Your own field of computer techs, mystery45, are starting just shy of minimum these days WITH A CERTIFICATE - I've seen $9/h starts for A+ and MSCNE certified professionals locally! Twenty years ago? $20 starts were commonplace for similar certs.
What? I guess I dont know exactly what that level of certification equates to but the company I work for pays INTERNS $20 an hour...
When I was in school I was making $10 an hour working on campus as a software tester and the only reason it was that low was because that was the maximum the University was allowed to pay a student worker. To put that in perspective Tuition for a semester there was only $3k... I typically got full time hours in the summer so in 1 summer I was making enough to cover more than half the tuition costs for the year. I also know that the company I work for is struggling to find operations guys (hybrid sys admin/software engineers).
The tech industry is amazing to be in as an employee.
You are in the boonies though, no? Tech jobs have always paid more in the boonies - these are local (DC centralized for WaPo) and we've got a glut of tech people here.
You are in the boonies though, no? Tech jobs have always paid more in the boonies - these are local (DC centralized for WaPo) and we've got a glut of tech people here.
I went to school/grew up in the "boonies" I currently work in a major city just west of Minneapolis...
Still boonieish compared to New England and its neighbors. I've got 5 major cities in under a 2 hr drive (philly, DC, Baltimore, Annapolis, Richmond - 6 if I counted Alexandria but that's basically just more of DC)
Cashiers usually averaged a good starting wage and often 20-30 years of staying in the position. Hell, my grandma retired from Hutzlers as a cashier of 40 years making $15/h in the early 80s! (Noncomission, they did have commissioned positions)
yeah after 40 years of pay increases. but not starting out she didn't.
quit moving the goal posts and admit you were being dishonest. not one company in 1972 payed their workers 15-20 bucks an hour to be a cashier.
not when the income for the average worker was 11k a year.
this is according to the BLS.
Toyota paid that in 88 and is now starting at $9 (for US factories).
This is simply not true. the average pay for a toyota plant is 18-25 dollars. depending on the job you are doing. it took me 5 minutes doing a google search.
the lowest paid is a mechanic at 13 bucks probably with 0 experience.
WaPo this weekends looking for MSCE certs offering $11 this past weekend in the classifieds.
This tells me nothing. what was the company what was the position etc etc...
you are leaving out a ton of details to claim a fact but with nothing to support it.
Mystery, it is also common to use the same year dollers in discussions, otherwise its comparing very dissimiliar things
I am. he is making claims that people paid double/triple minimum wage 40 years ago. so i looked it up. in 1972 ~40s ago minimum wage was 1.80. paying 2 or 3 times that isn't that large of a number anymore.
he made other claims that i showed were clearly wrong.
in any even you want more than minimum wage do something that makes someone pay you more. the more job skills you have the better off you are.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
As for Toyota its possible they're not getting people who are taking the positions, but the Sun was quoting them posting jobs for their Tennessee plant iirc at the quoted $9/h. Additionally note for Glassdoor per the site they don't post temporary alternate wages like training or apprenticeship which do exist in Ford shops - not sure for Toyota however. Normal apprentice and training wages are $5 under normal in my experience which would make your value found fit.
On MSCE it was "a major employer" per the classified but no company name was listed as is the norm around here. (About 60-70% don't specify a name)
As for inflation $1.80 in 70 is $10.80 now. If cashiers were similar now they'd be around $20/h starting and capping around $30/h.
I just asked my mother, who worked as a cashier at a JCPenney store during the late 60s, and through the 70's. In 1970, she said that she made slightly above minimum wage, and that she made $1.75/hour, which checks with what the federal minimum wage was at the time, which was $1.60/hour. I wouldnt be surprised if some cashier jobs paid more, but I sinceraly doubt that the starting wages for MOST places were more than $2-$2.50/hour.
