SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Marketwatch brings good news for the USA: American workers are finally reaping the benefits of the lowest unemployment rate and best jobs market in decades: Wages and benefits are rising at the fastest pace in a decade. Firms have sought to fill openings by offering better benefits such as more vacation time or flexible hours. When push comes to shove, they are offering higher pay. While bigger paychecks are great for workers, the US Federal Reserve is watching closely to see if rising compensation is stoking inflation. The Federal Reserve could increase U.S. interest rates if it becomes a big worry, but so far inflation remains relatively mild.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Wages and Benefits are Rising at the Fastest Pace in a Decade
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 100 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It's not reality that's important, but how you perceive things.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 06 2018, @02:55PM (51 children)
Anyone who thinks the care and craftsmanship with which McD's employees do their job warrants $15/hr has not visited one recently enough.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bobthecimmerian on Monday August 06 2018, @02:59PM (50 children)
If someone can work full time and still qualify for rent assistance or food stamps or Medicaid, then their employer is really the one getting a government handout.
So yes, no matter what you think of a McDonalds employee, or a gas station attendant, or janitor, hotel maid, parking attendant, crop picker, etc.... they all deserve $15 an hour.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 06 2018, @04:04PM (48 children)
They "deserve" what their effort is worth. Nothing less, nothing more. You need to look up the word "deserve". Looking up the word "earned" would not be a bad idea either.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @04:45PM (16 children)
So they "deserve" to starve instead? Go homeless instead because they cannot afford housing?
Or do they have to earn starvation and homelessness first?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @04:53PM
He is busy earning his SIG.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 06 2018, @07:49PM (12 children)
If they're not earning their keep, yes. That doesn't mean we should allow them to but it is absolutely what they deserve. That's what deserve means.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Monday August 06 2018, @09:12PM (11 children)
Game theory calls bullshit on that statement, specifically positive-sum negotiation between entities of unequal (economic) power. If that's too conceptually difficult, try the game of Monopoly. The game of Monopoly was originally invented to show how an economy becomes inherently unstable if there are low taxes and no regulations against monopolies. It also shows how "fun" that rollercoaster to hell is for the "winners" (because they're insulated from the negativity until noone else has any money and the economy crashes).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 06 2018, @10:10PM (10 children)
You're very limited in your thinking there. I'd love to have you as a business competitor. The negotiation between the entities in question is absolutely unequal but it's the employers who are actually at the disadvantage at the moment. Let me know if you can ever figure out why I believe so.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @10:24PM (3 children)
Cause you're not paying attention to reality.
What do I win?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 06 2018, @10:29PM (2 children)
A Troll mod for lacking the wit to incorporate anything of value into your comment.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @11:26PM (1 child)
Then downmod most of your own comments for "speaking with one's buttox".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:54AM
Buttocks are quite humorous. Why would I not want to?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Monday August 06 2018, @11:16PM (5 children)
Considering median income purchasing power has gone backwards since 1977 that's hardly an achievement.
Before the Trump tax cuts economists predicted a short term economic boost and a (not much) longer term crash. Without tax redistribution the real economy will inevitably be starved of cash again... and even worse than before. Most human capital will be wasted in poverty, and social mobility will further decline meaning the productive capacity of the USA will continue to be managed inefficiently by those who inherited their wealth ie. a largely talentless group.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:56AM (4 children)
Try listening to all the economists, not just the ones you agree with.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:55PM (3 children)
The ones that have been getting certain important stuff wrong? In late 2007 I read that Richard Stallman(!) was predicting a big crash. The guy might be a bit crazy, but he's also a genius whos opinions are at least carefully considered so I looked into it, and also developed an interest in economics around this time as a result. Turns out the few dissenting economic opinions had a history of being right on other issues eg. particularly Steve Keen about economic matters in my own country... I THINK Peter Schiff... but I can't remember. Not sure who else, but their reasoning seemed sound, as did their track records, so I went as far as advising my father and a friends father to get out of the stock market and/or to buy gold. "You can't be that pessamistic". They didn't do what I said, but at least were a little more conservative so weren't burnt too badly. Subsequently I saw predictions about China, the mining boom in my country, the effects of certain economic policies etc... and refined and updated which voices to listen to and my own (limited layman) understanding.
