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

[DBT]

And I am talking about what I said. His "within my business" logic is ridiculous and it is not even his original logic. His original logic is 70K is a minimum salary to be happy so be it. No within "my business" at all.

He was talking about his business, hence I mentioned his remark was related to his business - ie- 'within his business'.

There was no mention of ''within my business'' made by him, or by me.

Considering that a slight lapse in wording can seized and chewed to the point of absurdity, I probably should have taken time to phase it more carefully.

It's irrelevant anyway. Dan Price considers that the pay rates he is now paying his staff is sustainable in terms of productivity. That being the point.

And he can say whatever he likes. Yeah and he raised it even more, such a shrewd businessman....

Of course. He, being in charge of running the company, should be the one who understands his business better than you, or me.

 

[WAB]

Heard an interview with Dan Price on ABC radio this afternoon. He sounded very concerned with the degree of disparity between the incomes of those at the top, up toward the million dollar bracket and beyond, and everyone below 70 thousand. He said 60K is the basically the bottom line, below which it becomes a struggle to make ends meet....and he wants his employees to focus on their jobs and not have to worry about the bills.

He came across as a decent human being.

Egads! If I made 50K I'd be happy as a lark, and I'd have no problem making ends meet or paying bills. I had no problem making ends meet when I was earning 35K. In fact, I ended up with 13K in the bank by the beginning of 2012. Plus 6K in my 401K. And I don't think KK Downing is as good as Glenn Tipton, and I don't shop at the Circle K. K?

Of course, I live like a Trappist monk, and I'm in Arizona.

How can someone be in financial trouble earning a wee tad less than 60K? I imagine because they take on huge house payments, huge car payments, ridiculously inflated insurance payments, medical bills— because they run to the doctor every time they have an ache or pain, due to the glut of commercials on TV telling them to "See your doctor!" every twenty minutes— medications (my older brother has 14 physician-prescribed medications), auto repairs and mechanical quackery that doesn't need to be done as frequently as they tell you ($86 to replace yer transmission fluid, $30 sumpinrudder to change yer oil, tune-up, rotate yer tires, and alignment [or you will DIE on the road, sir!], upwards of $600 to find and fix an oil leak, and Goodness only knows what highway robbery some of those bandits commit to people who know nothing about what goes on under the hood of their vehicle...

Not to mention way too much fancy beer, wine, new-age drinks, over-priced clothing, ugly tattoos, "handsome shades & cheap sunglasses", and endless amounts of overpriced gas for those pointless road trips to the greener pastures of Elsewhere...

^Now that was a rant.

But I'm not really serious, just venting.

 

[barbos]

He was talking about his business, hence I mentioned his remark was related to his business - ie- 'within his business'.

There was no mention of ''within my business'' made by him, or by me.

You realize that you are arguing with English language?

Considering that a slight lapse in wording can seized and chewed to the point of absurdity, I probably should have taken time to phase it more carefully.

I agree here.

It's irrelevant anyway. Dan Price considers that the pay rates he is now paying his staff is sustainable in terms of productivity. That being the point.

He can consider that all he wants, but that's bullshit.

And he can say whatever he likes. Yeah and he raised it even more, such a shrewd businessman....

Of course. He, being in charge of running the company, should be the one who understands his business better than you, or me.

That's debatable.

 

[DBT]

You realize that you are arguing with English language?

So? You being the one misrepresenting what I said, for whatever purpose you had in mind.

I agree here.

Not to mention your own gaff.

He can consider that all he wants, but that's bullshit.

Not because you say so.

Only time will tell. Meanwhile we have an example of what is possible in relation to fair pay for services rendered.

That's debatable.

How do you know? Do you have access to his books, his income and expenditure?

 

[barbos]

So? You being the one misrepresenting what I said, for whatever purpose you had in mind.

I am not.

I agree here.

Not to mention your own gaff.

My gaff? where?

He can consider that all he wants, but that's bullshit.

Not because you say so.

And not because he or you say so.

Only time will tell. Meanwhile we have an example of what is possible in relation to fair pay for services rendered.

You still have not answered my question about $470k, would that be fair?

