Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Battle Monkey of Zardoz on August 02, 2015, 02:13:42 AM
-
Remember the idiot that decided to pay every employee 70K a year, to combat income inequality? Seems reality has set in. What a female dog reality can be. Bet we won't hear any many follow up news stories about this.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/business/a-company-copes-with-backlash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?_r=2&referrer=
-
My sympathy - has anybody seen my sympathy? I know it was here because I used it once.
stay safe.
-
That's some tasty schadenfreude to go with my morning coffee.
-
His brother, 30% minority owner of the company, is suing him because of this. Heh...
-
This would not have happened if Mr. Emotional had given normal raises instead of equalizing salary...
-
When this happened all my lefty friends were heralding it as great.
I asked: "Why should everyone get the same pay? Does everyone do the same work?"
I have yet to get a realistic answer.
-
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-company-copes-with-backlash-on-70000-minimum-wage/
It is certainly getting media attention in Seattle, where the company is located.
-
“Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he complained. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”
Which is why a $15 (or any other arbitrarily set "living wage") won't work. When people who went to school, apprenticeships, and otherwise worked long and hard to advance, suddenly see the gap between their salary and the salaries of the unskilled become narrow, they're going to want more money themselves. Eventually it trickles down to higher costs for everything and the "income equality" goes away.
-
Remember the idiot that decided to pay every employee 70K a year, to combat income inequality?...
Twentieth Century Motor Company ???
-
I don't get it.
The man owns a business. He decides what to pay his employees. Why is he getting all this flack for paying what he sees fit? Should he not have the freedom to determine his employee's salaries? It's his company, why are all these people telling him how to run it?
-
My sympathy - has anybody seen my sympathy? I know it was here because I used it once.
stay safe.
On the shelf between the jars of s@!t and syphilis.
I don't get it.
The man owns a business. He decides what to pay his employees. Why is he getting all this flack for paying what he sees fit? Should he not have the freedom to determine his employee's salaries? It's his company, why are all these people telling him how to run it?
You are correct. It is his choice. However, it illustrates the fallacy of making economic or market decisions based on emotion or desire for social justice. The real issue is people who want to do this to all of us by governmental fiat.
"We can evade reality, but we cannot escape the consequences of evading reality." Ayn Rand
-
“Income inequality has been racing in the wrong direction,” he said. “I want to fight for the idea that if someone is intelligent, hard-working and does a good job, then they are entitled to live a middle-class lifestyle.”
That pretty much sums up the problem, right there.
The reaction to his salary pledge has led him to think that if his business continues to prosper, his actions could have far-reaching consequences. “The cause has expanded,” he said. “Whether I like it or not, the stakes are higher.”
"The cause"? What cause? He's a businessman -- his "cause" (especially when there are other people who own significant shares in his company) is to make money for his company. Paying a fair wage to his workers is proper, but paying far more than what some of the jobs are worth is neither "fair" nor proper nor good business. The fact that he could afford to boost salaries that much without raising his prices just tells me that he was gouging on his prices. (Not that he's alone in that.)
Cody Boorman, 22, who handles operations out of his eastern Washington home, said he and his wife finally felt financially secure enough to start a family.
Huh? 22 years old and he "finally" feels secure enough to start a family? Most people aren't even married at 22.
This whole thing needs a serious reality check.
-
I don't get it.
The man owns a business. He decides what to pay his employees. Why is he getting all this flack for paying what he sees fit? Should he not have the freedom to determine his employee's salaries? It's his company, why are all these people telling him how to run it?
I know. Real weird that people have opinions.
-
I know. Real weird that people have opinions. PEOPLE HAVE SOME REAL WEIRD IDEAS.
FIFY. =D [popcorn]
-
I know. Real weird that people have opinions. PEOPLE HAVE SOME REAL are WEIRD IDEAS.
FIFY. =D [popcorn]
FTFY.
-
I don't get it.
The man owns a business. He decides what to pay his employees. Why is he getting all this flack for paying what he sees fit? Should he not have the freedom to determine his employee's salaries? It's his company, why are all these people telling him how to run it?
As SAD said, I don't think anyone here is saying he shouldn't do it as a private businessman. I think most of us are saying that 1) We don't want to see it going on at the point of a .gov gun, and 2) That while it might work out for him (though indications are it won't), or for a smaller sampling of millionaires / billionaires that choose to do something like this, there is no way it can work if it is mandated or widespread. Most businesses would simply go under, or else you'll be paying $20 for a hamburger.
If I'm an engineer with a Master's and ten years of experience making $70K, and suddenly the stockroom kid stacking boxes is making $70K, I'm going to be wondering what the point of it all is. Seems like a good reason to go Galt.
-
You are correct. It is his choice. However, it illustrates the fallacy of making economic or market decisions based on emotion or desire for social justice.