How do you judge which economists to take seriously?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:22AM (2 children)
They ALL get a lot of important stuff wrong. If you don't see this, you're paying selective attention.
I take them (mostly) all seriously but I judge their assessments based on the merits of their argument and my own analysis of it. It's entirely possible to be quite brilliant and horribly, unbelievably wrong at the same time. If you need an example of that, consider who you're talking to.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:50AM (1 child)
Yes, all economists get it wrong... but it matters how they get it wrong.
Economic models are just vast oversimplifications with explanatory power, but I particularly like Steve Keens modelling because he actually makes use of chaos and complexity theory to get around the limitations in determinant neoclassical (ie. mainstream) models. Speaking of the neoclassical economists - how can they away with models in which banks or money don't exist, nor non-equillibrium trade, nor non-rational economic actors? Their (determinant) models simply can't deal with these things. If they include them they end up with zeroes and infinities. So what do they do? They just pretend these things don't exist! It's certainly undeniable that neoclassical models have value eg. explanatory power for many economic phenomena, but 2008 simply couldn't have happened according to those models and its not the first time they've failed either eg. the Asian Financial Crisis. Even in retrospect with correct numbers the models fail to predict disaster. That's a problem. Still, the neoclassicists aren't calling for painful readjustments or shouting that the sky could fall at any second, so they remain popular... and that's unfortunate.
Steve Keen has also famously failed. He failed to predict that the Australian housing bubble would continue for as long as it has, therefore losing a public bet, and had to walk from Canberra to Mt Kosciusko! (The realestate industry has continued to remind people of this fact for their own reasons). BUT, for those that actually paid attention, it wasn't a failure of Keens models. It was his failure to predict a variable ie. the influx of cash from China which resulted in the realestate market remaining inflated. In retrospect, with the right numbers Keens models hold up. Neoclassical models, even in retrospect with correct starting conditions, have failed to predict this certain type of financial disaster.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:04AM
What I find really interesting about the whole subject is how some people can just play it by ear and be right significantly more often than not. It's not independently reproducible but after a certain percentage of reliability you can't discount it either. Funny thing, the human brain. It can catch a baseball without remotely stressing itself but then it goes and chooses to watch reality television.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Entropy on Monday August 06 2018, @09:46PM (1 child)
Sorry but some people are simply not worth 15$. Some people are in fact not even worth employing.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday August 07 2018, @02:36AM
I think you'll find reality is much weirder than your one-pixel picture. For instance in a huge boom lazy morons are worth favourable wages for their (marginal) earning capacity, and in a deep depression a hard-working genius might consider himself lucky if he's mowing lawns.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday August 06 2018, @05:23PM (5 children)
One way McD could stop sucking off the government tit would be to pay its employees a living wage.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @06:25PM (4 children)
Instead of blaming McDonald's for properly running a business, you could blame the people handing out the welfare, corporate or otherwise.
Perhaps McDonald's will have to pay your supposed "living wage" if the employees can't get welfare of any sort.
Better yet, these sorts of high school jobs could once again go to actual high school students.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday August 06 2018, @06:37PM (1 child)
the reason high school students can't get jobs at Mickey D's is because all the formerly-retired people snapped them up when the subprime meltdown also melted down their 401ks.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1) by EEMac on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:11PM
Whenever a McDonald's in my area is hiring, the sign says "now hiring responsible adults". It doesn't sound like they want teenagers any more.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 06 2018, @06:41PM (1 child)
> properly running a business
Maximizing profits by relying on the government to keep the employees solvent with poverty relief programs, then getting you to blame the government for allowing this situation by having poverty programs. Dystopia, expert level.