That's debatable.

How do you know? Do you have access to his books, his income and expenditure?

I don't need to have his books, they are irrelevant.

 

[DBT]

My gaff? where?

Your remark 'His "within my business" logic is ridiculous and it is not even his original logic' - does not represent anything I said, which I've already pointed out.

He can consider that all he wants, but that's bullshit.

Not because you say so.

And not because he or you say so.

It is not because I say so, or because you say so.

It is his business, and seeing that he runs his own business and he should know what are, and what are not, sustainable pay rates for his employees, therefore he should know what is profitable, and what is not profitable in relation to pay rates, that is for him to say, and not you to say, and not me to say.

Why is it of such apparent concern to you that Dan Price cares about the issue of pay inequity and has decided to do something about it? Are you worried his business will fail? That it sets a bad example?

Why is this a problem?

 

[barbos]

Your remark 'His "within my business" logic is ridiculous and it is not even his original logic' - does not represent anything I said, which I've already pointed out.

I disagree, you did say that.

He can consider that all he wants, but that's bullshit.

Not because you say so.

And not because he or you say so.

It is not because I say so, or because you say so.

It is his business, and seeing that he runs his own business and he should know what are, and what are not, sustainable pay rates for his employees, therefore he should know what is profitable, and what is not profitable in relation to pay rates, that is for him to say, and not you to say, and not me to say.

It is his business, there can't be no doubt about that, but when he goes out and trumpet his ideas/rationale and it becomes other people's business.

Why is it of such apparent concern to you that Dan Price cares about the issue of pay inequity and has decided to do something about it? Are you worried his business will fail? That it sets a bad example?

Yes, that's a bad example and he is an idiot.

Why is this a problem?

 

[DBT]

I disagree, you did say that.

I said something that had very little to do with your interpretation.

It is his business, there can't be no doubt about that, but when he goes out and trumpet his ideas/rationale and it becomes other people's business.

It was an unusual decision in a world where it's considered normal, in the interest corporate profits, investor returns and upper management pay scales, etc, to keep the income of employees as low as possible in order to maximize profits.

Being an unusual decision, it made world news. People are interested. The world is interested in the story. It is you who twists the narrative to mean, in your own words, ''he goes out and trumpet his ideas/rationale.''

Nor is it relevant to the question of sustainability, which Dan Price, being the CEO of his own company, should know whether it is sustainable or not...and not you to say, and not me to say.

Yes, that's a bad example and he is an idiot.

Not because you say so. Only time and events will tell.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Not at all. If they can't be disaggregated, the bolded bit is redundant and potentially misleading.

I'm mystified as to why you would believe such a thing. The bolded bit makes clear that they haven't been disaggregated; leaving it out would make it appear that they have been, which would be definitely misleading. Can you explain your reasoning?

I just did, but I can explain your mystification. Leaving it out would only make it appear they've been disaggregated if you assume the person leaving it out means two discrete quantities - which remains a projection of yours. Otherwise, addition of the bolded bit would sound like a clarification that she does indeed mean that.

I saw your recent exchange with Loren. You might be overlooking the distinction between the wage level a particular firm pays at a particular time and the equilibrium wage level the labor market tends to move toward over time.

I believe I addressed it : The market as a whole might act like that, but then the supply-side argument about wage levels and demand for labour doesn't hold.

Not sure which supply-side argument you're referring to; but then it would hardly surprise me to find a supply-side argument not holding. I don't think the "capitalism groupies" I've seen you talking to are relying on supply-siders' theories; I'm certainly not. As far as I can see, what I've said is consistent with Keynes.

Of course if some business is more profitable than average then it will tend to accumulate capital and also draw in new investment, so it will grow, which will tend to push up the demand curve for the type of labor it uses without pushing up the supply curve, so the equilibrium wage for that type of labor will rise, and the labor market is likely to change to reflect that.

Not without additional demand for the product of labour.

