What's a living wage?

polaris_x

jethrojam420 wrote:

I don't think Cosmo was implying you don't deserve what you get, rather that there is a stack of applications in your boss's desk saying there are many who want it, and will, perhaps, do it for less. Because they are probably less qualified than you is why you get to stay. Same with just about every other job in the world.

i'm pretty sure there are hundreds of applicants in China who would love that job at half the salary ...

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

Certain, are you? Well I'm not divulging my personal information.

I will say that I am highly trained in a sector that the safety of the public is dependent on my diagnostic skills. We have oversight from a multitude of federal agencies. I am subject to FBI background checks on a continual basis, scrutinized by federal departments that verify my qualifications, subject to continual drug testing, psychological exams, interviews by people that are paid to find character flaws, and subject to search at any time while on company property by an armed security force.

You want to farm that out to the lowest bidder? Good luck.

...
Thanx for that.
Now, I'm wondering what is the criteria for your pay? I'm guessing that you are not the only person working at your company in that position, correct? And are you at the top of your salary grade level... or somewhere in the middle? Can't your employer find someone to replace you? Who sets the standard for your salary?
If the entire market of the job you do decides they can find people to do the same thing as you do... can't they set the market salary grade to whatever they want?
...
Also, off the record... I do find it a bit interesting for a person who is so against government regulation, oversight and intrusions into their personal liberties would deliberately place themselves in to a position that exposes them to these impositions... by their own free will. Don't you?

unsung

Somewhat, but there are some benefits to the scrutiny. The pay is one, and I'm an almost instant approval for gun purchases.

I minimize my footprint in other areas, the Internet being the big one.

mickeyrat

Cosmo wrote:

unsung wrote:

Certain, are you? Well I'm not divulging my personal information.

I will say that I am highly trained in a sector that the safety of the public is dependent on my diagnostic skills. We have oversight from a multitude of federal agencies. I am subject to FBI background checks on a continual basis, scrutinized by federal departments that verify my qualifications, subject to continual drug testing, psychological exams, interviews by people that are paid to find character flaws, and subject to search at any time while on company property by an armed security force.

You want to farm that out to the lowest bidder? Good luck.

...
Thanx for that.
Now, I'm wondering what is the criteria for your pay? I'm guessing that you are not the only person working at your company in that position, correct? And are you at the top of your salary grade level... or somewhere in the middle? Can't your employer find someone to replace you? Who sets the standard for your salary?
If the entire market of the job you do decides they can find people to do the same thing as you do... can't they set the market salary grade to whatever they want?
...
Also, off the record... I do find it a bit interesting for a person who is so against government regulation, oversight and intrusions into their personal liberties would deliberately place themselves in to a position that exposes them to these impositions... by their own free will. Don't you?

electrician at a nuclear power plant. if memory serves.

unsung

Not exactly, but thanks for attempting to invade my privacy Sherlock.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

unsung wrote:

Not exactly, but thanks for attempting to invade my privacy Sherlock.

jesus, who gives a fuck. he didn't give out your home address and panty size, did he?

backseatLover12

unsung wrote:

Somewhat, but there are some benefits to the scrutiny. The pay is one, and I'm an almost instant approval for gun purchases.

I minimize my footprint in other areas, the Internet being the big one.

Well, that makes all of us feel better. :roll:

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

Not exactly, but thanks for attempting to invade my privacy Sherlock.

umm no, just read what you write on a publically viewable forum? So what information is it exactly again thats private?

unsung

Instead of discussing the topic and offering solutions other than raising the minimum wage, which doesn't work, you've chosen to discuss me. I'm not running for chair of the fed reserve.

I prefer to discuss the rampant abuse of the dollar and monetary policy that destroys wealth on the 99%.

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

Somewhat, but there are some benefits to the scrutiny. The pay is one, and I'm an almost instant approval for gun purchases.

I minimize my footprint in other areas, the Internet being the big one.

...
I know this is not what you mean... but, it kind of sounds like you are willing to forfeit some on your Libertarian ideals regarding personal freedoms and less government intrusion into your personal liberties for money.
Also, because of the government knowing of your personal being and your psychologic profile... they grant you instant access to firearms because they know that you do not pose a threat to the public. Shouldn't that same thing be applied to ALL persons seeking to obtain a weapon? That they do not pose a threat to the public with that weapon?