I believe even Slave Plantations were more invested in their workers' well-being than modern low-wage employers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @06:59PM
Of course slave owners cared about keeping the slaves healthy. Slaves cost big money. Part-time at minimum wage with no benefits doesn't cost much and is very easily replaced because there are millions of people without decent jobs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @06:29PM
I guess the problem then is that Mc D shouldn't open up stores in poor areas, because those people often expect to be afforded a living wage.
It'd be best to keep only teenagers and uninspired college students on staff, and managed by anyone that showed competence but a lack of motivation to leave?
This way the real workers don't expect anything more than purely discretionable income, and the managers are kept locked in, and won't be getting new skills to go somewhere else unless it's to a competing burger place.
*I like cheap burgers but I also don't like the poor living in crummy places because I would hope that as a society we can afford to at least provide living conditions if not living wages.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday August 06 2018, @08:41PM (16 children)
Who gets the right to decide what their effort is worth?
It's an important question, because there are bosses out there that decide that their workers' effort is worth absolutely nothing, regardless of what they've done. And there are workers who expect $millions for doing absolutely nothing.
Supply-demand could conceivably set the value of their work, but that runs into some problems, most notably that 80% or so of American adults must either work or starve / freeze to death, whereas businesses with more than 1 person can manage well enough without an employee for a while, making those negotiations inherently unbalanced and thus skewed in favor of the employer rather than the employee. The Marxists would claim the value of their work is something along the lines of "(price of finished product - price of materials) / number of people who worked on it * number of finished products created during the period in question", but that ignores the effects of management both good and bad. And as best as I can tell the libertarian approach is that the correct wage is whatever a person is being paid, unless that wage is affected by the minimum wage in which case it should be less.
My thinking generally falls along these lines:
1. If somebody has to be available to work full-time, they should be getting paid at least enough to live on. That means poverty line divided by 52 divided by working hours per week. Especially if that arrangement precludes them from taking on any other job, which many low-wage workers are stuck in.
2. Maximum wealth should be in the ballpark of $50 million. That, invested at a rather modest 5% APY, gives you $2.5 million annually to live on, which is more than enough for anybody to be extremely comfortable. The message of that is something along the lines of "Congratulations, you won capitalism, now go find something else to do." If they're really the best and brightest, they shouldn't have any difficulties coming up with ideas.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 06 2018, @09:08PM (2 children)
On the small scale, it's negotiated between employer and employee. On a regional scale (for any sized region) it's an aggregate based largely on how far one lives from the employers who are willing to pay the highest wages.
That first sentence is key. If you go into an interview with the idea of jobs having a fixed sticker price, you're doing yourself (and others around you) a great disservice.
As for the libertarian idea, there isn't one. Libertarians are individualists as a general rule. Someone else's idea of what something is worth in no way affects my own. From my own specific perspective, I prefer to gauge how important the position is, set the spherical cow rate from that, then adjust it based on the value of the person filling it. Including my own, mind you. If I'm having to do most of the heavy lifting administratively, mentally, or physically, that leaves less for the employees on the job. If I'm not, the wages increase in accordance. Mine is always going to be a significant percentage, mind you. Creating the job opening in the first place by starting a company and keeping it afloat year after year is no trivial matter.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday August 06 2018, @10:21PM (1 child)
My understanding, assuming you're a reasonably good representative of the libertarian perspective, is that it's basically tautological: The wage that ends up being paid (barring any government interference) is by definition the correct wage. Is that different from what you just said, and if so how?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 06 2018, @10:31PM
On a macro scale this is the case. It can most certainly fall out of whack when the market is allowed to become corrupted though. On an individual scale, individual judgment rules.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 06 2018, @09:21PM (12 children)
Separate comment because it's really a separate issue.
Why should there be a cap at all? Economics is not remotely a zero-sum game. Assuming no regulatory capture or monopolistic aspects, someone earning five trillion dollars a year literally means the people of the nation felt their lives would be worse off had they not paid that five trillion. Wealth is not solely that which can be counted monetarily. What you exchange your monetary tokens of choice for is also wealth or you would not exchange them.