What's your basis for that? If there's no additional demand but capital is flowing in, then prices will fall,

They might or might not. "Capital flowing in" means new factories and whatnot and/or additional investor money which investors want back and then some, all of which must come from revenue. You'd only drop your prices if the additional capital lowers unit production costs (for example by replacing labour) by more than the price drop, and whether that's the case has bugger all to do with your preconditions.

which will increase the quantity sold and thereby increase the labor consumed,

which wouldn't necessarily increase its price while there remains a pool of surplus labour, anyway

even when the demand curve stays the same. Of course, this will cause profitability to regress toward the mean, which is what's to be expected when there's above normal profitability.

(Oh, and that's "demand for the product of labor and capital". )

Ah. Why would people who approve of capitalism think determining wages by how little you can get away with paying is a negative?

I'm not sure they do, but the people they need to sell it to do.

So when an unbeliever argues with theists, he should accept all the theists' superstitions because the people he needs to sell atheism to accept them?

On the contrary! It'd be dishonest like quaint parables of wages set by the worker's contribution when you really believe that employers pay as little as the labour market lets them get away with and that's fine and dandy.

If a worker is offered two jobs at a 70K salary, one of them with two weeks of vacation each year and frequent overtime, the other with a month's vacation each year and no more than 8 hours work a day, so he chooses to take a job from employer #2 and hangs employer #1 out to dry, do you think that's one of capitalism's negative features?

Certainly, though it's by far the lesser evil given the human costs and employer/employee ratios.

Good lord, why? Do you long for the era of 12-hour workdays with Sundays and Christmas off? Or perhaps for the era of loyal retainers putting their feudal lord's interests ahead of their own? What the heck is negative about a worker being able to minimize the amount of trouble and inconvenience he has to go to to achieve a given standard of living?

Quote restored in full, response redundant.

 

[barbos]

I said something that had very little to do with your interpretation.

So, what did you mean by "Within his business"?

It is his business, there can't be no doubt about that, but when he goes out and trumpet his ideas/rationale and it becomes other people's business.

It was an unusual decision in a world where it's considered normal, in the interest corporate profits, investor returns and upper management pay scales, etc, to keep the income of employees as low as possible in order to maximize profits.

Being an unusual decision, it made world news. People are interested. The world is interested in the story. It is you who twists the narrative to mean, in your own words, ''he goes out and trumpet his ideas/rationale.''

He has his business and I have my freedom of speech. So his business is no excuse to shut people down by "it's my business"

Nor is it relevant to the question of sustainability, which Dan Price, being the CEO of his own company, should know whether it is sustainable or not...and not you to say, and not me to say.

We will see.

Yes, that's a bad example and he is an idiot.

Not because you say so. Only time and events will tell.

Yes, he is an idiot because he is.

 

[RavenSky]

Heard an interview with Dan Price on ABC radio this afternoon. He sounded very concerned with the degree of disparity between the incomes of those at the top, up toward the million dollar bracket and beyond, and everyone below 70 thousand. He said 60K is the basically the bottom line, below which it becomes a struggle to make ends meet....and he wants his employees to focus on their jobs and not have to worry about the bills.

He came across as a decent human being.

Egads! If I made 50K I'd be happy as a lark, and I'd have no problem making ends meet or paying bills. I had no problem making ends meet when I was earning 35K. In fact, I ended up with 13K in the bank by the beginning of 2012. Plus 6K in my 401K. :

. You live in Seattle Washington?

 

[WAB]

Egads! If I made 50K I'd be happy as a lark, and I'd have no problem making ends meet or paying bills. I had no problem making ends meet when I was earning 35K. In fact, I ended up with 13K in the bank by the beginning of 2012. Plus 6K in my 401K. :

. You live in Seattle Washington?

No. But I bet I could live happily on 50K there. I live happily* on $8.24 per hour here in AZ.

Alright, not happily, but I'm still kicking.

 

[WAB]

http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Dietary+aide&l1=Seattle,+WA

I looked up "average pay dietary aide Seattle Washington" and got to this page. As of this year, the average pay for this job is 25K. So if Price believes that anything beneath 60K is not enough to make ends meet, then how in the world do these poor souls live? They must have to hold down 2 or more jobs.

Anyone round here live in Seattle? What kind of low-income housing do they have?

