Dan Price raises minimum wage at his company to $70,000 a year

[Bomb#20]

Sounds like he's running a charitable effort. His money, his choice.

Do you have something against an employer paying their employees what they think they are worth?
Or do you believe that all wages are charity?

Again: his money, his choice. Read carefully and you will see this contains no objection.

Translate: "Now I don't have any objections..."

But

Wait for it...

I'm not sure why you believe he thinks they are worth $70,000. He has not been and is not paying them that currently.

Translation: "Here's my objection."

Do you seriously not understand that that's an objection to what you said, not an objection to anything Price did? You imputed views to dismal, and you imputed views to Price, and you did not produce any evidence for either of your imputations. So dismal challenged you on them. That's what we do here on TFT -- people make claims in excess of the evidence and other people call them on it. That does not give you any grounds to accuse dismal of objecting to any particular pay policy of Price or any of other employer. If you don't grasp this, then you really need to work on your reading comprehension.

 

[Bomb#20]

Barbos is yet another person (along with Dismal) who should really really really read more about the issue before posting.

Oh, for the love of god! Irony meter redlining. Have you considered the merits of practicing what you preach?

Dismal's objection is the typical nonsense we always hear when discussing wages in the U.S.: ordinary working people aren't worth the salaries they are paid - no matter what those salaries are. No one is worth minimum wage, no one is worth $70,000 a year. The only people who are ever worth their salaries in the minds of some are the CEO's making 300 times the average worker. t is a sick twisted POV in my opinion.

Dismal made no such objection. You have zero basis for claiming he did. You appear to have the same selective reading comprehension problem as Nice Squirrel has, and other people in this thread have. The lot of you appear to have deeply ingrained superstitions about wages; and when you encounter a person who doesn't share those superstitions -- a person who thinks about the whole wage issue in different terms from yours -- you project onto him a persona that your belief system has trained you to project onto unbelievers as a shrink-wrapped ad hominem argument you can use to give yourselves permission to dismiss what they say without thinking about it. I.e., you are responding in exactly the way the average Christian responds to atheism. And it is painfully obvious that you dismissed what dismal said without thinking about it, since if you'd actually given it five seconds of thought you could not possibly have inferred that dismal was arguing that ordinary working people aren't worth the salaries they are paid, unless you were a complete imbecile. And we know that you are not a complete imbecile.

As Steven Weinberg might have put it, religion is an insult to human intellect. With or without it you would have smart people saying smart things and stupid people saying stupid things. But for smart people to say stupid things, that takes religion.

 

[Canard DuJour]

You seem to be suggesting that some third party, err government, ought to be in charge of setting wages and earnings. I hope you're not. But if you are, screw that.

I am not suggesting anything. I am explaining the facts of the matter.

Government policies do effect the economy. I don't think that anyone of any denies this.

It can't be any other way, government establishes the economy by defining the rules under which the economy operates.

The government doesn't set wages or prices, its policies determine to a large extent how the income is distributed between profits and wages.

What I am saying is that government policies can increase profits at by reducing wages or they can increase wages by reducing profits. And currently and for the last thirty five years government policies have been set to increase profits by reducing wages.

I don't see how this can be controversial either. It is the mechanism of neoliberal economics, that is supply side economics. To increase the money available for investment by increasing profits and the incomes of the investors by lowering wages. That is by increasing income inequality.

And I listed some of those government policies.

And finally I asked if this is what we want.

If you still don't understand that you will have to ask more questions of me. Or if you don't believe this you could explain what you believe that are the facts.

Funny thing is, this guy's actually doing something like what capitalism groupies claim capitalism does : paying workers according to the revenue they generate rather than simply paying as little as the labour market allows.

Yet - strangely - it's dismissed as an anomaly, charity, extravagant perks, cheap publicity stunt etc. Hmmm...

 

[Canard DuJour]

Part of the problem is that what "we" want from the economy is predicated on the idea that "we" will not wind up the recipients of lower wages, lower employment, etc.