Would that be all those people who decided to withdraw their business from his company because they think he's a socialist?
The real issue is people who want to do this to all of us by governmental fiat.
Right. Which isn't this guy. So why is he getting all the hate?
As SAD said, I don't think anyone here is saying he shouldn't do it as a private businessman. I think most of us are saying that 1) We don't want to see it going on at the point of a .gov gun, and 2) That while it might work out for him (though indications are it won't), or for a smaller sampling of millionaires / billionaires that choose to do something like this, there is no way it can work if it is mandated or widespread.
I'm hoping nobody here is writing the guy hate mail. The hate I'm talking about is the people in the article.
I didn't see this guy advocating any such thing be government enforced. He did something he wanted to do in his business. Now he has problems, but the problems seem to be more related to people's emotional reactions to his decision rather than anything to do with business and numbers. The only direct negative consequence is the quitting of a couple of people. Everything else is just people giving him *expletive deleted*it because they disagree. I am just puzzled why I am not seeing the rational calculating capitalism I've heard so much about. Instead I see some kind of daytime TV performance with men in suits flailing about instead of housewives in curlers. "Waaaaaaahhh, socialism!"
-
Would that be all those people who decided to withdraw their business from his company because they think he's a socialist?
Right. Which isn't this guy. So why is he getting all the hate?
I'm hoping nobody here is writing the guy hate mail. The hate I'm talking about is the people in the article.
I didn't see this guy advocating any such thing be government enforced. He did something he wanted to do in his business. Now he has problems, but the problems seem to be more related to people's emotional reactions to his decision rather than anything to do with business and numbers. The only direct negative consequence is the quitting of a couple of people. Everything else is just people giving him *expletive deleted*it because they disagree. I am just puzzled why I am not seeing the rational calculating capitalism I've heard so much about. Instead I see some kind of daytime TV performance with men in suits flailing about instead of housewives in curlers. "Waaaaaaahhh, socialism!"
People often choose to do business or not to do business with places based on the perceived politics of the business owner all the time. Which is why a business owner making a political statement or acting in a manner that could be perceived as such often affects the business. If someone has the accepted or admired statement, they often get more business. If someone has one that is not accepted, they lose business. Some have an opinion so controversial that they both loose and gain business.
Look at the gay wedding cake debacials and Chickfila. Capatilaism has never been devoid of political statement or social influence. I don't know why you think it would (or it should be).
Secondly, I don't think anyone here has said that this business owner should not be allowed to do what ever he damn well pleases. I think there are some chuckles over the predicted manner in which this guys brilliant idea backfired.
Much of that backfiring is also directly related to business, not political concept, as well. He has highly qualified individuals quiting because they see themselves getting unfair treatment. He has under qualified individuals questioning their worth and stressing out over job performance.
The guy made what is now looking like a really crappy move in regards to his business after being lauded by the liberal agenda as some supposed equality icon. I think hate is a strong word, but deserving of some ridicule from the general public? Yeah, I think he's earned it.
-
Another article, less NY Timesy:
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/ceo-who-boosted-salaries-to-a-70000-minimum-now-renting-house-to-make-ends-meet/
Also, a $3 million net worth is not that much in his situation, given that it's net worth, and not annual income. 20 employees * $70K/yr is already half his net worth.
-
Anyone notice the part where he's got more customers than ever coming in? Yeah, silly move alright.
This thread would seem to indicate that many conservatives aren't in favour of free wages so much as in favour of low wages for people they believe don't deserve financial stability. Campaigning on the benefits of low pay doesn't strike me as a particularly long-term strategy.
-
Anyone notice the part where he's got more customers than ever coming in? Yeah, silly move alright.
This thread would seem to indicate that many conservatives aren't in favour of free wages so much as in favour of low wages for people they believe don't deserve financial stability. Campaigning on the benefits of low pay doesn't strike me as a particularly long-term strategy.
I think that's why Republicans only give lip-service to being tough on border control and avoid doing anything effective to keep illegals out. Democrat love illegals for the voter fraud, Republicans love illegals because they can exploit them to keep wages depressed.
Not all jobs are worth $35 an hour. If you pay the uneducated and unskilled workers too much, you will demotivate the skilled workers and they will go somewhere else. But there's an example of this in the Bible; Matthew chapter 20. Jesus sides with the overly-generous employer who paid everyone what they needed whether they earned it or not, so I would be careful criticizing Mr Price too much.
-
Anyone notice the part where he's got more customers than ever coming in? Yeah, silly move alright.
This thread would seem to indicate that many conservatives aren't in favour of free wages so much as in favour of low wages for people they believe don't deserve financial stability. Campaigning on the benefits of low pay doesn't strike me as a particularly long-term strategy.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kappit.com%2Fimg%2Fpics%2F77999607aideh_sm.jpg&hash=11798751bda22bdd0da1d6b1122df7963e17a178)
.