Further, consider those whose primary motivation is monetary gain. Do you really not realize how easily that is manipulated? If you take away the opportunity to gain money doing a thing, they stop doing that thing. If you make doing a thing financially attractive, you will always find those willing to aid society by doing that thing. Yes, there are those who will do a thing without monetary incentive but there you are left entirely at the mercy of their whims. With those wishing personal gain, you get to dictate what they are able to make their gains doing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday August 06 2018, @10:04PM (11 children)
Because very rich people can do a lot of damage trying to get even richer, while it doesn't really make them any happier, it just changes the score in the game known as the Forbes 400. This all stems from my general viewpoint that wealth is much like manure: Spread it around and it can help a lot of good things grow, but pile it up in one place, and it's just a big cesspool of stink.
It could be manipulated easily, but it won't be manipulated so long as those in a position to do the manipulating adhere to the real Golden Rule, namely that the one who has the gold makes the rules.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 06 2018, @10:38PM (9 children)
That only works if wealth is zero-sum. I invite you to consider the economic implications of this reference book [amazon.com]. Yes, it's a poop joke but I'm also very serious.
Then start manipulating it yourself. It's not that difficult or politicians wouldn't be any good at it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday August 07 2018, @03:02AM (8 children)
Wealth is essentially zero sum for the majority of the US population ie. the "zero point" must sustain life, and 50% of US citizens are classed as poor or in poverty. Hell, 67% of the population could not handle a $1000 emergency without going into debt. This latest economic "Trump bump" is just businesses investing in the hope that things will get better in the longer term, but they won't (unless Trumps reserve starts printing money like Obama - and I mean why not? Those extra dollars aren't going to cause inflation... pretty quickly they'll be vaccuumed from the real economy and go into financial market bubbles where they can't hurt anyone doing real work.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:22AM (7 children)
Wrong definition.
This isn't the case being that value is exchanged for value and every time human effort makes someone's life better, new wealth is added to the sum total.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday August 07 2018, @09:58PM (6 children)
In that case you could starve an entire population and call it positive sum. I guess if you pay attention to the economic tokens and not to the results...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:28AM (5 children)
That's just the meaning of the term. I brought it up only to make sure you're hearing what I'm actually saying. That primarily being that the tokens are of minor relevance and don't remotely begin to encompass the wealth strewn all across the US. Thinking you're living in poverty when you have the latest xbox, a computer, a smartphone, two cars, a roof over your head, multiple televisions, air conditioning, and enough calories to keep you going for the day is an odd way to view poverty mostly unique to the first world.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:27AM (4 children)
Technically I suppose you could be correct ie. Nazi work camps supplying rations insufficient to sustain life is positive sum ie. both parties "benefit". I would argue a more common sense understanding of a positive sum interaction would be pay capable of maintaining physical and mental health for the average person, with enough leasure to allow some self betterment. As for talking about xboxes etc... considering the poverty level is set at $12,140 for a single person, $16,460 for a couple etc... you're welcome to try living on $235/wk, and that's just the poverty cutoff... one in seven Americans have less.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @07:43PM (3 children)
You're still not understanding what I'm saying or the term "zero sum". I'm saying wealth is not just money. Buying something does not transfer wealth, it exchanges it. Where "zero sum" comes in is that new wealth is created every time worthwhile human effort is performed. The wealth your employer is exchanging currency for literally did not exist before you went to work today. Wealth isn't infinite because of the eventual death of the species or universe but it is ever-growing and its upper bounds are fairly well unfathomable.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:05PM (2 children)
*eyeroll* Double-entry accounting doesn't suddenly make the entire economy zero-sum. Unless you're already ultra-rich or else winning-the-lottery fortunate you've already lost the economic game. When wealth is allowed to accumulate too much (because of low wealth tax) your labour will eventually be worth next to nothing - a small group of ultra rich just don't require enough goods and services for trickle-down to be a thing. As money is in the real economy becomes less over time, the less investment in labour, plant etc... is needed to vacuum it up, and your labour value becomes uncomfortably close to zero.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 12 2018, @11:18PM (1 child)
Which is an entirely separate argument unless you are still misunderstanding the definition of "zero sum".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Monday August 13 2018, @08:30AM
You're either absolutely clueless on what zero-sum means, or trying to purposely misinform others in this thread. If employment at a business was zero-sum (ie. one party wins an amount equal to what another loses eg. gambling) then most people wouldn't risk employment. Their adversary in this hypothetical zero-sum employment game would have more chance of "winning", and therefore would have a better than even chance of EXTRACTING money from them and pocketing it. That's not what employment is - cash flows to the "weaker" party in fact. Once you comprehend why you'll see employment at a business is more than a double-entry transfer of cash, and that it is in fact positive-sum and that the proceeds of wealth creation are shared between employer and employee. If you're really keen you might look into "positive-sum negotiation between entities of unequal power" and how as employers become more powerful they can negotiate an ever greater share of these proceeds. This is why unregulated capitalism tends towards monopoly, stagnant or declining wages over the long term, and recession/depression.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 07 2018, @01:55AM
They can do a lot of good too. TMB already figured out to make that happen.
