51–60 of 114 posts
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.
that's more what I'm payed as a senior dev ... maybe I should change career
The company might be doing some funny math with the value of the benefits: $50,000. That could include things you might never use, like IVF assistance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
UPS will have to increase shipping costs which directly hurts the poor with their Amazon purchases.
I'm not saying these things are the case but due to the oversimplification you get these kind of responses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
UPS will have to increase shipping costs which directly hurts the poor with their Amazon purchases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You are wrong. UPS does not make anything close to $75 B per year in profit.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/UPS/ups/revenue
UPS annual revenue for 2022 was $100.338B, a 3.14% increase from 2021.
UPS annual revenue for 2021 was $97.287B, a 14.96% increase from 2020.
UPS annual revenue for 2020 was $84.628B, a 14.22% increase from 2019.
UPS annual gross profit for 2022 was $74.152B, a 3.08% increase from 2021.
UPS annual gross profit for 2021 was $71.939B, a 12.32% increase from 2020.
UPS annual gross profit for 2020 was $64.05B, a 13.61% increase from 2019.Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The market determines the "fair" wage of a delivery driver and it is not $175,000.
One fact many people don't realize is that in order to achieve broad-based wage growth, we will have to face GDP losses. This is because there are many businesses that depend on cheap labor to exist. As wages rise, these businesses will start to fail, reducing GDP. 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 GD…
> 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.
As a European who loves work culture in America, I'm afraid that America is copying the worst aspects of European culture.
Europe is awesome, and I'd love to see America copy us more, but these kind of incentives are the wrong thing to be copying.
To expand - training and educating yourself is hard work. Why are we rewarding people whose training is being able to drive a van? It's not about it being "honest work" (of course it is) or "hard work" (of course it is), or "these are important jobs, we need someone to do it" (of course) it's about - do we want to incentivize that young people aspire to this? This is not a recipe for a winning country.
One fact many people don't realize is that in order to achieve broad-based wage growth, we will have to face GDP losses. This is because there are many businesses that depend on cheap labor to exist. As wages rise, these businesses will start to fail, reducing GDP. 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 GD…
As an extreme example, suppose all farmers were unpaid slaves. Slavery gets outlawed, and farmers now get paid. Food prices rise dramatically, resulting in massive inflation overall (and thus a fall in real wages for everyone except farmers).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
UPS will have to increase shipping costs which directly hurts the poor with their Amazon purchases.
Counter argument: Which is good for local stores as they can compete more which will increase their profit so they can hire more people etc. It will also take a while to filter down like mentioned elsewhere. I'm not saying these things are the case but due to the oversimplification you get these kind of responses.