-
Anyone notice the part where he's got more customers than ever coming in? Yeah, silly move alright.
This thread would seem to indicate that many conservatives aren't in favour of free wages so much as in favour of low wages for people they believe don't deserve financial stability. Campaigning on the benefits of low pay doesn't strike me as a particularly long-term strategy.
You would chose to read it that way. Gotta fit the narrative.
I'd not do business with that company on the simple basis of the management being complete fools. No small wonder the brother is suing.
-
Anyone notice the part where he's got more customers than ever coming in? Yeah, silly move alright.
This thread would seem to indicate that many conservatives aren't in favour of free wages so much as in favour of low wages for people they believe don't deserve financial stability. Campaigning on the benefits of low pay doesn't strike me as a particularly long-term strategy.
It indicates nothing of the kind. No, people do not deserve financial stability. They do deserve the opportunity to create such stability for themselves through skill development and work.
His having more business does not alter the fact of his increased cost of labor. People who pay more for his service will have less to spend elsewhere, and people he might have employed will not work because his labor cost will not allow it. There is no perpetual motion machine free lunch, unless perhaps you are a government printing worthless money and the note doesn't come due until after you're dead.
-
Job should pay what the job is worth. He can get the job, but can he do the job? ;) :laugh:
Back when I had a "business" and occasionally hired someone to help, I paid what I thought would be a reasonable rate for what the job should be worth - hopefully just a bit on the generous side. Either he (sorry, girls :P ) could do it or not. It wasn't worth it to me to pay a little less for somebody that didn't get the job done; in that case it would just have been better to do it myself.
I once had to fire an equipment contractor in the latter case: somehow he had the idea that I was paying him to get the same one load a day that I could do all by myself :facepalm:
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kappit.com%2Fimg%2Fpics%2F77999607aideh_sm.jpg&hash=11798751bda22bdd0da1d6b1122df7963e17a178)
.
That's what she said.
-
Anyone notice the part where he's got more customers than ever coming in? Yeah, silly move alright.
And did you notice the part where he's still going broke? That doesn't fit your world view, so I suppose you missed it.
-
And did you notice he's still going broke? That doesn't fit your world view, so I suppose you missed that part.
Where'd it say he was going broke? The lawsuit appears to be about sibling rivalry
-
I think that's why Republicans only give lip-service to being tough on border control and avoid doing anything effective to keep illegals out. Democrat love illegals for the voter fraud, Republicans love illegals because they can exploit them to keep wages depressed.
Not all jobs are worth $35 an hour. If you pay the uneducated and unskilled workers too much, you will demotivate the skilled workers and they will go somewhere else. But there's an example of this in the Bible; Matthew chapter 20. Jesus sides with the overly-generous employer who paid everyone what they needed whether they earned it or not, so I would be careful criticizing Mr Price too much.
I agree with your view on immigration - the availability of low wage labor is definitely part of it.
We rely on the free market to provide people who work with a living. Here's a guy saying that in his business's view, anyone who works full time for him gets a decent amount of financial stability in trade. This appears to be controversial only because some folk think full time workers ought to sometimes be really poor. As if it's moral - do work that most conservatives think isn't worth money, and you aren't entitled to anything - even if an employer freely chooses to pay.
-
I think folks are objecting to the wisdom of wages being set by an egalitarian impulse vs a meritocracy.
Eventually the market will adjust to frustrate the egalitarian impulse and the wage gap will reappear.
It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
-
Free market. I sincerely hope the guy's strategy pays off. Wage stagnation is a legitimate issue (usually handwaved away by "but you can buy a faster iPhone or PC") and will continue to be an issue.
I think he went overboard, but I guarantee he'll be getting better employees in the long run. Most business want exceptional to above-average performance/employees for average or below-average wages.
-
We rely on the free market to provide people who work with a living. Here's a guy saying that in his business's view, anyone who works full time for him gets a decent amount of financial stability in trade. This appears to be controversial only because some folk think full time workers ought to sometimes be really poor. As if it's moral - do work that most conservatives think isn't worth money, and you aren't entitled to anything - even if an employer freely chooses to pay.
You're a successful attorney. Do you pay your admin assistant the same salary, or more, than you make? Maybe you do, and hey, good for you. But I believe you should receive more compensation, because you worked harder to get where you are, and have skills, that an office assistant does not have.
Absolutely no one here has said full time workers should be poor. However, what this guy is doing only helps if it's a small sample set of a population. If every worker in Seattle made a minimum of $70K, how long before housing and other costs go up (even further) proportionally? Seattle and Silicon Valley are perfect examples of what happens to living expenses when a large population of high income earners shows up.
