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.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

You still haven't shown any data to support your position, just your anecdotal reminiscences.

Then we're on a level playing field.

Relapse wrote:

Another article about training, with data compiled from 2500 companies:

That article doesn't link to the ASTD data which it is citing, and you are referring to.

Relapse wrote:

From data compiled by the government post WW 2 from 600 companies:

TWI Institute is clearly trying to sell itself by leveraging Rosie the Riveter, despite not being responsible for any war production. Bonus points for obviously rounded statistics.

At this point, after showing you an extensive series of articles and data from government and business sources, and you still refuse to admit you are wrong, there is no further point in carrying on this conversation with you.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

You still haven't shown any data to support your position, just your anecdotal reminiscences.

Then we're on a level playing field.

Relapse wrote:

Another article about training, with data compiled from 2500 companies:

That article doesn't link to the ASTD data which it is citing, and you are referring to.

Relapse wrote:

From data compiled by the government post WW 2 from 600 companies:

TWI Institute is clearly trying to sell itself by leveraging Rosie the Riveter, despite not being responsible for any war production. Bonus points for obviously rounded statistics.

 cincydooley wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

You still haven't shown any data to support your position, just your anecdotal reminiscences.

Then we're on a level playing field.

Relapse wrote:

Another article about training, with data compiled from 2500 companies:

That article doesn't link to the ASTD data which it is citing, and you are referring to.

Relapse wrote:

From data compiled by the government post WW 2 from 600 companies:

TWI Institute is clearly trying to sell itself by leveraging Rosie the Riveter, despite not being responsible for any war production. Bonus points for obviously rounded statistics.

I am getting that feeling. I guess managing three people for a couple of months in a gym somewhere trumps decades of data collection.


This is a good read:

http://leaninstituut.nl/publications/Roots_of_Lean_TWI.pdf

Relapse wrote:

I am getting that feeling. I guess managing three people for a couple of months in a gym somewhere trumps decades of data collection.

I managed ~300 people for 2 years. Though, as I said, qualifications are irrelevant here; it is the internet after all.

 cincydooley wrote:

Referenced the concept of moving the goalposts.

I'm not moving the goalposts at all. I am questioning the merit of the articles Relapse has provided to support his argument. In my opinion they are either poorly constructed, or deliberately attempting to sell some form of certification.

Relapse wrote:

At this point, after showing you an extensive series of articles and data from government and business sources, and you still refuse to admit you are wrong, there is no further point in carrying on this conversation with you.

You didn't show me any data from a government source, or even a business source. You showed me articles which may have cited data produced by a government or business source, but I couldn't really tell if they did because the articles in question were deliberately unclear.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I think we should be promoting and incentivizing the well paid blue collar jobs that are necessary to maintain the infrastructure our society is built on. Those are the jobs that are the least likely to be outsourced or automated.

So plumbers, welders, electricians, cable technicians, some IT guys, mechanics, etc.?

Prestor Jon wrote:

Increasing minimum wage will benefit those that hold minimum wage jobs and keep them but only in the near term. The longterm outlook for minimum wage jobs that only require basic skills, when the govt artificially inflates the cost of the labor to do them, is bleak. Those jobs will go away as cheaper alternatives for employers become more plentiful and viable. If we don't start planning for that inevitability now its only going to increase the societal pain felt when that future arrives.

It seems like you're trying to rush that future along.

What constitutes "basic skills" changes over time, and people adapt to that change over the same period of time. The question is over how well a person using their "basic skills" should be compensated.

 Ratbarf wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most minimum wage jobs require almost no training, there isn't much expense associated with hiring a new employee. $100-200 seems rediculously high.

The training costs I used are associated with the first day or two of work for the new hire, in which they watch that training and safety videos and generally aren't very productive. On top of that there is the pay of the employee who is training them instead of doing their own job to their full capacity, and finally there is almost always some kind of product waste associated with a new hire as they are probably going to screw up once or twice or possibly more before they get into the swing of things. It all adds up.

When I got a summer job, I ended up burning like 50 hotdogs........
But then I got so much on my managers good side that I could ask for any day off that wasn't a weekend for being a good worker.
You never know who will be a good worker.

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I think we should be promoting and incentivizing the well paid blue collar jobs that are necessary to maintain the infrastructure our society is built on. Those are the jobs that are the least likely to be outsourced or automated.

So plumbers, welders, electricians, cable technicians, some IT guys, mechanics, etc.?