And why should we care, that someone values money more than happiness, much less interfere in their life?
The thing is, if we get rid of the wealth of the private world, then where will it come from? The cesspool of government. A key thing being ignored here is that many private sources of wealth are far more disperse than a few public sources of wealth.
(Score: 2) by http on Monday August 06 2018, @10:14PM (3 children)
Why does a franchise owner deserve to have employees who are subsidized by parents or state or enforced poverty?
As Thexalon pointed out, a potential worker rarely has the option of turning down lowball offers. The labour marketplace is not a meeting of equals, and the "free market" is absolute shit at addressing that issue.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 06 2018, @10:39PM
Good question. And here I didn't think you'd be in favor of stopping subsidies.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 06 2018, @10:40PM
Also, as you've no doubt pointed out in the past, what we have only superficially resembles a free market.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 07 2018, @01:45AM
Conversely, why shouldn't we subsidize an employer of teenagers and poor people? You're not advocating for the elimination of the social welfare programs in question (many which are subsidies for someone), so you already accept the presence of some subsidies as a necessary evil.
This has to be the absolutely most hypocritical, seediest argument minimum wage advocates have ever come up with. You have this implicit fuck you to the people who would also be most hurt by minimum wage increases (the poor, inexperienced, students, urban minorities, ex-criminals, etc). And it's the problem that conveniently never goes away. Whatever level you raise minimum wage to, there will always be someone paying it and thus, some "subsidy" scapegoat for your next minimum wage increase push.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Tuesday August 07 2018, @06:26PM (2 children)
In the 19th century American workers earned exactly what they deserved by your definition - and were in debt slavery to the mine and railroad owners until they were worked to death.
You can idealize that as the perfect world. I have different ideas.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:41AM (1 child)
Ask me about specifics if you want to know about specifics. Ask me about general policy if you want to know about general policy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday August 08 2018, @01:41PM
We're both anti-authoritarian. We both oppose "Do what I say or you will be shot." I just recognize "Do what I say or you will starve." as equally coercive.
The problem with capitalism is not that people earn money based on what they do. I have no problem with a doctor earning three times as much or five times as much as I do. The problem is that people earn money based on what they own, the guy who plays golf all day but owns restaurants or factories or gas stations. And the owners dictate terms to everyone else. When a market is near ideal conditions - lots of employers, lots of worker geographic mobility - capitalism is wonderful. Don't like how you're treated? Find some other place to treat you better. But so many markets are so skewed from ideal conditions that non-owners are just plain fucked. People in cities where the good jobs are can't afford the housing costs. People outside cities can't find work, or can't find work that pays well enough to cover subsistence costs, and can't afford to move closer to places that offer work.
No amount of deregulation is going to fix it, because the problem isn't regulation. The problem is private ownership of the means of production.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 07 2018, @01:08AM
In other words, government incentives to employ poor people. Why do you hate poor people, bob?