-
As if it's moral - do work that most conservatives think isn't worth money, and you aren't entitled to anything - even if an employer freely chooses to pay.
Morally, some people shouldn't be paid regardless of what they do. This would prevent them from getting their hands on things like a computer and internet service.
-
Where'd it say he was going broke? The lawsuit appears to be about sibling rivalry
The man has massively cut his own $1m salary, rented out his house, and taken to living in a cheap apartment in order to free up cash to pay his employees. Current profits are being diverted to overhead to pay the higher salaries.
I'd call that going broke.
At the very least, his move is causing his company serious cash flow problems. That often leads to business failure.
-
Free market. I sincerely hope the guy's strategy pays off. Wage stagnation is a legitimate issue (usually handwaved away by "but you can buy a faster iPhone or PC") and will continue to be an issue.
I think he went overboard, but I guarantee he'll be getting better employees in the long run. Most business want exceptional to above-average performance/employees for average or below-average wages.
I'm thinking the same things you are. Wage stagnation has been horrible where I live.
-
I'm thinking the same things you are. Wage stagnation has been horrible where I live.
I oppose any government tinkering with the economy, but I agree that the minimum wage "should" be about $15 now, if it were to match the buying power of (for instance) 1972.
Basically, what has happened is that it takes two incomes to match one income of forty years ago.
Businesses in Billings are screaming and crying because that can't hire enough people at even a dollar or two over legal minimum. I think maybe that should say something to them ;)
-
I think he went overboard, but I guarantee he'll be getting better employees in the long run.
I doubt it; sure, he's going to retain the best when he gets them, but he doesn't sound like the type who will cull the herd effectively to get the low end out and make room for more good ones.
-
....We rely on the free market to provide people who work with a living. Here's a guy saying that in his business's view, anyone who works full time for him gets a decent amount of financial stability in trade. This appears to be controversial only because some folk think full time workers ought to sometimes be really poor. As if it's moral - do work that most conservatives think isn't worth money, and you aren't entitled to anything - even if an employer freely chooses to pay.
:facepalm:
Look, I will agree with some earlier posters on one thing: wage stagnation is a real problem. THANK WASHINGTON D.C. for the policies that drive this stagnation.
People "usually" get paid what their job is worth. Running a major corporation is worth more than work as a janitor that cleans out that corporation's ash trays. It's also worth more than flipping burgers at Jack's.
And if one somehow did pay the janitor the same magnificent compensation the CEO got ... what would the CEO think -- eventually?
In a way people in the workforce today have it very well. I've always been a fan of classic lever-action Winchesters, and in researching the company's history I found out something about how average workers lived back in the mid nineteenth century. They worked from dawn to dusk, everyday. Oh wait, they got Sunday mornings off, for church. Can't forget that. Maybe a fifty cents a day or a dollar if they were really good.
And kids often worked too.
Abraham Lincoln's father hired him out to local farmers for work, for which he was paid 25 cents a day and then when he was paid, his father confiscated the money. This was legal at the time, it would probably be illegal today to force young Lincoln to work like that. But it did give Lincoln a lesson in life which caused him to despise slavery....and we know how THAT went in history ...
We have it pretty good today ....40 hour work weeks standard, OSHA standards, all sorts of laws about equality in hiring and treatment of workers that even good ol' Abe Lincoln wouldn't have thought of.
But what will never work out well is when .gov (or whatever other putatively benevolent force) starts going all Fascist on us and forcing burger flippers to get paid what CEOs get.
And that doesn't mean we "evil" conservatives think burger flippers should be poor.
Burger flipping is a good job for high school kids during their summer vacations. Maybe they get a lot of good work experience, a good edjumakashun, and wind up, thirty years down the road, a CEO.
As far as wage stagnation...yes that is a real problem, but don't expect any hope and change from our current white house resident.
-
And hes,already driven away his folks
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
I oppose any government tinkering with the economy, but I agree that the minimum wage "should" be about $15 now, if it were to match the buying power of (for instance) 1972.
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/70yearsofpricechange.html
I've only been on this earth 41 years but I agree with you. I think many of our common goods are higher priced then they should be with current wages.
About the only government action I could see is that "contract parachute packages" are illegal and "deferred compensation" should be taxed as income above a certain annual amount, maybe like $25k annually.
-
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/70yearsofpricechange.html
I've only been on this earth 41 years but I agree with you. I think many of our common goods are higher priced then they should be with current wages.
About the only government action I could see is that "contract parachute packages" are illegal and "deferred compensation" should be taxed as income above a certain annual amount, maybe like $25k annually.
In 1973 I bought a brand new pickup while working an entry level job. It wasn't top of the line, but it wasn't base either: 4x4 3/4 ton. I don't think you could do the same today.
