Aro, I don’t believe that anyone here is saying that getting paid monthly is necessarily bad, though a lot of Americans are paid fortnightly or twice a month. But the OP puts forth the idea that monthly pay should be legally mandated. Now, we all know what kind of money these mandates cost (a lot), what kind of red tape they create (a lot), and all to ‘fix’ a mostly imaginary problem. If you can’t budget well enough to have enough money from one weekly or bi-weekly paycheck to the next, you probably won’t be able to budget well enough if you get paid monthly, either.
Sure, legally mandating one particular approach when there are several equally reasonable others is a complete waste of time for anyone. I’m sure we can all agree that any kind of legislation to that effect is not the answer here.
I guess my initial amazement is with the idea that some people are competent enough to hold down a job and yet still not able or willing to forecast and control their household budget adequately. The types of people who would, generically, “drink all their pay on the first weekend and starve until next cheque arrives” would more easily (by me) be thought of as having very troubled, difficult lives, uneducated, living on hand outs and benefits, but not as employees lifting a salary.
There also seems to be a slight inherent contradiction in suggesting that, because people can’t manage their own budget, that they should be paid bi-weekly to help save them from themselves*. It’s implied this somehow this isn’t a micro-management of their lives in the same way that government hand outs are, or that mandating a specific (monthly) pay structure would be. I think designing a pay structure around people’s (somewhat limited) ability to manage their finances appropriately is a distinctly liberal idea – especially when it is demonstrable that it is more cost effective for businesses to pay employees less frequently.
- ( doesn’t obviously apply to all those posting here, especially those who work hard to budget and live on a low wage; usual disclaimers etc. etc.)
:smack::smack::smack:bangs head against table Why in the name of Og would having the money already in your bank account be ‘different’ or ‘harder’ than having the company hold on to it for you for two extra weeks? Why would you have to ‘hold out’ through the 31st? YOU’RE GETTING THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. :smack::smack::smack:
I’ve worked professionally for 20 years, in five different countries, for 9 different companies. All paid monthly. Some paid ‘early’ (i.e., you got that month’s pay before the month was out), some paid late (this month’s paycheck was, strictly speaking, for last month). There’s no difference either way. Either you might need to wait a bit after joining to get your first paycheck (but then you’d get one more paycheck after quitting) or get a paycheck right away (but not get that last post-resignation paycheck).
It seems most of the other industrialized countries in the world get by just fine with monthly paychecks. While I think legally mandating a change to monthly payment is ridiculous, the hostile opposition to it from the posters here can only be due to workers wanting companies to hold their hand for them.
In Hong Kong, companies do not deduct any income tax from your paycheck. Instead, your employer gives you a tax declaration in early April, and you get a tax bill for the year. I absolutely loved this; relatives in the US were horrified. Can you imagine the outcry if the US tried to do this? ‘I don’t want to get a big bill I have to pay at the end of the year; I want my tax refund (i.e., a forced savings plan that is essentially an interest-free loan to the government) instead!’ :rolleyes:
No, US workers apparently don’t trust themselves to not waste whatever money they have, so they want the government and their company to manage their money for them. And we wonder why US companies are losing out in the global market place.
To be fair, if you do it right, you neither get a large refund nor pay much either. The idea’s to pay what you owe as you go. This way, you’re not stuck with a huge bill at the end of the year, and neither are you loaning the government money either.
Problem is, most people don’t pay attention, and end up paying much more than they should over the course of the year, and then see that money as a great windfall when they get it back, instead of as an indication of how out of whack the amount of income tax per check they’re paying is.
Monthly seems to be the norm here - at least for people in some sort of professional position. I haven’t been paid weekly since I changed jobs in 1989 (I wasn’t paid at all for the last couple of years, but that’s another story)
Is it really that hard to understand? If it is sitting in the worker’s account, it is available to be squandered on liquor, gambling, prostitutes and God knows what other debauchery. If it is held back until a few weeks later, then at least you can’t blow it all before the month is out.
Now, I’m not saying that anyone in this thread would do such a thing, but MANY, MANY people do.
Stop me, before I splurge again!
My husband has been paid that way for more than almost 40 years. You get used to it in a month or so. It’s no big deal.
I can direct the payroll dept where I work to issue semi-monthly or monthly paychecks for particular employees. We try to have everyone on a monthly basis to save on logistical costs.
One part time employee who is an adult and caring for two young children is receiving a net pay of about $270 to $300 every month from the org I’m in. Read it again… $270 to $300 a month.
She requested that she gets a paycheck every half month (about every two weeks) because she can’t wait for the end of the month to get paid.
Most people can’t deal with simple addition. Expecting them to budget is way beyond their capabilities.
(Bolding mine) As someone who was paid monthly for a number of years, I strongly disagree. I found it be a not insignificant issue; no matter how carefully I budgeted, it was simply financially inconvenient to be paid that infrequently.