Prestor Jon wrote:

Increasing minimum wage will benefit those that hold minimum wage jobs and keep them but only in the near term. The longterm outlook for minimum wage jobs that only require basic skills, when the govt artificially inflates the cost of the labor to do them, is bleak. Those jobs will go away as cheaper alternatives for employers become more plentiful and viable. If we don't start planning for that inevitability now its only going to increase the societal pain felt when that future arrives.

It seems like you're trying to rush that future along.

What constitutes "basic skills" changes over time, and people adapt to that change over the same period of time. The question is over how well a person using their "basic skills" should be compensated.

Yes.

I'm not trying to hasten the future, I would just like politicians to pay more attention to what's coming when they make policy decisions. The point remains that artificially increasing the value of unskilled labor only makes alternatives like automation and outsourcing more practical and attractive. Most minimum wage jobs pay minimum wage because they are the simplest jobs that can therefore draw from the largest pool of available workers giving the employer the leverage needed to offer a lower wage than that offered for more skilled positions.

You have experience with a gym. The gym I go to on my lunch break really doesn't need employees other than personal trainers and maintenance staff for the equipment. When I get there I often wave the barcode on my key fob under the scanner myself, pick up a towel off the stack on the counter, change, workout, shower, and leave. They don't really need a front desk person just to scan in members. They also sell stuff like power bars and gatorade, they could automate that. If they had enough personal trainers working the ones that didn't have training sessions scheduled could handle walk ins that wanted a tour and signing up new members. In the upcoming years it will only be cheaper to replace people with technology, that's a certainty.

Yes, "basic skills" will change. Are our education systems adaptable enough to make sure people are obtaining the right basic skills to be employable? If not what do we do with the people that don't have the "basic skills" needed to get a job and how do we change the systems to be more effective?

I'd like to add that increasing minimum wage adds greatly to the spent money flying around an economy (as long as inflation is managed). The poor spend more than the rich and pay more tax per capita.
I'm still confused why my government always seems to want to lower minimum wage , when as I see it a higher minimum wage adds much more to the government pocket.
Perhaps someone can shed some light on this?

 Bullockist wrote:
I'd like to add that increasing minimum wage adds greatly to the spent money flying around an economy (as long as inflation is managed). The poor spend more than the rich and pay more tax per capita.
I'm still confused why my government always seems to want to lower minimum wage , when as I see it a higher minimum wage adds much more to the government pocket.
Perhaps someone can shed some light on this?

The politicians want to spur job creation and more corporations setting up facilities in Australia. The cheaper the price of labor the more incentive for companies. Australia is close to SE Asia so do you want companies to set up show in Oz or in Thailand or in China? Politicians benefit from claims that sound good, like creating jobs, higher employment levels etc. regardless of the greater context of those claims (what is the average wage of those jobs, are they full time or part time, are people taking multiple jobs to make ends meet, etc).

You might want to look into the 1997 Asian financial crisis for more background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Asian_financial_crisis). The IMF bailed out the affected countries but the rescue packages had strings attached. The structural adjustment packages were designed to help make sure the govts in those countries could get back to generating enough revenue to stay solvent and pay back the IMF loans. One aspect of that was to make those countries more attractive for outside investors/corporations to do business there. The easiest way to make those countries more attractive for investment was to make labor cheap and worker protections weak. Corporations see an opportunity for cheap manufactoring, build factories, spend money, the govt takes their cut and uses the money to repay the loans. Everybody wins, except for the little guy that's getting paid gak. The larger consequence of that is that it creates downward pressure on wages all over. For instance, Apple is never going to move their manufacturing from China to the US, they would lose a ton of money because it's much more expensive to do that here than in China and the US is never going to be able to lower that cost to be equal.

IMF packages *always* have strings attached, which is why they're often so very, very terrible (like requiring the privitization of utilities, so that poor countries then have to charge citizens for power and water, when they used to provide them for free).

Are our education systems adaptable enough to make sure people are obtaining the right basic skills to be employable?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

Ah... no. Our educational system has been gutted by special interest groups who would rather teach Creationism than science.

 Psienesis wrote:

Ah... no. Our educational system has been gutted by special interest groups who would rather teach Creationism than science.

That's pretty ignorant, and simply not the case. Especially considering the largest group of Christians in the world (Catholics) teach evolution in their schools.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Ah... no. Our educational system has been gutted by special interest groups who would rather teach Creationism than science.

That's pretty ignorant, and simply not the case. Especially considering the largest group of Christians in the world (Catholics) teach evolution in their schools.

Come on now. We all know how gakky a reputation Jesuit universities like Georgetown have.

Prestor Jon wrote:

If they had enough personal trainers working the ones that didn't have training sessions scheduled could handle walk ins that wanted a tour and signing up new members.