What are these "taxes" that you speak of that "should" exist ??? Kill the IRS and the minimum wage [ar15]
-
In 1973 I bought a brand new pickup while working an entry level job. It wasn't top of the line, but it wasn't base either: 4x4 3/4 ton. I don't think you could do the same today.
What are these "taxes" that you speak of that "should" exist ??? Kill the IRS and the minimum wage [ar15]
There's a reason everything costs more, but especially vehicles.
1973 new pickup: Required to have seat belts installed.
2016 new pickup: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/
And, in 2 years, they will require back-up cameras as well.
You want to know why prices are so high? The government requires it.
-
Look, I will agree with some earlier posters on one thing: wage stagnation is a real problem. THANK WASHINGTON D.C. for the policies that drive this stagnation.
Correct. A LOT of the problems with our current labor market can be traced back to them. By the same token, they're also the (spit!) solution. Mostly by getting out of the way.
Note: We were in something of a hard spot though. Our main other choice was to go extremely protectionist, because short of that China's industrialization was always going to be a major spot of wage depreciation.
Good news though, they've caught up enough that they're no longer dragging us down(as much!). As they continue to advance from now on they'll be putting less and less pressure on depressing our wages(by producing goods cheaper than we can), so they should start rising again. Manufacturers are already 'insourcing' more and more frequently, bringing manufacturing back to the USA.
People "usually" get paid what their job is worth.
Right now it's more that people are paid, not what their job is worth, but a tiny fraction of it because businesses pay what they can get workers for, so long as the worker is worth more than their pay.
Running a major corporation is worth more than work as a janitor that cleans out that corporation's ash trays. It's also worth more than flipping burgers at Jack's.
True, and I have no problems with paying executives more, indeed, even most liberals don't have a problem with this. This guy is considered extreme even by them.
Where the problem with CEO pay comes in is when a business falls into what I'll call the 'star athlete' mindset.
Imagine that you're a manager for a sports team. Win the season and prestige, money, and all will flow into your pockets. Don't win, and well, you know. But there's a limited pool of players, and if player A is the best at the game(ever!) and you don't get him, he's going directly to one of your competitors. The result is a bidding war for player A's services, and they often get into a bidding war and lose perspective that Player A, as awesome as he is, might not actually be 'worth' that much money. He could end up hurt in the first game, not live up to his promise, etc...
CEOs today, at least the excessively paid ones, often sell themselves like the sports player - and they get paid millions for often what's often NOT millions towards the bottom line of the company.
Executives like Steve Jobs have their place, they do exist, but they're a lot rarer on the ground and harder to spot than the athletes. You can often get a CEO that's more competent, more solid, at an OOM less pay & benefits.
In a way people in the workforce today have it very well.
I think that most are viewing the post-WWII period as the 'high point', not pre-WWII labor standards.
It indicates nothing of the kind. No, people do not deserve financial stability. They do deserve the opportunity to create such stability for themselves through skill development and work.
Then they need to be given the opportunity for said skill development, which businesses are less willing to provide than ever, preferring to moan about not being able to do things like find welders with 5 years of experience for within pennies of minimum wage. By the same token, you also need the jobs to be in place for them to work.
It used to be that joining the military was a good way for an uneducated person to earn a living, learn a trade, etc... We talk on this board how there's too many people being college educated today, and not enough skilled people.
Given all the above, I have a few suggestions:
1. People being stuck with part time work because then the employer doesn't have to provide heatlhcare is a problem, mostly imposed by the government. I suggest we get rid of the healthcare requirements and such, so that rather than being stuck at 20-25 hours/week at minimum wage, they can at least get 40. That's more efficient for the worker. If that's not possible, put a stipulation in that if you don't provide 'full time' benefits, the minimum wage is now $2.80 or so higher per hour. (based off of individual coverage averaging $5615 a year (http://www.statisticbrain.com/health-insurance-cost-statistics/))
2. Start up some sort of federal program that employs people, and teaches them a trade in exchange for 2-6 years of work. Sure, that means that federal buildings and such will eventually have been put together and maintained mostly by workers who are still learning, but that's an acceptable trade, I think.
3. Restructure aid programs, wherever possible, to ensure that somebody working is better off than not working. A person working 20 hours/week, even(especially!) at minimum wage, should still see noticeable improvements in their life from such work, rather than the present problem of them often being worse of, financially speaking.
You want to know why prices are so high? The government requires it.
Despite all the new requirements, the amount of labor required in a new pickup is actually less than the '73 one.
As for the backing camera, well, one of my coworkers lost their 3 year old daughter to a backing accident. :(
And the other safety features also generally save money through reduced injury - what you'd save on a '73 vehicle's manufacturing price you'd more than end up paying in increased insurance costs.