Also, I found this article rather interesting, it basically goes over CPI information, Housing cost information and college education cost information from 1970 compared to today (or 2011 as in the case of when the article was written). Might be something interesting in regards to this conversation, so feel free to have a look: http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2011/10/13/a-dose-of-financial-reality/
To be fair, I could be biasing myself with being grocery focused, since that's the history I know best - and my grandmother (with a ton of experience) being even above that. (And from what she said Hutzler's paid amazingly compared to its peers)
But do remember that she may have lived in a low COL region that brought the average down - as stated my grandmother made a mint over the average, but this was the highest COL state in the nation at the time as well. (#5 these days) And the highest COL states do have more employed people which pull figures up from the low COL. It's quite possible I've confused the more specific "Grocery Cashier" in my memory with generic "Cashiers" - but it does seem likely that a few low COL regions would hug minimum wage nearly. [Especially back then when COL differences were nearly 100% different reasonably often - something that only really happens today with housing which isn't used in COL calculations for some odd reason]
To be fair, I could be biasing myself with being grocery focused, since that's the history I know best - and my grandmother (with a ton of experience) being even above that. (And from what she said Hutzler's paid amazingly compared to its peers)
No you are doing what you always do when someone proves a point you make is incorrect. you put up some family member and go see it wasn't like that for them which means squat.
and i am telling you she was maybe making that after 15-20 years of being a casher. she wasn't making that in 1972.
Your grandmother and what she made has no bearing on your arguement.
it is inconsquential to actual facts and figures from the board of labor statistics which show exactly what people made back then.
but the Sun was quoting them posting jobs for their Tennessee plant iirc at the quoted $9/h.
you are going to have to link it i can't find it.
again you fail to mention the job and the position.
that might be for a non-certified student that is getting job training.
On MSCE it was "a major employer" per the classified but no company name was listed as is the norm around here.
then that tells me squat.
If cashiers were similar now they'd be around $20/h starting and capping around $30/h.
No they wouldn't no sane company is going to pay a cashier 20-30 bucks an hour.
this is what i am talking about you are just making up numbers.
depending on the company most cashier do make about 8-10 bucks an hour.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
On Hutzlers they were bought by Belk before that list really existed - Kmart was still a force and everyone was hoping for Walmart to come to their town at the time because they were limited in scope.
Wasn't so much floorspace that killed them IMO - the store got stuck in an era IMO - I couldn't shop there myself it was all retroish to me, targetted at a dying demographic.
Mystery: I admitted thecpossiblity that I made an error in scope, I know my field did that (hell, my company doesn't cap cashiers ever so a few 40+ year vets were making high 20s and low 30s if they've not left yet - one was in her 80s and started as a teen though) but its possible I got confused and expanded it too far outward. Which would render my point rather moot - since one employer or style of employer for a common position is not itself common. (Like people that quote CEO pay as a major woe - they earn a lot but there's one per corp so its moot since it defrays their real labor cost)
On the Sun, read it in print I'll hunt later online when I'm at the PC vs phone don't think the Sun puts everything online though I'm not optimistic.
As for the classified (not recycled that paper yet) the phone number given would be one of the DC suburbs in MD even callingthem now tthey're not identifying - to me sounds like a temp agency with how tight lipped they're being about specifics. No location answers being a biggy.
“If you look at it today, to repatriate cash to the U.S., you need to pay 35% of that cash. And that is a very high number,” Cook told the Post. “We are not proposing that it be zero. I know that many of our peers believe that. But I don’t view that. But I think it has to be reasonable.”
Apple's case really isn't a good one to use the argument for - the Ireland branch for example is clearly a shell company (in fact pretty much the absolute definition of one) - the funds that it is responsible for is about 1000:1 compared to it's own employment, which then gets shuffled off elsewhere.
And their NL branch is actually taxed at 25% before VAT which pushes it roughly 32% - so they're implying 3% is a big deal. [And note, NL has minimal corporate deductions allowed from what I can see - in comparison to our ridiculously deduction friendly tax structure]
Apple's case really isn't a good one to use the argument for - the Ireland branch for example is clearly a shell company (in fact pretty much the absolute definition of one) - the funds that it is responsible for is about 1000:1 compared to it's own employment, which then gets shuffled off elsewhere.
And their NL branch is actually taxed at 25% before VAT which pushes it roughly 32% - so they're implying 3% is a big deal. [And note, NL has minimal corporate deductions allowed from what I can see - in comparison to our ridiculously deduction friendly tax structure]
3% of $120Bln is a big deal. Think of this way....$300,000,000 that could be spent on something cause it's obviously not going to taxes..