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

jethrojam420 wrote:

I don't think Cosmo was implying you don't deserve what you get, rather that there is a stack of applications in your boss's desk saying there are many who want it, and will, perhaps, do it for less. Because they are probably less qualified than you is why you get to stay. Same with just about every other job in the world.

i'm pretty sure there are hundreds of applicants in China who would love that job at half the salary ...

You got that right ...

lukin2006

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

unsung wrote:

Not exactly, but thanks for attempting to invade my privacy Sherlock.

jesus, who gives a fuck. he didn't give out your home address and panty size, did he?

puremagic

unsung wrote:

Certain, are you? Well I'm not divulging my personal information.

I will say that I am highly trained in a sector that the safety of the public is dependent on my diagnostic skills. You want to farm that out to the lowest bidder? Good luck.

and, yet you devalue a large portion of the American public by implying that their job define them as incapable of being any more than YOUR perceptions see them. Maybe the lowest bidder is already in place.

You fundamentally know that Corporations moved their businesses out of the States for

-- access to massive cheap labor pools at slave labor wages
-- non-accountability or liability for environmental matters
-- tax breaks as a foreign corporations, yet, by having their headquarters incorporated in the US they enjoy the protection of the US government. Best of both economic worlds.

So let’s stop the bullshit. What does it take to bring these jobs home to the US?

--create a large cheap labor pool [break the unions, keep minimum wages low, cut social welfare programs, stop unemployment payments to create a demand. [We see this happening.]

-- strip the EPA of its powers [a Republican agenda for any Presidential candidate]

-- overhaul the IRS [another Republican agenda for any candidate]

--use Congress and the Courts to strip the rights of a large segment of the American population [we see this happening in the disbusement of the criminal justice system and the new voting ID laws and the immigration fight to come].

In order to do this, they need people like you. A person who is willing to believe that the purchase power of blacks and blue collar workers could bring the entire US financial banking and securities industry to its knees. A person like you who is needed to spread the word that these people can never be anymore than a cheap labor pool. Yet, these are not the people selling off the assets of the US to foreign investors.

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

Instead of discussing the topic and offering solutions other than raising the minimum wage, which doesn't work, you've chosen to discuss me. I'm not running for chair of the fed reserve.

I prefer to discuss the rampant abuse of the dollar and monetary policy that destroys wealth on the 99%.

so please expand on the market forces idea of increased US manufacturing etc.

How do we as a country get to that place and who has the ready cash to buy the items that have an increased cost due the domestic production?

isnt it true that increased efficiency eliminates some jobs and offshoring jobs to further increase shareholder value has done just as much to destroy wealth for those who have only the skill to wash dishes , as "rampant abuse" of the dollar?

Cosmo

Okay.. let's get back on topic.
So, instead of trying to use Mr. Unsung as an example of wage setting... I'll provide my own information. I'm not afraid of Big Brother.
I work as an Oracle Database Administrator for a large Fortune 500 Corporation. I'm in the middle of my labor grade, at the top of my salary range.
I get a salary increase every year based upon performance reviews by my management.
The market sets the pay scale for my skillset.
...
Now... I'm not the greatest Oracle DBA to ever live. I'm not even the best DBA at my site, much less, the entire Enterprise DBA community. I am pretty good at what i do. I can quickly diagnose a problem with a database and direct the right people to fix the problem... and let me add, 99.9% of database problems are created by horrible programming code. If some of these fucking developers took the time to understand the database, they would not write crappy code with nested loops and full table scans.
I am absolutely sure, there are thousands upon thousands of DBAs that possess greater skills and would be able to do my job.
...
Now, if the entire DBA market were to adjust their wages for DBAs... I would probably given the choice to either take a massive pay cut or leave the field.
The whole thing about letting the market decide what to pay us... it it were turely the case... the market would tap the global resources available to them. The DBAs in India and China. and YES... there are some brilliant DBAs in India... (i don't know about China, but I have met some DBAs from India with tremendous skillsets).
...
Back to the minimum wage thing... if you are paying less and less wages to people working at a McDonalds, expect less and less service from them and more and more semen in your secret sauce.

hedonist

jethrojam420 wrote:

In MA I would say the lowest living wage with no children would be 10 per hour, and up 2 per hour per kid. And, I assure you, that is the lowest possible no frills life with no government help.

I think to live the American dream you would need a minimum of 30 per hour total (about 62k per year) would be needed per family (and up 3 per child)

Plan to chime in more in this thread - been quite the interesting read thus far (and for what it's worth, the OP has been pretty reasonable; no need to give him shit) - but I had to question this point.

Is the post up there to say that someone who has several children should be paid a higher wage than someone else equally qualified and able to do the same job but with no children? I, choosing to NOT have children, am destined to earn less because of this?