-
In 1973 I bought a brand new pickup while working an entry level job. It wasn't top of the line, but it wasn't base either: 4x4 3/4 ton. I don't think you could do the same today.
I actually agree about wage stagnation. It's an issue. Part of it is you are required to buy more expensive things by unseen .gov mandates in all kinds of stuff, not just cars.
But, it's raining here, so let's have some fun.
Google says Average Entry Level salary in the US is $43,000. It also says that a single, filing alone federal tax* on that is "$4,481.25 + 25% of the amount over $32,550". So let's round that to $7000 of the top. That means +/- $3000/month take home.
MSRP (and who pays that?) for a 2016 F-250 is $32,385. Scrape together a grand down payment, 7% sales tax and dead center of my credit union's intrest rate nets you $599.95/mo for your truck. Tight, but doable.**
And as was pointed out, you are getting a LOT more stuff on that truck then even a middle of the road 1971 model got you. So, it might not be the best idea, but I think it's not as far out as you imagine.
*I'm not even looking up state tax rates. Move to FL or AK.
**The trucks in the trailer park I pass on the way to work would imply the above scenario is quite a bit more than "doable". It seems popular to park a $50,000 truck outside a $20,000 trailer.
-
Despite all the new requirements, the amount of labor required in a new pickup is actually less than the '73 one.
Robots and automation
As for the backing camera, well, one of my coworkers lost their 3 year old daughter to a backing accident. Sad
So then ... billions for an unnecessary device forced down everyone's throat?
And the other safety features also generally save money through reduced injury - what you'd save on a '73 vehicle's manufacturing price you'd more than end up paying in increased insurance costs.
Funny, I thought that health and auto insurance was a lot more expensive now than in 1973 ???
Between taxes, mandates, and inflation from deficit spending, the government is steadily destroying our standard of living and then trying to blame it on the "filthy capitalists" :mad:
-
**The trucks in the trailer park I pass on the way to work would imply the above scenario is quite a bit more than "doable". It seems popular to park a $50,000 truck outside a $20,000 trailer.
Discussion of which could be a thread in itself. There are a lot of people that think "income inequality" is the fact that they can't keep up with the Joneses. No one is entitled to that $50K truck, nor the $5K of rims on the $2K piece of crap rice burner. People are poor when they have a tough time paying the rent, or putting food on the table, or buying the kids new shoes all while not having any luxury items. "Income inequality" is not defined by not being able to afford a Mercedes, cable TV, or a smart phone.
There is an entire segment of "poor" in the US that would find themselves living paycheck to paycheck whether they were making $20K/yr or $200K/yr.
-
I actually agree about wage stagnation. It's an issue. Part of it is you are required to buy more expensive things by unseen .gov mandates in all kinds of stuff, not just cars.
But, it's raining here, so let's have some fun.
Google says Average Entry Level salary in the US is $43,000. It also says that a single, filing alone federal tax* on that is "$4,481.25 + 25% of the amount over $32,550". So let's round that to $7000 of the top. That means +/- $3000/month take home.
MSRP (and who pays that?) for a 2016 F-250 is $32,385. Scrape together a grand down payment, 7% sales tax and dead center of my credit union's intrest rate nets you $599.95/mo for your truck. Tight, but doable.**
And as was pointed out, you are getting a LOT more stuff on that truck then even a middle of the road 1971 model got you. So, it might not be the best idea, but I think it's not as far out as you imagine.
*I'm not even looking up state tax rates. Move to FL or AK.
**The trucks in the trailer park I pass on the way to work would imply the above scenario is quite a bit more than "doable". It seems popular to park a $50,000 truck outside a $20,000 trailer.
Where the hell does that come from ??? That's over $20/hr and last I knew minimum was about $8 so annual would be about $16K.
I can't remember exactly what I was making in 1972-1973 ... maybe $2.20 an hour (~$4400/yr) =| I went out and bought a pickup that listed for something like $4500, minus dealer discount and whatever I got in trade for my old car. So the new pickup was roughly my annual income at that time.
I don't think you get a four wheel drive F-250 for $32K. Anyway, that's twice what minimum wage would make per year.
-
MSRP (and who pays that?) for a 2016 F-250 is $32,385. Scrape together a grand down payment, 7% sales tax and dead center of my credit union's intrest rate nets you $599.95/mo for your truck. Tight, but doable.**
I made $43k 7 years ago, take home pay is more like $2300
Plus $500 or more rent/mortgage, $100-200/month for full coverage vehicle insurance on the F-150, $250 groceries, $100 clothing, etc. There isn't much left.
-
Where the hell does that come from ??? That's over $20/hr and last I knew minimum was about $8 so annual would be about $16K.
