That’s a very interesting point of view.
So I deserve a living wage? Who, precisely, is then obligated to give it to me? I should very like to know this.
I believe his point is that group (c) winds up in a worse position than the autoworkers despite investing more in their future. They may find themselves with a college degree while working for minimum wage, and can’t figure out why a person with no further schooling is making more than they are. They think that they should be the ones making the higher amount, because, ya know, they have a degree and all. Which is what they’ve been told to expect, but is far from what they wind up experiencing.
Yes, I think so. “Hatred” for an (assumptive) undeserved attainment.
There are plenty of companies who do this through a profit sharing program. If you want to read an early take on this, find a copy of Incentive Management from Lincoln Electric. They were one of the first to pay their line employees for each unit produced, rather than for time on the job. They also have a profit sharing program.
I don’t know how the unions feel about profit sharing plans and piecework incentive programs.
One more problem is defining “support onself.”
- Does that means beans and rice, plus a bed at a flop house?
- Beans and rice plus a studio apartment?
- Upgraded meals plus a 1 bedroom apartment?
Ok, I understand now. He was talking about college-grads as “outsiders” passing judgement on unskilled workers. I misinterpreted it to think he was talking about college-grads switching careers.
Anyways in my experience, white-collar professionals who make more than UPS/FedEx drivers or construction workers also believe unskilled workers make too much. That’s why his initial comparison didn’t register with me. I don’t think think his theory is correct that the “root” of resentment comes from those disillusioned college-grads. I have no proof of this though.
Algher - good point about supporting oneself. There has been lots of publicity how Wal Marts low wages are subsidized by welfare and food stamp payments to many of their workers. Why should the taxpayers subsidize Wal Mart in that fashion?
I think Acid Lamp probably meant at least a living wage.
Critical1, the problem is that the American auto industry isn’t doing well.
I think your OP is in response to a (false, I think) report of UAW workers making upwards of $70/hour. People heard about this and were rightly outraged because the auto industry is looking for a huge bailout. People wanted to know why the “unskilled” auto plant workers are making so much when the company they work for is in the toilet. I think anyone would agree that $70/hour seems like an insane level of pay for that type of work. Plus, your example completely leaves out the influence of the union in the current situation.
I’m well aware that group (c) are not former college grads who downgraded to menial labour. Apologies if I wasn’t clear.
The OP wondered “good pay for unskilled labor, why the hate?” I’m attempting to answer the question. My theory states that the more one has invested in one’s education, the larger the return is expected to be. But this is not the case nowadays. It is the ones who have the least invested–the high school dropouts and grads, who have no further education–who seem to be doing well. The ones who believed the promise of large returns on their investment in education, who put off getting jobs until they had degrees, so they could get better, stabler, higher-paying jobs, are not doing as well as they were promised. Many times, given restructurings and downsizings, they’re doing much more poorly than the unskilled. Thus, the hate towards good pay for unskilled labor.
As for your claim that morality is inapplicable, let’s return to this post by even sven, whose perception was cited with approval by a few posters earlier:
“The boss is a better person”? In the sense that he gives generously to charity and doesn’t kick puppies? No, I think there has to be more to it than that. Returning to my theory, I think the boss is the boss because he has invested more in his own future than the rank-and-file line worker. He’s learned how to run a business, how to manage a factory, how to apply “soft skills” to the management of people. It is possible to rise through the ranks to become the boss, but it seems to me that many times, bosses never work on a line. Regardless, I’d guess that the reason the boss deserves more is because the boss has taken the time and made the effort to invest more in himself–not because he’s a better person. Again, the hate that the OP refers to comes from people like the boss, who–in today’s climate–isn’t making what he or she considers appropriate for his or her investment, while the uneducated menial worker makes just as much if not more.
On preview: Jayn_Newell, you’ve summed up my point nicely.
The Gospel of Social Darwinism dies a hard and slow death.
You would need to determine if those getting welfare and food stamps are single earners or trying to support a family on Wal Mart pay. You would also need to factor in that Wal Marts low prices make it possible for many at the bottom of the income spectrum to afford a lot of things that otherwise they might not have.
- Many enlistees in the military also receive food stamps. Does this mean that we need to raise military pay as well?