I could care less how low we make the tax rate as long as the money gets reinevested or distrubted to people in the US.
Eh, keep in mind wages are higher in those countries as well - and more benefits are mandated by the nations. (In addition I think NL might have a healthcare tax on top that the employers cover? I'm not 100% sure on that however.) They might be saving $300b in taxes just to spend that much or more on employees if they have to prop them up to rational numbers to get out of "shell status".
And assuming they bust the shell [which is why he's testifying, hoping they won't] - they'll have to pay taxes to the US for those funds instead, regardless of where it's set up since shell corporations are illegal in the US.
This is likely just an example of a failed tax dodge, if it's upheld however this conversation is worth revisiting. Considering what I understand of shell companies though, this fits the description as I understand it 110% - which means it's going to get busted and taxed fully in the US unless they decide to decline selling their product in the US anymore. (Fat chance of Apple EVER doing that - their international sales are pathetic)
Costco's CEO, in a move unlike most retailers, says he would want to see the federal minimum wage increased to $10.10 an hour. That is even higher than the $9 an hour President Obama requested in his State of the Union address.
Costco's CEO, in a move unlike most retailers, says he would want to see the federal minimum wage increased to $10.10 an hour. That is even higher than the $9 an hour President Obama requested in his State of the Union address.
Costco's CEO, in a move unlike most retailers, says he would want to see the federal minimum wage increased to $10.10 an hour. That is even higher than the $9 an hour President Obama requested in his State of the Union address.
Why not $100 an hour? Interesting first post.....
Because its an amazing PR move on their part, a) for a very small price they get Massive beneficial reputation. Their main competitor walmart pays min wage, they go and say " we are better then them we care about the little people" look we even asked for a bigger min wage hike. They know it will not happen, so get the the perk from the massess for trying and don't lose any real money for it, Amazing marketing at its finest. Likely the total sum of additional pay is LESS than the cost they would have paid for the advertisement costs. They get great advertising at a lesser rate.
b) even if the wages DO get raised, it hurts their competitors more than them since they have already been paying the higher wages so it has less impact on their income statment in the year to year analysis ie they have already taken that hit and moved on, adapted, where as the compition has not.
If minimum wage was reduced, unemployment would go away very quickly as companies would pay $2/hr and get all the labor they need. And then within a year or two, since nobody is making any money they can't buy anything and thus, companies will have to lay off massive amounts of people. YAY unemployment comes back!
If minimum wage was reduced, unemployment would go away very quickly as companies would pay $2/hr and get all the labor they need. And then within a year or two, since nobody is making any money they can't buy anything and thus, companies will have to lay off massive amounts of people. YAY unemployment comes back!
I want you to think critically about what you are saying.
You're predicting that absent a minimum wage, companies would lower their wages to an extent that would, "within a year or two," cause major financial harm or collapse to that same company.
In order for this prediction to happen, one of two things would need to be true: (1) Timothy, Mimeslayer, has a better understanding of economics than these companies, many of which hire teams of trained economic and financial analysts to help them predict these kinds of things, or (2) these companies are perfectly aware that they are shooting themselves in the foot by lowering their wages so much, but decide to do so anyway for some unexplained reason.
Its simple game theory. Whoever does it reaps an enormous advantage over everyone else. This means they will all do it even though its worse off for everyone.
Nobody would agree to work for $2/hr, sorry. Even if I lived in very cheap housing and ate only very cheap food and only shopped at very cheap stores $16 bucks a day would not cover my living expenses. It's not going to happen. Raising minimum wage gives benefits to the working poor. Is McDonalds or Walmart simply going to stop opening shops? If so, great! Let's see some competition from stores that pay their employees better.
You appear to be running under the mistaken assumption that no matter how little money you offer somebody will do the job. This is not the case, even with the very desparate. If I had a choice between starvation and two bucks an hour, I'd start stealing for a living - either I'd get caught and get free food in a warm cell or I'd have a living.
Yes, I'm willing to pay a bit more if that's what it takes. But you'll see that companies will probably not raise prices, or raise prices by that much if minimum wage goes up. That's the magic of competition.
Its simple game theory. Whoever does it reaps an enormous advantage over everyone else. This means they will all do it even though its worse off for everyone.
See: shipping manufacturing jobs overseas.
