141–150 of 582 posts
Is it better that this was said or left unsaid?
Exactly. He is not the only person thinking this; he was just the only one who put his thoughts on paper. I remember when American capitalism was about succeeding by making other people successful. This kind of business - succeeding by sucking the blood out of your employees - should never be tolerated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think thinking through the economics of the situation is one thing, but voicing it to the people you employ is a bit different.
I come at this from probably a different perspective. A close family member has been having problems hiring people recently. People want to make a minimum of $15/hr. For some small businesses this is a hard ask. But it's complicated further by the fact that many of the people they have hired have walked out when they got busy. Basically, they want to be paid to sit around and do the minimum amount of work possible. A…
On that note, I've seem someone remark that some business owners apparently believe that "don't buy things you can't afford" applies to everyone but them.
So if your Chotchkies franchise is in the middle of a wasteland where nobody can walk, bike, or take the bus to work, and then gas prices go up, doesn't that mean people need, y'know, more money? Won't they be looking for higher wages? Paying less just makes other employers look better and positions you to capture exactly zero of the supposed new growth in the applicant pool. Even not working at all (i.e. not driving to a job) gains a few preference points compared to working at your Flingers. Seems like when they were handing out brains, this guy thought they said trains and said "gimme a slow one."
From reading the full email it seems like just one sentence lacked tact, only maybe inaccurate, and the rest was .... decent management? Like the part about making schedules for employees further in advance so they could accomodate their other jobs? That's pretty good.
The part about what employment trends will look like due to gas prices and competing employers having to shut down? Is that inaccurate?
Mentioning directly to offer lower wages, didn't have to be mentioned... that way.
Do I like that the managers walked out over that? Absolutely
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Outside of the moral implication, this doesn't even logically make sense. If I'm reading his point correctly ... He's saying there _was_ an employment crunch, and companies were competing with each other for employees by raising wages. He supposes that an increase in gas prices means that people need more money, so there are more employee hours "to go around". Therefore, companies don't need to compete as much with…
This reeks of motivated reasoning on behalf of the manager, as this analysis makes absolutely no sense.
I don't understand the reasoning. If the inflation is up, why won't the employees demand more wage to cover the rising cost? It isn't like Applebee is a high-sought after career, isn't it?
I wonder what the USA would look like if minimum wage was defined as; two people being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within a 1 hour drive without traffic. The static (both in the nominal and inflation adjusted sense) for minimum wage doesn't make sense imo. Minimum wage should be tied to some level of living (not necessarily a great living, but something ) This guy smh
>two people being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within a 1 hour drive without traffic. My immediate reaction to this statement was.. it's insane? In my opinion it should read 'a single person able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within an hour of public transport commute.' Otherwise it sounds like you don't think anyone should be able to live anywhere reasonable without roommates?
I wonder what the USA would look like if minimum wage was defined as; two people being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within a 1 hour drive without traffic. The static (both in the nominal and inflation adjusted sense) for minimum wage doesn't make sense imo. Minimum wage should be tied to some level of living (not necessarily a great living, but something ) This guy smh
How about people figure out how much money they need to afford the lifestyle they want and then get a job that pays that much?
I wonder what the USA would look like if minimum wage was defined as; two people being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within a 1 hour drive without traffic. The static (both in the nominal and inflation adjusted sense) for minimum wage doesn't make sense imo. Minimum wage should be tied to some level of living (not necessarily a great living, but something ) This guy smh