- Wal Mart has said that their entry level jobs are NOT sufficient to support a family, nor are they intended to be.
Can a single person live off of a Wal Mart salary? First let us define what we mean by “live,” and then we can determine if Wal Mart (or the minimum wage) supports that sufficiently.
My wife and I lived off of $14k per year in Los Angeles by sharing a two-bedroom apartment with another person. We ate a lot of beans and rice during that time.
This New York Times article indicates that compensation for current longtime workers is about $55/hour, a figure which I presume includes the value of benefits such as health insurance, etc. The $70 figure includes money that goes toward pensions and benefits for retiredworkers.
So no, current UAW workers aren’t earning anything close to $70 in salary alone (though they are making more than workers employed by foreign auto manufacturers in the U.S.).
Any employer that is required to follow minimum wage laws.
I used to work for a manufacturing company that had a great profit sharing program. Wages were ok, but profit sharing in a year could be half your salary or more.
In many ways it was great - the company was privately held, and the owners of the firm were doing a great job of sharing the wealth.
In other ways, it was horrible. Quite a few of the rank and file really didn’t understand “bonuses” - when the company hit a few years of hard times and the profit sharing checks were small, people lost houses, went bankrupt. They had jobs - they just had lifestyles that assumed their income would always be 50%+ of what their base salary was (which is how exec comp tends to work - salaries ARE high, but the bulk of the money is in bonuses, options, etc. And execs have gotten themselves in financial trouble living above their true means, too - this isn’t a class problem - its a problem understanding and accounting for risk.)
Now, I don’t think that’s an arguement for not having good profit sharing - and I like companies - both private and public - that have profit sharing opportunities. But profit sharing is a better way to share profits than increases to salary.
If you’re a greedy corporate apologist, just say so. The rest of us will continue the conversation and you guys can form a circle and stab each other in the backs
Funny that people think the morality is an entitlement to riches. Redefining a word I understand, but totally flipping its meaning is something altogether dishonest. No standard of morality except perhaps La Vey Satanism believes that treating people well is opposing morality. “It is immoral to pay people more”? Sure, and punching a kid in a wheelchair is good for him.
Those who believe that seem to think that some kind of invisible market forces are the universal morality standard to which labor should be based on. That belief is marred by assumptions, the most egregious ones being that 1) such a thing exists, and 2) long-term thinking is evil, and 3) your opinion means more than anyone else’s. State your preference if you must, but dont pretend its canon
Workers deserve a living wage because otherwise, the business and the workers suffer. Its an unsustainable solution. Businesses, especially in other countries, survive by replenshing itself since theres a whole lot of poor people and not much choices. But if you think that those businesses arent being subsidized by their governments or through some indirect party, then you’re either delusional or lying
Also, there is essentially no difference in stockholders and labor. Both give up something in order to benefit; the stockholder gives up money and the laborer gives up his time and effort. To say that one deserves more than the other is intellectually dishonest at best and cruel at worst. Why shouldnt the workers profit if the company does well? They had a hand in it, so of course they should be compensated. The freedom to choose who to work for is exactly the same as the freedom to choose which companies invest in it. If the worker thinks his pay is unfair, he can try somewhere else. If the stockholder thinks the company pays its workers too much, he can invest somewhere else. To assume otherwise is to attribute one as more desirable and ignore the asymmetry in power
I think we have a communication breakdown. I specifically said morality is applicable because it seemed to be the basis of this thread.
Thank you for your other comments. I understand your position now.
Algher
are you saying that government/taxpayer welfare to subsidize Wal Marts intentional low wages are fine with you ?
Minimum Wage is not equal to Living Wage, however. This is especially true if you have dependents.
I have no problem with a government food stamp program that helps people feed their families when their income is insufficient. That is not subsidizing Wal Mart, that is instead subsidizing everyone who does not make enough money.
Wal Mart acts under the law to pay minimum wage. The question is whether or not the minimum wage should receive pay enough to feed a family, or enough to feed a single worker.
The problem is people trying to support a family on minimum wage pay, not Wal Mart employing those same people.
You did, and I misunderstood. I’ll work on comprehending better (or at least having more coffee so I can think more clearly). 