Trainers make a lot more money than desk staff, usually 3-4 times as much. You don't want someone like that doing desk or member work because someone will pay them better and you won't be able to keep them.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Yes, "basic skills" will change. Are our education systems adaptable enough to make sure people are obtaining the right basic skills to be employable? If not what do we do with the people that don't have the "basic skills" needed to get a job and how do we change the systems to be more effective?

I think we first need to agree on what "basic skills" make a person employable.

 dogma wrote:


I think we first need to agree on what "basic skills" make a person employable.

There's "basic skills", as in the bare minimum for a given job; And then there's "basic skills" which, I would assume you're referring to what old timers (and guys like me) think that's what a HS diploma should net? By that I mean, if you've completed HS you should be able to do a wide range of pretty menial tasks; Count change, scan items, put nails into various pieces of wood, move things from Point A to Point B, etc. all things which are, by and large components of many entry level/minimum wage type jobs.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

There's "basic skills", as in the bare minimum for a given job; And then there's "basic skills" which, I would assume you're referring to what old timers (and guys like me) think that's what a HS diploma should net?

I think it is fair to assume that "basic skills" now include competency with Windows, Mac OS, Android, and iOS; all of which are acquired by simply being a person in the US. If you are young, and lack those competencies (HS diploma or not), you are probably going to find it difficult to find employment.

Grey Templar wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most minimum wage jobs require almost no training, there isn't much expense associated with hiring a new employee. $100-200 seems rediculously high.

The training costs I used are associated with the first day or two of work for the new hire, in which they watch that training and safety videos and generally aren't very productive. On top of that there is the pay of the employee who is training them instead of doing their own job to their full capacity, and finally there is almost always some kind of product waste associated with a new hire as they are probably going to screw up once or twice or possibly more before they get into the swing of things. It all adds up.

Even in a scenario like that, its still cheaper to hire someone new than pay someone more. The cost of training isn't significant enough to warrant serious employee retention procedures.

That's the point I was trying to make.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most minimum wage jobs require almost no training, there isn't much expense associated with hiring a new employee. $100-200 seems rediculously high.

The training costs I used are associated with the first day or two of work for the new hire, in which they watch that training and safety videos and generally aren't very productive. On top of that there is the pay of the employee who is training them instead of doing their own job to their full capacity, and finally there is almost always some kind of product waste associated with a new hire as they are probably going to screw up once or twice or possibly more before they get into the swing of things. It all adds up.

When I got a summer job, I ended up burning like 50 hotdogs........
But then I got so much on my managers good side that I could ask for any day off that wasn't a weekend for being a good worker.
You never know who will be a good worker.

First day on the fork lift I ripped a couple hundred dollars of worth cement.

 dogma wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

There's "basic skills", as in the bare minimum for a given job; And then there's "basic skills" which, I would assume you're referring to what old timers (and guys like me) think that's what a HS diploma should net?

I think it is fair to assume that "basic skills" now include competency with Windows, Mac OS, Android, and iOS; all of which are acquired by simply being a person in the US. If you are young, and lack those competencies (HS diploma or not), you are probably going to find it difficult to find employment.

Ohh yeah, even at my age it was sort of a given, since most, if not all of my school papers were required to be typed via computer.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

There's "basic skills", as in the bare minimum for a given job; And then there's "basic skills" which, I would assume you're referring to what old timers (and guys like me) think that's what a HS diploma should net? By that I mean, if you've completed HS you should be able to do a wide range of pretty menial tasks; Count change, scan items, put nails into various pieces of wood, move things from Point A to Point B, etc. all things which are, by and large components of many entry level/minimum wage type jobs.

I could do all of those things before entering high school. That is literally unschooled labour, even high school is unnecessary for that.

 Ratbarf wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most minimum wage jobs require almost no training, there isn't much expense associated with hiring a new employee. $100-200 seems rediculously high.

The training costs I used are associated with the first day or two of work for the new hire, in which they watch that training and safety videos and generally aren't very productive. On top of that there is the pay of the employee who is training them instead of doing their own job to their full capacity, and finally there is almost always some kind of product waste associated with a new hire as they are probably going to screw up once or twice or possibly more before they get into the swing of things. It all adds up.

When I got a summer job, I ended up burning like 50 hotdogs........
But then I got so much on my managers good side that I could ask for any day off that wasn't a weekend for being a good worker.
You never know who will be a good worker.

First day on the fork lift I ripped a couple hundred dollars of worth cement.

First days are pilot episodes, they don't count

As an indicator, prior to the establishment of the $15 minimum wage, $40K a year meant you could "live" in Seattle, but you better really like sharing rent with someone, and eating lots of ramen.