Isn't pay about what you (and the job) are worth to the employer, vs one's needs or how many children you have? The value you can and do bring? Skills, experience?

I hope I've read this wrong and if so, apologies...but I just can't get my head around this concept.

Anytime I've asked for a raise, it's been based not on need (Danny's been sick and we have a shitload of med bills. Our property taxes went up... -that's not my employer's problem), but on my performance.

If I had no marketable skills, ie, those I couldn't use in other realms, I wouldn't expect to be paid a salary equal to someone who has put in the time toward education, experience, etc.

A fair salary though? Sure (although "fair" seems to have different meanings).

It doesn’t make sense to me to hire someone for less pay, if I had the option to invest a bit more and know that person generally goes above and beyond their expectations or duties, and has some heft under their belt to understand time management, professionalism, dealing with vendors, pretty much handling themselves at the level I’d expect more from than someone inexperienced.

Stepping-stone positions are useful – learning experiences, at least by my path – and by no means anything to be ashamed of. I’d venture the majority of us have been there, and then…stepped up.

Of course I'm not indispensible, and sure my company could oust me and bring in some young’un with less know-how. It’d hurt me, but them too, in the end.

hedonist

Cosmo wrote:

Back to the minimum wage thing... if you are paying less and less wages to people working at a McDonalds, expect less and less service from them and more and more semen in your secret sauce.

Dammit!

It's not a frequent thing, but I do love me a Big Mac once in a blue moon.

I guess the sauce isn't so secret anymore.

(but maybe a bit more secretion-y :P )

jethrojam420

hedonist wrote:

jethrojam420 wrote:

In MA I would say the lowest living wage with no children would be 10 per hour, and up 2 per hour per kid. And, I assure you, that is the lowest possible no frills life with no government help.

I think to live the American dream you would need a minimum of 30 per hour total (about 62k per year) would be needed per family (and up 3 per child)

Plan to chime in more in this thread - been quite the interesting read thus far (and for what it's worth, the OP has been pretty reasonable; no need to give him shit) - but I had to question this point.

Is the post up there to say that someone who has several children should be paid a higher wage than someone else equally qualified and able to do the same job but with no children? I, choosing to NOT have children, am destined to earn less because of this?

Isn't pay about what you (and the job) are worth to the employer, vs one's needs or how many children you have? The value you can and do bring? Skills, experience?

I hope I've read this wrong and if so, apologies...but I just can't get my head around this concept.

Anytime I've asked for a raise, it's been based not on need (Danny's been sick and we have a shitload of med bills. Our property taxes went up... -that's not my employer's problem), but on my performance.

If I had no marketable skills, ie, those I couldn't use in other realms, I wouldn't expect to be paid a salary equal to someone who has put in the time toward education, experience, etc.

A fair salary though? Sure (although "fair" seems to have different meanings).

It doesn’t make sense to me to hire someone for less pay, if I had the option to invest a bit more and know that person generally goes above and beyond their expectations or duties, and has some heft under their belt to understand time management, professionalism, dealing with vendors, pretty much handling themselves at the level I’d expect more from than someone inexperienced.

Stepping-stone positions are useful – learning experiences, at least by my path – and by no means anything to be ashamed of. I’d venture the majority of us have been there, and then…stepped up.

Of course I'm not indispensible, and sure my company could oust me and bring in some young’un with less know-how. It’d hurt me, but them too, in the end.

No, I was not implying that people with children should be paid more. I am merely answering the question of the OP as to what a living wage would be in my area. Kids are expensive. So to have a living wage for just me would be different that having a living wage for me plus 1 or 2 or 35.

hedonist

jethrojam420 wrote:

No, I was not implying that people with children should be paid more. I am merely answering the question of the OP as to what a living wage would be in my area. Kids are expensive. So to have a living wage for just me would be different that having a living wage for me plus 1 or 2 or 35.

OK, thank you for clarifying.

But - and not my intent to sound harsh by this or my next comment though I'm sure it'll come off that way - I still think if someone cannot afford to have children and live off their current earnings, then they shouldn't have those children. It's just not reasonable to me (or fair to their children).

The expense (monetary and otherwise-etary) isn't something I wanted to take on, nor could take on. And so I haven't. That goes for other life decisions.

backseatLover12

Cosmo wrote:

Back to the minimum wage thing... if you are paying less and less wages to people working at a McDonalds, expect less and less service from them and more and more semen in your secret sauce.