We've been sold on the idea that with a little elbow grease and effort, everyone who wants to can become an "entrepreneur" and make enough to buy that nice McMansion in the gated community with the BMW parked out front. Hey (the narrative goes) you don't have to worry about the minimum wage or health care because you - yes you - are a special person who can start their own business and become not just the boss, but a "job creator." As everyone knows, "job creators" are far more important to the economy than some schlub working at the Circle K, right? So even if you're a schlub working at Circle K, don't forget to vote Republican because when you do finally start that million-dollar business and sell it to the guys on "Shark Tank" or win the lottery, you're gonna want lower regulations on business and lower taxes on the wealthy!


Because you - yes you - will someday be a wealthy businessman. Why worry about income inequality when you're never going to have to worry about it? (that is, once you get your business going)


And if by chance you read about some guy who decided to split his profits with his employees, or some business that pays far above average even if it hurts their bottom line, well you can safely look down your nose at their lack of business acumen because remember...you are special. Never mind that the 70k a year CEO is already rich. Never mind that Costco is very successful despite paying a living wage. No, you're smarter than those guys.


We have the economy "we" want now because "we" have bought into the bullshit notion that we've actually got more than a ghost of a chance to become one of those high paid captains of industry, and that we've got to make the economy more favorable to our inevitable rise into the 1%.

I think that is a part of the story. I do remember of a paper that I read, which I can't find right now, said that the main motivation behind the middle class voting against their own interests and for increased inequality wasn't so much that they thought that they had a shot at being in the 1% or even if their children did but rather it was the fear that the government would boost the incomes of the lower class to the point that the lower class wages would be equal to or exceed their own. They aren't looking up with anticipation, they are looking down with fear. Fear is so much easier to generate.

It's called Last Place Aversion and explains why the working poor often appear to vote against their own interests.

It also puts the lie to the idea that humans are utility maximisers. Given susbsistence, what matters to humans (being social animals and all) is their place in the rank ordering, as much as absolute quantity of material wealth. Which also explains a lot of what those at the top do.

 

[Bomb#20]

Maybe you should read the article. By doing this, he expects profits to go down not up. He does not expect his super duper happy workers to offset the additional costs by working harder and/or smarter.

I get it. You think that maximum profit is the goal, and anyone who doesn't squeeze every last dollar out of their employees is a communist.


Maybe you should reconsider your priorities.

Um, you know dismal said maximum profit isn't Price's goal, and you know he said Price is charitable, don't you? At no point did dismal suggest that profit ought to be Price's goal or that there's anything at all wrong with charity, let alone that it's communist. Why do you feel justified in making claims about what dismal thinks that you don't have even a smidgen of evidence for? Are you just a hate monger?

 

[Bomb#20]

Funny thing is, this guy's actually doing something like what capitalism groupies claim capitalism does : paying workers according to the revenue they generate rather than simply paying as little as the labour market allows.

Yet - strangely - it's dismissed as an anomaly, charity, extravagant perks, cheap publicity stunt etc. Hmmm...

Are you suggesting "capitalism groupies" believe in the Labor Theory of Value? Or are you merely committing a "They believe X. I believe X implies Y. They don't believe Y. Therefore they're inconsistent." fallacy?

 

[Canard DuJour]

I wonder how this will turn out in the long run.

He will probably be punished by the market. Competitors will not follow suit and he will become less attractive to investors. Capitalism groupies will get a hard on, Koch think-tanks will churn out "studies" claiming that an inherent flaw in capitalism was a flaw in this guy's business.

As others have said, his money, his choice. It's an interesting experiment.


One potential problem does come to mind, though: He's set up a situation with a major manager-abuse risk. If you're a low-level person working at his place you'll be far better off working there than elsewhere. "You want me to hire you? You'll need to sleep with me first." or "If you want to work here you'll pay me $10k/yr. You'll still be making more here than elsewhere."

Voluntary transactions between consenting parties, no force or fraud, no gov't interference. Libertopia! What's yer problem?

 

[Canard DuJour]

Funny thing is, this guy's actually doing something like what capitalism groupies claim capitalism does : paying workers according to the revenue they generate rather than simply paying as little as the labour market allows.

Yet - strangely - it's dismissed as an anomaly, charity, extravagant perks, cheap publicity stunt etc. Hmmm...

Are you suggesting "capitalism groupies" believe in the Labor Theory of Value? Or are you merely committing a "They believe X. I believe X implies Y. They don't believe Y. Therefore they're inconsistent." fallacy?

