241–250 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the process, they're actually paying real people more money Except the OP was talking specifically about the company's plan to lobby. Yes, they're actually paying people more money, but if everyone has that same amount of money then you get wage push inflation. Then everyone loses. This is also why minimum wage discussions always spiral out of control...there really is no good long term solution for setting mini…
It's all relative. If minimum wage workers get their income doubled, but my income does not double, then they are doing better relative to me than they were before. And I do not expect my salary to double upon passing of such legislation.
If you want to maintain your relative wealth, feudal times are great. The rest of us would rather increase absolute wealth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$15 an hour will push a lot of people out of being employable. There is a greater tolerance for whom you will accept at current wage points. The other effect of a much higher starting wage is you will have people enter the market who did not think the wage was worth their time. The people who cannot be relied on to show up on schedule, quit and want to come back, have some issues in their credit or criminal backgroun…
> $15 an hour will push a lot of people out of being employable. Or maybe it will just force employers to pay better wages to those they employ already. $7.50 / hour is what they pay kids here to stock grocery chains.
Most companies I’ve worked at have had mailrooms. Very few have had people actually working in them. Which tells me that when the buildings were designed, the mailroom was considered valuable enough to include in the floor plan, but before I was hired, it stopped being valuable enough to staff. It’s worth something, but many companies apparently think it isn’t worth $7.25/hour.
>In addition, the company also pledges its public policy team will lobby for an increase to the federal minimum wage from $7.25 — it doesn’t identify a specific wage that it’s targeting, but instead says, “We believe $7.25 is too low. We would look to Congress to decide the parameters of a new, higher federal minimum wage.” I'm going to take a wild guess and assume it will be $15/hour. That way they'll get to look pr…
$15 an hour will push a lot of people out of being employable. There is a greater tolerance for whom you will accept at current wage points. The other effect of a much higher starting wage is you will have people enter the market who did not think the wage was worth their time. The people who cannot be relied on to show up on schedule, quit and want to come back, have some issues in their credit or criminal backgroun…
On the other hand, isn't it illogical in a free market economy that wages do not increase at a rate at least equal to the inflation? How do you keep the economy running if people have less and less purchase power as time goes by? (These are genuine questions, I'm not an economist at all.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe it will increase unemployment and will increase the inflation. Why stop at $15? Let's make it $50/hr, make everyone "rich".
There is a difference between everybody being 'rich' and simply paying a living wage. Note how Ford got as big as it was in part not just because he made a damn good automobile but because he paid his employees a wage large enough that they could afford a car. A couple of billionaires less and a higher standard of living for the masses is a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they'll get to look progressive for adopting this wage early, while mitigating their competitive disadvantage by forcing every other company to raise their wages too eventually. That's deeply cynical. In the process, they're actually paying real people more money. Which is sort of critically important if you care about this issue and not just taking pot shots at Amazon on HN.
> In the process, they're actually paying real people more money Except the OP was talking specifically about the company's plan to lobby. Yes, they're actually paying people more money, but if everyone has that same amount of money then you get wage push inflation. Then everyone loses. This is also why minimum wage discussions always spiral out of control...there really is no good long term solution for setting mini…
This balances the scale of products developed and resources spent more towards low income people and away from aristocratic goods and services.
However, in the case of Amazon, a company already very low on margins and on theory of low incomes, this would result in higher costs from the market behemoth
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you pay your employees $7.25 you deserve to be made fun off at least. Jeff Bezos recently also said Amazon deserved being scrutinised. I'm not saying this is what triggered them, but sometimes you have to take a strong position in order to be listened to.
> If you pay your employees $7.25... ...then you're paying the wage your employees are willing to work for. Basic economics in action. If you're making fun of this you need to take an econ 101 class.
Can they do the same in India?
Pay people $15/hour? No chance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why any company treats any of their employees well. Google isn't giving their employees all these perks out of the goodness of their heart. They give them to attract the best talent to make the most money. Amazon is doing the same thing.
does google employ or contract-out many lower-paid employees?
They want a nice, clean work environment for their employees. So you need janitors.
Want to provide catered lunch? You need food service workers.
And the bar for "good enough" at those levels are much lower. You don't need a 5-star lunch every day. You need a decent lunch that's better than going out. And things can only get so clean.