Long term dietary aides here in Havasu, say people who've stayed in one place for 10 yrs or more, would probably be earning around 25K as of current date. Cooks would be making more. Even dishwashers, if they stay in one facility/restaurant for several years, will be able to make ends meet just fine, providing they know how to handle money and providing they do not need a lot of medical care and/or have insurance.

Of course, those who qualify can sign up for AHCCCS, food stamps, etc. I would definitely qualify for those programs, but I haven't gone to DES yet, being that I've been sharing expenses with my brother since 2013. If it weren't for him, I probably would have had to at some point.

I assume the 25K average is starting pay in Seattle? I don't know of any facility in Havasu where they'd pay a dietary aide that much to start. I suppose kitchen staff (subordinates to cooks and chefs) in some high caliber restaurants might.

****

DBT: Just curious. What would the average low income rent for a small apartment be where you live? Can low-income workers make it on one full-time job? Say a cook in a medium-scale restaurant? Maybe I'll move to Australia. I hear the weather's great and the waves are epic.

But I'll need a super-duper ultra-user-friendly board with lots of buckles and safety belts, since I can't swim.

 

[laughing dog]

http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Dietary+aide&l1=Seattle,+WA

I looked up "average pay dietary aide Seattle Washington" and got to this page. As of this year, the average pay for this job is 25K. So if Price believes that anything beneath 60K is not enough to make ends meet, then how in the world do these poor souls live? They must have to hold down 2 or more jobs.

According to the OP article

The idea began percolating, said Dan Price, the founder of Gravity Payments, after he read an article on happiness. It showed that for people who earn less than about $70,000, extra money makes a big difference in their lives.

. That has nothing to do with "making ends meet".

 

[WAB]

According to the OP article

The idea began percolating, said Dan Price, the founder of Gravity Payments, after he read an article on happiness. It showed that for people who earn less than about $70,000, extra money makes a big difference in their lives.

. That has nothing to do with "making ends meet".

He [Price] said 60K is the basically the bottom line, below which it becomes a struggle to make ends meet....and he wants his employees to focus on their jobs and not have to worry about the bills.

I'm just going on what I read in DBT's post.

 

[DBT]

According to the OP article
. That has nothing to do with "making ends meet".

What lauging

He [Price] said 60K is the basically the bottom line, below which it becomes a struggle to make ends meet....and he wants his employees to focus on their jobs and not have to worry about the bills.

I'm just going on what I read in DBT's post.

What laughing dog said was the point, it's not just about making ends meet, but making a big difference to the lives of his employees. I think his 60k comment was meant to illustrate the line between 'worrying about making ends meet' and making a 'big difference to their lives.'

 

[WAB]

Yep, that'd make a BIG difference for me.

 

[DBT]

An idealist might say that one of the main purposes of forming a society is to benefit all of its members fairly and justly, creating opportunities for its members to earn, not a marginal existence, but a good living in return for providing their time and skill while engaged in productive work that benefits that society.

 

[ZiprHead]

Heard an interview with Dan Price on ABC radio this afternoon. He sounded very concerned with the degree of disparity between the incomes of those at the top, up toward the million dollar bracket and beyond, and everyone below 70 thousand. He said 60K is the basically the bottom line, below which it becomes a struggle to make ends meet....and he wants his employees to focus on their jobs and not have to worry about the bills.

He came across as a decent human being.

I say we hang him from the nearest tree.

 

[WAB]

Heard an interview with Dan Price on ABC radio this afternoon. He sounded very concerned with the degree of disparity between the incomes of those at the top, up toward the million dollar bracket and beyond, and everyone below 70 thousand. He said 60K is the basically the bottom line, below which it becomes a struggle to make ends meet....and he wants his employees to focus on their jobs and not have to worry about the bills.

He came across as a decent human being.

I say we hang him from the nearest tree.

http://www.bartleby.com/265/295.html


I ha’ seen him eat o’ the honey-comb
Sin’ they nailed him to the tree.

See, you guys are just walkin into it.

And that is what happens to Good Guys, Zipr.

Guywire, Guy De Moupassant, vaguyna...it all adds up!