Nope.


and



Nope.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think that is a part of the story. I do remember of a paper that I read, which I can't find right now, said that the main motivation behind the middle class voting against their own interests and for increased inequality wasn't so much that they thought that they had a shot at being in the 1% or even if their children did but rather it was the fear that the government would boost the incomes of the lower class to the point that the lower class wages would be equal to or exceed their own. They aren't looking up with anticipation, they are looking down with fear. Fear is so much easier to generate.

I know you can't find the paper, so inquiry may be futile, but what did the paper actually say? The middle class obviously did not vote for increased inequality -- we don't do that sort of referendum. So did the paper say the middle class voted for inequality, or is that your personal gloss? Did the authors claim the middle class voted for candidates who promised them increased inequality? That would be an extraordinary claim, since that's not the sort of thing candidates promise.

Or did the paper say they voted in a way that the paper's authors believe led to increased inequality? If that's what they meant, it's unreasonable to equate that with voting for increased inequality. The middle class might have voted for X without realizing that X would lead to increased inequality. Also, policies rarely have only one effect -- the middle class might have voted for X because X would lead to Y and they cared more about Y than about inequality.

Moreover, it's unreasonable to equate voting in a way that increases inequality with voting against their own interests. This is the middle class you're talking about, not the very poor. Inequality could perfectly well be reduced by taking wealth away from the middle class and giving it to the poor. Besides, even if the specific policy they vote against takes wealth away from the very rich and distributes it among the middle class and the poor, it's myopic to assume that this means they're voting against their own interests. Such a policy sets a precedent; the middle class know perfectly well that the people who most loudly advocate taking wealth from "the 1%" are more concerned with helping the poor than with helping the middle class; and they know perfectly well that although inequality is reduced by taking wealth from "the 1%", inequality could be reduced more by taking wealth away from the middle class and giving it to the poor.

I highly doubt that more than a handful of the folks who accuse various social classes of "voting against their own interests" are unacquainted with the logic of "First they came for the communists, and I said nothing, because I was not a communist." So it's rather peculiar when they all seem to implicitly expect this logic to be lost on the social classes whose voting behavior they're criticizing.

 

[Bomb#20]

Nope.


and



Nope.

Nope to both?

Price is going to pay "even the lowest-paid clerk" $70,000; the article article implies this person is currently getting $35,000. So when you say Price is actually doing something like paying workers according to the revenue they generate, you appear to be claiming that a $35,000-a-year clerk is generating $70,000 in revenue. (Is that what you mean to be claiming? If not, please clarify what you mean.)

So assuming you really mean a $35,000-a-year clerk is generating $70,000 in revenue, here's the main question: When you say "capitalism groupies" claim capitalism pays workers according to the revenue they generate, do you think the capitalism groupies agree with you that the $35,000-a-year clerk is generating $70,000 in revenue? That's a yes-or-no question. Pick one.

If you think yes, the "capitalism groupies" agree with you, what on earth would lead you think such a thing? Who would believe the clerk is generating $70,000 in revenue, apart from believers in the Labor Theory of Value?

Contrariwise, if you think no, the "capitalism groupies" do not believe the clerk is generating $70,000 in revenue, then what on earth is "strange" about them dismissing Price's choice as an anomaly, charity, extravagant perks, cheap publicity stunt etc.?

 

[Canard DuJour]

Nope.


and



Nope.

Nope to both?

Yep.

Price is going to pay "even the lowest-paid clerk" $70,000; the article article implies this person is currently getting $35,000. So when you say Price is actually doing something like paying workers according to the revenue they generate, you appear to be claiming that a $35,000-a-year clerk is generating $70,000 in revenue. (Is that what you mean to be claiming? If not, please clarify what you mean.)

No prob. Neither LTOVs nor neo-classical make that claim per worker, which appears to be some persistent hobby horse of yours. Rather, capitalism groupies claim that wage levels in profitable firms are determined by profitability (revenue minus costs) rather than labour market conditions (how easily a given type of worker is to replace). Price proposes to pay what revenues afford while remaining profitable rather than what the labour market lets him get away with.

So assuming you really mean [...etc]

 

[RavenSky]

Nope to both?

Yep.