I can't remember exactly what I was making in 1972-1973 ... maybe $2.20 an hour (~$4400/yr) =| I went out and bought a pickup that listed for something like $4500, minus dealer discount and whatever I got in trade for my old car. So the new pickup was roughly my annual income at that time.
I don't think you get a four wheel drive F-250 for $32K. Anyway, that's twice what minimum wage would make per year.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=average+entry+level+wage
[shrug] Dunno where they got it. I wasn't doing a deep anylasis on it, I was just curious how it worked out.
4x4 adds $2,795 to the price. So ~35k, still actually less then the "average" entry level annual income.
-
I made $43k 7 years ago, take home pay is more like $2300
Plus $500 or more rent/mortgage, $100-200/month for full coverage vehicle insurance on the F-150, $250 groceries, $100 clothing, etc. There isn't much left.
I didn't say it'd be a good idea, just possible. See the trailer park foot note. I'm going to bet if you have a brand new pickup in your first year at work, not a lot is going into your 401k.
-
Funny, I thought that health and auto insurance was a lot more expensive now than in 1973 ???
That's because we can do so much more. Used to be that in a 55mph collision you pretty much went off to the morgue. Cheap.
Today between advances in vehicle safety and medical care, both of which are expensive, you actually have a pretty good chance of not just surviving the accident, but returning to 'full' functionality. But that's expensive. Still, increase vehicle safety even more, and you turn what used to be crippling accidents even at relatively low speeds into non-injury events, or at least non-long term injury events, and you 'save' oodles of money.
As for robots and automation - never said it wasn't. Production is more efficient today, so you can get more truck for your money. A lot of the features like increased safety are design issues to boot, more than construction - so making a safer vehicle isn't actually that much more expensive than an unsafe, except for a few high dollar items like the airbags. And even those are cheaper than they used to be.
So then ... billions for an unnecessary device forced down everyone's throat?
Ask my coworker how 'unnecessary' the device is. Still, quick check: ~15.6M vehicles sold a year, $500 each for the backing camera, $8B/year. Of course, actual cost for factory standard install is more like $50, so $800M would be a better cost estimate.
That's assuming, of course, that 'nobody' would want one otherwise, but going by several (http://www.dvdbypass.com/backup-cameras-are-popular/) sources (http://www.al-eds.com/press/back-up-camera-popularity-on-the-rise/), they're a popular enough option (http://www.edmunds.com/car-technology/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-back-up-cameras.html) that people trade up trim levels to get them, at a cost of several thousand now.
There is an entire segment of "poor" in the US that would find themselves living paycheck to paycheck whether they were making $20K/yr or $200K/yr.
No arguments here about this. Mom's a public accountant. Ask her about the heart surgeon with the expensive wife... She said it was amazing how much a family earning less than $100k could save, while the family earning $500k/year was broke every year with nothing to show for it - not even vacation photos.
"Income inequality" is not defined by not being able to afford a Mercedes, cable TV, or a smart phone.
I'd take the smart phone out. It's often cheaper than a home phone today, and is used for all sorts of things, including job searching.
-
Also, FWIW, min wage in 1973 was 1.60/hr. So we aren't talking min wage income in either time frame.
I have no idea how Google got that average, or how accurate it is. I wasn't making no $40k untill I had been working a couple years and wasn't "entry level", but that was also a while ago, so without pulling an inflation calculator up I don't kow where I would stand in 2015 dollars. and I don't care that much.
My point, other then being bored at work and curious, was that lots of times we "remember" things about when we were young that don't hold up to really looking at, or aren't as bad as we really think. the "back in the good old days" syndrome.
Which is not to say wages haven't stagnated. I think they have. Or rather I think we feel (or are) forced to buy things that even as little as 25 years ago were crazy extravagent and our social strata (whatever that may be) wouldn't buy. So our total buying power is reduced. But individual items tend to have held kinda steady. Or gotten better. Like I said, a 2016 F-250 is a WHOLE lot more truck then a '73.
-
I didn't say it'd be a good idea, just possible. See the trailer park foot note. I'm going to bet if you have a brand new pickup in your first year at work, not a lot is going into your 401k.
They may still have the last laugh: when 5 years from now they have a still-kinda-nice truck, and the government has confiscated all our 401(k)'s to pay for their Medicaid.
-
They may still have the last laugh: when 5 years from now they have a still-kinda-nice truck, and the government has confiscated all our 401(k)'s to pay for their Medicaid.
frak
-
They may still have the last laugh: when 5 years from now they have a still-kinda-nice truck, and the government has confiscated all our 401(k)'s privvate retirement savings to pay for their Medicaid, Social Security, student loan forgiveness, and interest on the national debt.
-
Ask her about the heart surgeon with the expensive wife... She said it was amazing how much a family earning less than $100k could save, while the family earning $500k/year was broke every year with nothing to show for it - not even vacation photos.