That is to say, currently, right now, with the minimum wage not yet $15\hr, making slightly more than $15\hr is hardly riotous living. The true effect is going to bump several companies who've been fairly shady with their job-titles and payment into either paying fairly for what they're wanting people to do, or watch their talent walk away.

 Psienesis wrote:
As an indicator, prior to the establishment of the $15 minimum wage, $40K a year meant you could "live" in Seattle, but you better really like sharing rent with someone, and eating lots of ramen.

And?

I didn't realize affording a place all to yourself was an unalienable human right.

If it isn't, what is an inalienable human right beyond just "being alive"?

Paying rent apparently.

 Psienesis wrote:

That is to say, currently, right now, with the minimum wage not yet $15\hr, making slightly more than $15\hr is hardly riotous living. The true effect is going to bump several companies who've been fairly shady with their job-titles and payment into either paying fairly for what they're wanting people to do, or watch their talent walk away.

One of two things would happen, IMO....

-Workers demand a raise in order to afford to continue living where they are.
-Workers move to "cheaper" areas (Renton, Feddy Way, Tacoma, Fife, Puyallup, etc), then demand a raise in order to afford the commute to and from work.

If neither of those work, then yeah... the people would probably be leaving.

Question, how does this affect those who are salaried?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Question, how does this affect those who are salaried?

It doesn't.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Ah... no. Our educational system has been gutted by special interest groups who would rather teach Creationism than science.

That's pretty ignorant, and simply not the case. Especially considering the largest group of Christians in the world (Catholics) teach evolution in their schools.

Honest question: Since when ?

I was raised catholic, and this was not the case when i was in catechism, nor in theology until early high school when i moved from parochial school to public school. Creationism was absolutely taught, and evolution was never once mentioned in either biology or philosophy.

I went to High School in the mid to late nineties. Catechism would have been in the early to late eighties.



If this is a shift of the catholic church, i applaud them for it (and that's a bold statement coming from me as it's a combination of words that i thought wouldn't ever leave my mouth again). Is this a recent change ?


EDIT: I think it might be useful to note for those that don't know, i grew up and continue to live in the fairly to very liberal northeast... so it's not like i was in an uber conservative orthodox area that was denying evolution. I was in an evolution-friendly portion of the country to begin with. 20 years, all things considered, isn't that long of a time to the catholic church. That's why i'm curious when this changed.

 Haight wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Ah... no. Our educational system has been gutted by special interest groups who would rather teach Creationism than science.

That's pretty ignorant, and simply not the case. Especially considering the largest group of Christians in the world (Catholics) teach evolution in their schools.

Honest question: Since when ?

Since 1950, informally, and much more formally in 1996.

Since 1950 the only thing they've really differed on is the soul.

Here's an article that sums it up fairly well: http://www.newsweek.com/pope-franciss-remarks-evolution-are-not-controversial-among-roman-catholics-281115

When he says, in regards to Christians, that they'd "rather be teaching creationism" he's either willfully ignorant or simply lying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haight wrote:


EDIT: I think it might be useful to note for those that don't know, i grew up and continue to live in the fairly to very liberal northeast... so it's not like i was in an uber conservative orthodox area that was denying evolution. I was in an evolution-friendly portion of the country to begin with. 20 years, all things considered, isn't that long of a time to the catholic church. That's why i'm curious when this changed.

I live in a very conservative Catholic area of the country (Cincinnati) and they certainly teach evolution at all 14 or so of the Catholic High Schools in the Cincinnati Archdioceses, and have since I was in school.

I think it's probably important to differentiate between what is taught through catechism and what is taught through schools.

Regardless, Catholic schools shouldn't be denying evolution, because the Vatican surely doesn't.

This thread has started to evolve from discussion about minimum wage.

 Breotan wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Question, how does this affect those who are salaried?

It doesn't.

Cool, I can see a lot of employees going salaried now.
And what if they work in the Walmart that is outside city limits.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Cool, I can see a lot of employees going salaried now.
And what if they work in the Walmart that is outside city limits.

Depends on the type of salary the people are making of course. For instance, a buddy of mine is in car sales. The dealership pays him a salary that is a bit above minimum wage, which as we know is very little. But, he makes serious commission from the sale of a new car (he gets a per unit commission from the manufacturer, and a "bells and whistles addon features" commission from the dealership based on price of vehicle).

I can see the "salary" of guys like that shifting a bit the same way the minimum wage for table staff at restaurants would, in about the same proportion as well.



If they are working a crap job like Walmart outside the city limits of Seattle, but live within the city limits.... well, they probably aren't too bright, and it really, really sucks to be them.