I’m not being snotty, but can you please explain why this would be the case?
I can fully understand that on starting a new job, the first month could be deemed difficult as you have to bridge the initial gap in income from savings, or cut back drastically on out-goings. But after this has settled down, I really can’t see any disadvantage at all.* Effectively, once the first month’s work has passed, you are being given both cheques for the month ahead in lieu of one now, one in 2 weeks time. Having the money in your account, especially for a careful budgeter, should be a real advantage, not an inconvenience.
- With the disclaimer that all monthy paid peeps will no doubt recognise - getting paid around the 21th Dec (due to Christmas holidays) and, along with the general overspend of the festive season, not getting paid again until around 28th January - this can be up to 6 weeks of a stretch without any top-up being banked.
It’s an advantage if you’re actually budgeting. For people like Martini, it’s inconvenient because no matter how much they might protest that they are budgeting, they clearly aren’t.
I think I’ve worked out the underlying confusion (that I have at least); it’s a perception thing of when the money you have earned should be used for covering incoming bills.
For me; If I work the entire month of March, not a single penny of the money earned in that month is for expenditure in March. That pay cheque is solely for bills & expenses occurring from 1st April – 30th April (and beyond). March bills are covered from the income procured from working in February and earlier months etc… I only ever spend money in months subsequent to when it was earned.
Once you get into being paid on a fortnightly basis, then money earned in a given month is being spent within that month rather than after. There’s a reliance on money earned very recently to tide you over and get through until the end of the month, so you never truly have the ability to budget ahead appropriately or effectively into future months; it’s practically guaranteeing a hand-to-mouth existence for some people.
Anyhow, swings and roundabouts really, whatever you prefer I guess.
Well, I’ve gone through the entire lot. I’ve worked for companies that pay weekly, those that pay biweekly, in the military I was paid twice a month, and in one job, I was paid only once a month (state government). I’ve been well-off, and I’ve been barely above minimum wage.
Today, I’m very well off, and I can easily budget for the entire month. When I was young, I barely made a subsistence wage and, with newborn children, there was no such thing as budgeting. You did what was necessary and hoped it would last.
If you’re paid weekly, it doesn’t hurt so much if you run out of money too soon. There’s hardly any time before you’ll be paid again. On the other hand, if any emergency comes up and depletes your reserves, it’s a LONG time before getting paid again next month.
Still, as a business owner with employees, I realize that the more often I issue paychecks, the more it costs me. So a good compromise for me and my employees is biweekly. Paying once a month doesn’t really save me, as an employer, enough to put my workers through the hassle. And it gives them a little less time to run out before recovery.
As for “teaching” them how to budget? Not my job to force it upon them. I’m their employer, not their Daddy.
Honestly, No- especially since I’ve been around here long enough to [del]know[/del] think all that’s going to happen is that people like DragonAsh would use it as a basis for disparaging comments, no matter how well-thought out, reasoned, or sound my explanation.
You meant to say, Honestly, No - because no such ‘reasoned, sound explanation’ exists.
I have been on all three in my life. Twice a month is best for bugeting because you can have due dates scheduled about 3-5 days after your payday. Bi weekly is awesome twice a year with the bonus check, but since your payday creeps through the month, there will be times your rent or car payment is due 3 days before you’re paid. Once a month sucks balls.
That’s the right way to look at it, but in fairness, you need to get caught up a month ahead to be able to do that. You must start somewhere and nobody pays you a month up front. So, for a family that makes $48k/yr, that family has to have $4k in cold cash to get to the point where you are.
Bullshit. Expenses are not fixed, and most people live paycheck to paycheck. If you don’t have extra money up front, you cannot budget effectively until you get that. It is thus inconvenient to deal with.
There’s also the inherent inconvenience of human nature. We live in a society that does everything they can to manipulate you into buying something. It’s hard to fight that crap. Just because you have a budget doesn’t mean you have the willpower and lack of emotion to stick to it exactly. Humans are not built for exactness. And life inherently provides the unexpected.
If all someone is saying is that a certain thing is less convenient, then they are doing all right. People who claim it’s somehow exactly the same are the ones deluding themselves.
But again, is would only be the first month of your first job, not any subsequent job. Because you are getting paid after each months work, when you move job your previous employer bridges that gap for you from the money owed for your last month’s work in his employ (unless you choose to take time off during the switch, but you’d only do that if you had sufficient funds to cope with doing so anyhow).
I would say (for me) it is much better to be paid monthly. All of my bills - car, mortgage, credit card, telephone, electricity, gas, TV, water, council tax, insurance payments, internet provider, gym membership, savings & pension etc.. are ALL collected on a monthly basis. Knowing I have ‘X’ coming in and ‘Y’ going straight out each month is much more convenient for me, so it’s hardly delusional. but I guess it all comes down to what you’re used to.