuredly do NOT "pay too much". And waitresses/ers might as well be indentured servants.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
2. Supply and demand. Tons of supply for workers, demand for workers is down.

Correct, the market is failing to provide what is needed at the moment.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:

One of the problems is our current public education systems fails to teach children anything about how to make it in the real world or prepare them for it.

Shop classes were mostly cut out a long time ago.

Exactly. The foolish notion that every HS grad should go to college has done irreperable damage. My brother makes $80K+ a year in the HVAC business (no degree). He is in his early 30's and will have his mortgage paid off next year. The Barrista in my Starbucks has a graduate degree in some humanities BS and is mad at the world because she chose an education that saddled her with debt and is not marketable.

Its practically cheapened the value of having a college degree. You need a degree to even be considered for most jobs, yet the majority of said jobs don't actually require a college education for you to perform them.

The skills you learned aren't what's needed, the employers just want you to have that shiny piece of paper.

I don't think its the employers fault though. I think everyone, employers and employees alike, has been brainwashed into thinking a college degree should be had for some nebulous reason nobody can really describe.

The higher education industry has done a good job of selling itself.

It's nothing but arrogance to see someone making less than you and then think "they must be lazy, unlike me". I'm sure it's a comforting arrogance, but it's still just arrogance.

They may not be lazy, but that still doesn't mean they should be paid any more than what the job is worth.

Is being a cashier at Walmart worth $10 an hour plus benefits? Hell no. I'd say its barely worth $5 an hour with no benefits.

You realise you need cashiers at Walmart for your society to function, right? If everyone in your population went out, pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and became astrophysicists, there would still need to be people bagging the groceries, just now they'd be astrophysicists.

Saying people deserve to be paid a pittance for their job when they are doing something necessary to society and someone is going to have to do it, no matter what is just inhumane. Everyone should be paid a decent wage.

You earn a decent wage. No one forcing anyone to stay 20+ years as a cashier. If your stuck in an arse in job would you not take it upon yourself via self motivation and self improvement to improve your lot in life? Or accept that you suck in life?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
why are we stuck on a walmart cashier of all things?

It's the new McJob.

I guess it's the "job that I feel superior to" du jour.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They may not be lazy, but that still doesn't mean they should be paid any more than what the job is worth.

Is being a cashier at Walmart worth $10 an hour plus benefits? Hell no. I'd say its barely worth $5 an hour with no benefits.

5 USD an hour is not enough to live off of-- you'd lose 2/3rds of that a month just paying rent in most places for an entry-level apartment, never mind trying to feed yourself or get to and from work every day. And that's assuming you were given 40 hours a week to begin with, a laughable idea given my experience working at Wal-Mart.

Perhaps you would suggest that they start stealing things to make up for the difference?