Price is going to pay "even the lowest-paid clerk" $70,000; the article article implies this person is currently getting $35,000. So when you say Price is actually doing something like paying workers according to the revenue they generate, you appear to be claiming that a $35,000-a-year clerk is generating $70,000 in revenue. (Is that what you mean to be claiming? If not, please clarify what you mean.)

No prob. Neither LTOVs nor neo-classical make that claim per worker, which appears to be some persistent hobby horse of yours. Rather, capitalism groupies claim that wage levels in profitable firms are determined by profitability (revenue minus costs) rather than labour market conditions (how easily a given type of worker is to replace). Price proposes to pay what revenues afford while remaining profitable rather than what the labour market lets him get away with.

So assuming you really mean [...etc]

Well written

 

[BH]

edit

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He will probably be punished by the market. Competitors will not follow suit and he will become less attractive to investors. Capitalism groupies will get a hard on, Koch think-tanks will churn out "studies" claiming that an inherent flaw in capitalism was a flaw in this guy's business.

As others have said, his money, his choice. It's an interesting experiment.


One potential problem does come to mind, though: He's set up a situation with a major manager-abuse risk. If you're a low-level person working at his place you'll be far better off working there than elsewhere. "You want me to hire you? You'll need to sleep with me first." or "If you want to work here you'll pay me $10k/yr. You'll still be making more here than elsewhere."

Voluntary transactions between consenting parties, no force or fraud, no gov't interference. Libertopia! What's yer problem?

You don't see the embezzlement here??

 

[DBT]

All this fuss over a guy who has an apparently rare sense (in the business world) of fairness toward his employees. Who, by means of their time, labour and skill are helping to run the company and generate profits and therefore should be fairly compensated as a matter of routine.

 

[barbos]

All this fuss over a guy who has an apparently rare sense (in the business world) of fairness toward his employees. Who, by means of their time, labour and skill are helping to run the company and generate profits and therefore should be fairly compensated as a matter of routine.

I don't see how paying a clerk with high school diploma more than PhD working on cure for cancer is fair.
And I am even ignoring the fact that the the whole business he is running is morally and I would say legally questionable. Yes, I think credit card business the way it's run now should be illegal.

 

[DBT]

All this fuss over a guy who has an apparently rare sense (in the business world) of fairness toward his employees. Who, by means of their time, labour and skill are helping to run the company and generate profits and therefore should be fairly compensated as a matter of routine.

I don't see how paying a clerk with high school diploma more than PhD working on cure for cancer is fair.
And I am even ignoring the fact that the the whole business he is running is morally and I would say legally questionable. Yes, I think credit card business the way it's run now should be illegal.

Well then, the pay scales in the USA must be quite poor because 70k per annum should be about average pay for skilled work.

According to Seek’s annual Salary Review, the average salary in Australia in the 12 months to June 2014 is $79,767. But’s that’s down 3.2 per cent from the previous year.

The industry with the highest average salary is still mining, even if those salaries have dropped by 10 per cent. The average Australian miner is being rewarded with $120,793 a year for their efforts.

The remainder of the top five highest paying industries are:

• Consulting and strategy: $108,225

• Engineering: $105,608

• Construction: $104,754

• Information and communication technology: $99,065.

If you’re looking to upgrade your pay packet in an industry with growing salaries, cast your eye on these sectors:

• Insurance and superannuation: $81,049, up 6 per cent

• Farming, animals and conservation: $70,992, up 5 per cent

• Retail and consumer products: $58,397, up 5 per cent

• Call centre and customer service: $55,145, up 4 per cent

• Education and training: $71,848, up 4 per cent

 

[barbos]

Retail and consumer products: $58,397, up 5 per cent

Really?
I know australian dollar is smaller and taxes are probably high, but still $60k ($50k is USD) in retail is ridiculous.
And since when clerks are skilled work?

 

[DBT]

Retail and consumer products: $58,397, up 5 per cent

Really?
I know australian dollar is smaller and taxes are probably high, but still $60k in retail is ridiculous.

Anything less is ridiculous. You guys must be willing to sell your time and skill and lives for way too little in return.

 

[bigfield]

Retail and consumer products: $58,397, up 5 per cent

Really?
I know australian dollar is smaller and taxes are probably high, but still $60k ($50k is USD) in retail is ridiculous.

I'm betting that you have interpreted that as the average wage for checkout operators and storepersons, which it quite obviously isn't.