So, you are electing option (1) Timothy, Mimeslayer, has a better understanding of economics than these companies, many of which hire teams of trained economic and financial analysts to help them predict these kinds of things?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What? I guess I dont know exactly what that level of certification equates to but the company I work for pays INTERNS $20 an hour...
When I was in school I was making $10 an hour working on campus as a software tester and the only reason it was that low was because that was the maximum the University was allowed to pay a student worker. To put that in perspective Tuition for a semester there was only $3k... I typically got full time hours in the summer so in 1 summer I was making enough to cover more than half the tuition costs for the year. I also know that the company I work for is struggling to find operations guys (hybrid sys admin/software engineers).
The tech industry is amazing to be in as an employee.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I went to school/grew up in the "boonies" I currently work in a major city just west of Minneapolis...
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
yeah after 40 years of pay increases. but not starting out she didn't.
quit moving the goal posts and admit you were being dishonest. not one company in 1972 payed their workers 15-20 bucks an hour to be a cashier.
not when the income for the average worker was 11k a year.
this is according to the BLS.
This is simply not true. the average pay for a toyota plant is 18-25 dollars. depending on the job you are doing. it took me 5 minutes doing a google search.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Toyota-Salaries-E3544.htm
gives a good overview of salaries.
the lowest paid is a mechanic at 13 bucks probably with 0 experience.
This tells me nothing. what was the company what was the position etc etc...
you are leaving out a ton of details to claim a fact but with nothing to support it.
I am. he is making claims that people paid double/triple minimum wage 40 years ago. so i looked it up. in 1972 ~40s ago minimum wage was 1.80. paying 2 or 3 times that isn't that large of a number anymore.
he made other claims that i showed were clearly wrong.
in any even you want more than minimum wage do something that makes someone pay you more. the more job skills you have the better off you are.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
As for Toyota its possible they're not getting people who are taking the positions, but the Sun was quoting them posting jobs for their Tennessee plant iirc at the quoted $9/h. Additionally note for Glassdoor per the site they don't post temporary alternate wages like training or apprenticeship which do exist in Ford shops - not sure for Toyota however. Normal apprentice and training wages are $5 under normal in my experience which would make your value found fit.
On MSCE it was "a major employer" per the classified but no company name was listed as is the norm around here. (About 60-70% don't specify a name)
As for inflation $1.80 in 70 is $10.80 now. If cashiers were similar now they'd be around $20/h starting and capping around $30/h.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Also, I found this article rather interesting, it basically goes over CPI information, Housing cost information and college education cost information from 1970 compared to today (or 2011 as in the case of when the article was written). Might be something interesting in regards to this conversation, so feel free to have a look:
http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2011/10/13/a-dose-of-financial-reality/
But do remember that she may have lived in a low COL region that brought the average down - as stated my grandmother made a mint over the average, but this was the highest COL state in the nation at the time as well. (#5 these days) And the highest COL states do have more employed people which pull figures up from the low COL. It's quite possible I've confused the more specific "Grocery Cashier" in my memory with generic "Cashiers" - but it does seem likely that a few low COL regions would hug minimum wage nearly. [Especially back then when COL differences were nearly 100% different reasonably often - something that only really happens today with housing which isn't used in COL calculations for some odd reason]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
No you are doing what you always do when someone proves a point you make is incorrect. you put up some family member and go see it wasn't like that for them which means squat.
and i am telling you she was maybe making that after 15-20 years of being a casher. she wasn't making that in 1972.
Your grandmother and what she made has no bearing on your arguement.
it is inconsquential to actual facts and figures from the board of labor statistics which show exactly what people made back then.
you are going to have to link it i can't find it.
again you fail to mention the job and the position.
that might be for a non-certified student that is getting job training.
then that tells me squat.
No they wouldn't no sane company is going to pay a cashier 20-30 bucks an hour.
this is what i am talking about you are just making up numbers.
depending on the company most cashier do make about 8-10 bucks an hour.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Wasn't so much floorspace that killed them IMO - the store got stuck in an era IMO - I couldn't shop there myself it was all retroish to me, targetted at a dying demographic.
