171–180 of 582 posts
If I were King of America, the tax code (and other financial instruments I can't think up on the spot) would reward companies based on the degree to which they enrich their rank and file employees.
How would this work? How is this different than a payroll subsidy or the EITC?
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?
Economic analysis has shown the low skill labor market has monopsony power. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/103530462110424... This means the workers at applebees don't have much leverage to demand higher wages. Their options are accept a shitty job or don't work. This manager believes higher gas prices will force them to shift towards the "accept a shitty job" part of the spectrum.
Central Applebee management puts out vague message about inflation affecting costs and revenues. That hiring managers need to work harder to retain their employees by giving potential employees more flexible schedules (which may have a benefit of cutting costs: some employees may be willing to take a lower pay if they can have a different schedule).
Some middle-manager reads that statement as having to do with gas-prices making prospective employees more desperate for a job.
And the rest is history.
------------
Upper-management always issues vague strategic-level statements. Its the middle-managers who have to translate the vague statements into something that connects with the lower-level employees. This middle-manager colossally failed at the job.
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 think your confusing "should be able to" with "shall be able to, enforceable by law".
I don't expect that a 15 year old working his first job as a fry cook at an Arby's should be compensated enough that he can afford to live on his own. In fact, that could be dangerously disincentivizing his hard work toward his education.
If I were King of America, the tax code (and other financial instruments I can't think up on the spot) would reward companies based on the degree to which they enrich their rank and file employees.
Start off by charging them extra in taxes to cover any welfare their full-time employees qualify for. edit: with a 200% penalty for administrative fees.
Isn't this equivalent to raising the minimum wage? I'm not sure what's the point of policies like this other for the cathartic effect/grandstanding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mass confusion. Every location has to have a custom minimum wage based on the local real estate market? How are you going to enforce that? 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?
The US Department of Defense already has a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) calculated for most of the United States, large parts of Germany, and large parts of Korea. The work is already done.
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
A universal basic income would have some advantages over a minimum wage. Minimum wage interferes with supply and demand in the labor market, which is why some economists dislike it. UBI moves the supply curve to a different place, but it allows those principles to function.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seller's market is a funny way of saying they're not being held hostage for their lives.
> Seller's market is a funny way of saying they're not being held hostage for their lives. Sorry, are you saying that expecting people to work to meet their own needs is them being "held hostage for their lives"?
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
Mass confusion. Every location has to have a custom minimum wage based on the local real estate market? How are you going to enforce that? 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?
And if it's too much of a hassle for the employer, just pay your employees substantially above the minimum.