41–50 of 114 posts
I will pay more for items to be shipped to me and wait longer for them to arrive if it means the UPS drivers are treated fairly.
That's great but why are you forcing others to subsidize these jobs too, especially the poor?
A pay upgrade for employees firsts lowers the income of the company and that's bad for owners and investitors, not the users.
Users get higher prices way later in that game.
We should see this scenario (wage growth with stagnant or decreasing GDP) as a healthy adaptation. The danger is that politicians will react to the bad GDP numbers with dumb new economic interventions.
Just pay them a million a year each, why should they be anything short of rich? Even if the company could afford to pay the drivers $170k/yr without increasing shipping costs, they're still going to increase shipping costs. So this just gets passed on to the consumer rather than the company, much like tipping. And at a time when discretionary spending is down tremendous, this just means more people will get laid off.…
UPS makes about $75 Billion per year in profit. This is a $25k increase after a few years of record inflation. There are 300k teamsters at UPS (including other jobs like package handler). If 1/3 of those employees are drivers, we're talking a 3% reduction in profits. They can afford it. (also worth nothing this $170k is also including all benefits). >this just means more people will get laid off. The threat of a stri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's great but why are you forcing others to subsidize these jobs too, especially the poor?
That's what people who have underpayed workers normally say. A pay upgrade for employees firsts lowers the income of the company and that's bad for owners and investitors, not the users. Users get higher prices way later in that game.
Holy crap! I'm switching jobs! I hate technology and I want to work outside, this amount of pay seems crazy but if it's true I'm definitely becoming a driver
Just pay them a million a year each, why should they be anything short of rich? Even if the company could afford to pay the drivers $170k/yr without increasing shipping costs, they're still going to increase shipping costs. So this just gets passed on to the consumer rather than the company, much like tipping. And at a time when discretionary spending is down tremendous, this just means more people will get laid off.…
UPS makes about $75 Billion per year in profit. This is a $25k increase after a few years of record inflation. There are 300k teamsters at UPS (including other jobs like package handler). If 1/3 of those employees are drivers, we're talking a 3% reduction in profits. They can afford it. (also worth nothing this $170k is also including all benefits). >this just means more people will get laid off. The threat of a stri…
Awesome news! I'm glad for the workers and their families. That is a great wage and one that will pay dividends in terms of their health and the health of their communities.
How is this awesome news for the poor who will pay for it in more inflation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's great but why are you forcing others to subsidize these jobs too, especially the poor?
It's not subsidizing, it's paying. I don't subsidize a roofer when I hire them, I pay them. So your question is "why should poor people have to pay UPS drivers a decent wage?" Which I predict you would argue that you think this is too much money/healthcare/retirement for a delivery driver.
I will pay more for items to be shipped to me and wait longer for them to arrive if it means the UPS drivers are treated fairly.
That's great but why are you forcing others to subsidize these jobs too, especially the poor?