Mystery: I admitted thecpossiblity that I made an error in scope, I know my field did that (hell, my company doesn't cap cashiers ever so a few 40+ year vets were making high 20s and low 30s if they've not left yet - one was in her 80s and started as a teen though) but its possible I got confused and expanded it too far outward. Which would render my point rather moot - since one employer or style of employer for a common position is not itself common. (Like people that quote CEO pay as a major woe - they earn a lot but there's one per corp so its moot since it defrays their real labor cost)
On the Sun, read it in print I'll hunt later online when I'm at the PC vs phone don't think the Sun puts everything online though I'm not optimistic.
As for the classified (not recycled that paper yet) the phone number given would be one of the DC suburbs in MD even callingthem now tthey're not identifying - to me sounds like a temp agency with how tight lipped they're being about specifics. No location answers being a biggy.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I do not know if this money would create jobs but its doing no good for the US economy overseas and the only reason its overseas is high taxes.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
And their NL branch is actually taxed at 25% before VAT which pushes it roughly 32% - so they're implying 3% is a big deal. [And note, NL has minimal corporate deductions allowed from what I can see - in comparison to our ridiculously deduction friendly tax structure]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
3% of $120Bln is a big deal. Think of this way....$300,000,000 that could be spent on something cause it's obviously not going to taxes..
I could care less how low we make the tax rate as long as the money gets reinevested or distrubted to people in the US.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
And assuming they bust the shell [which is why he's testifying, hoping they won't] - they'll have to pay taxes to the US for those funds instead, regardless of where it's set up since shell corporations are illegal in the US.
This is likely just an example of a failed tax dodge, if it's upheld however this conversation is worth revisiting. Considering what I understand of shell companies though, this fits the description as I understand it 110% - which means it's going to get busted and taxed fully in the US unless they decide to decline selling their product in the US anymore. (Fat chance of Apple EVER doing that - their international sales are pathetic)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
~~~~~~~~~
Too many to list efficiently. Find me online with the same SN if you want to play, or message me here to set up a time to play.
Modern
~~~~~~~~~
Whatever pile of 75 I throw together the night before without testing. Usually: :symb::symu::symg:
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
It doesn't matter what you think though.
~~~~~~~~~
Too many to list efficiently. Find me online with the same SN if you want to play, or message me here to set up a time to play.
Modern
~~~~~~~~~
Whatever pile of 75 I throw together the night before without testing. Usually: :symb::symu::symg:
Why not $100 an hour? Interesting first post.....
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Because its an amazing PR move on their part, a) for a very small price they get Massive beneficial reputation. Their main competitor walmart pays min wage, they go and say " we are better then them we care about the little people" look we even asked for a bigger min wage hike. They know it will not happen, so get the the perk from the massess for trying and don't lose any real money for it, Amazing marketing at its finest. Likely the total sum of additional pay is LESS than the cost they would have paid for the advertisement costs. They get great advertising at a lesser rate.
b) even if the wages DO get raised, it hurts their competitors more than them since they have already been paying the higher wages so it has less impact on their income statment in the year to year analysis ie they have already taken that hit and moved on, adapted, where as the compition has not.
its win win, for them.
I want you to think critically about what you are saying.
You're predicting that absent a minimum wage, companies would lower their wages to an extent that would, "within a year or two," cause major financial harm or collapse to that same company.
In order for this prediction to happen, one of two things would need to be true: (1) Timothy, Mimeslayer, has a better understanding of economics than these companies, many of which hire teams of trained economic and financial analysts to help them predict these kinds of things, or (2) these companies are perfectly aware that they are shooting themselves in the foot by lowering their wages so much, but decide to do so anyway for some unexplained reason.
Which one is it, and why?
See: shipping manufacturing jobs overseas.
You appear to be running under the mistaken assumption that no matter how little money you offer somebody will do the job. This is not the case, even with the very desparate. If I had a choice between starvation and two bucks an hour, I'd start stealing for a living - either I'd get caught and get free food in a warm cell or I'd have a living.
Yes, I'm willing to pay a bit more if that's what it takes. But you'll see that companies will probably not raise prices, or raise prices by that much if minimum wage goes up. That's the magic of competition.
So, you are electing option (1) Timothy, Mimeslayer, has a better understanding of economics than these companies, many of which hire teams of trained economic and financial analysts to help them predict these kinds of things?