Don't have to be a heart surgeon for that one. My ex could find something to spend any attempt at savings on. Got an extra $500? Suddenly the chimney that's been fine as is for years needs a professionally installed $300 cap instead of the $30 one from Lowes and a couple minutes of me driving masonry screws.
I'd take the smart phone out. It's often cheaper than a home phone today, and is used for all sorts of things, including job searching.
This. A couple of my job searches happened almost entirely on smartphones, using library or TWC computers to send PDF resumes.
-
They may still have the last laugh: when 5 years from now they have a still-kinda-nice truck, and the government has confiscated all our 401(k)'s privvate retirement savings to pay for their Medicaid, Social Security, student loan forgiveness, and interest on the national debt.
Yeah, the student loan stuff is making me wonder if I should go back and try to get a couple interesting degrees, then see if I can get the loans dropped.
-
They may still have the last laugh: when 5 years from now they have a still-kinda-nice truck, and the government has confiscated all our 401(k)'s to pay for their Medicaid.
I've seen some rumblings about "means-tested" social security payouts. IE: You get less-to-no Social Security payout depending on what you're drawing from your private retirement funds. Certainly within the realm of possibility - and yet again shaft those who made responsible choices and (probably) were as a group, larger contributors to the social security system.
-
I've seen some rumblings about "means-tested" social security payouts. IE: You get less-to-no Social Security payout depending on what you're drawing from your private retirement funds. Certainly within the realm of possibility - and yet again shaft those who made responsible choices and (probably) were as a group, larger contributors to the social security system.
That would piss me off if I actually expected to see any SS payments at all. I'm 35, and just assuming that any money that goes into SS is gone. If I'm lucky when I retire SS will buy my first cup of coffee every month.
-
I've seen some rumblings about "means-tested" social security payouts. IE: You get less-to-no Social Security payout depending on what you're drawing from your private retirement funds. Certainly within the realm of possibility - and yet again shaft those who made responsible choices and (probably) were as a group, larger contributors to the social security system.
Yup, I've seen a lot recently on various versions of this, from both sides of the aisle. And yes, once again shafting the people that were thrifty and thought ahead.
-
Also, point taken on the smart phone. I should have been more specific and said they didn't need the $600 iPhone.
-
Free market. I sincerely hope the guy's strategy pays off. Wage stagnation is a legitimate issue (usually handwaved away by "but you can buy a faster iPhone or PC") and will continue to be an issue.
I think he went overboard, but I guarantee he'll be getting better employees in the long run. Most business want exceptional to above-average performance/employees for average or below-average wages.
Yep.
-
I didn't say it'd be a good idea, just possible. See the trailer park foot note. I'm going to bet if you have a brand new pickup in your first year at work, not a lot is going into your 401k.
I'm pretty sure 401K was not an option in 1973 :laugh:
Ask my coworker how 'unnecessary' the device is. Still, quick check: ~15.6M vehicles sold a year, $500 each for the backing camera, $8B/year. Of course, actual cost for factory standard install is more like $50, so $800M would be a better cost estimate.
That's assuming, of course, that 'nobody' would want one otherwise, but going by several sources, they're a popular enough option that people trade up trim levels to get them, at a cost of several thousand now.
Imagine ... letting the free market work :cool:
FWIW, min wage in 1973 was 1.60/hr. So we aren't talking min wage income in either time frame.
Honestly, I don't really remember the exact amount that I started at with CIG in November 1972. Min wage was $1.60 then seems like it went up a little about then.
a 2016 F-250 is a WHOLE lot more truck then a '73
Actually, way too much more truck for a lot of purposes =( My old 1976 GMC is almost a mid-size compared to what they are making now ;/
-
Despite all the new requirements, the amount of labor required in a new pickup is actually less than the '73 one.
As for the backing camera, well, one of my coworkers lost their 3 year old daughter to a backing accident. :(
And the other safety features also generally save money through reduced injury - what you'd save on a '73 vehicle's manufacturing price you'd more than end up paying in increased insurance costs.
Ok... how does the labor required to build a truck have anything to do with the price? So they have substituted capital for labor. That doesn't mean it is now cheaper to build.
Further, I said nothing about the value of all the added features to modern vehicles. They are, demonstrably, safer than previous versions.
That also makes them costlier. If you are going to complain that a "bare-bones" pick-up now is more expensive than the "bare-bones" of 1973, you have to understand that "bare-bones" is nowhere near as bare now as it was then.
I'm doubting the 1:1 trade-off on insurance costs, as well, but numbers on that are not easily found.
My point it is that we can't compare products today to products of 1970s. We have a significant amount of government regulation priced into EVERY product. (In addition to tort-protection, as well.)
-
I said nothing about the value of all the added features to modern vehicles. They are, demonstrably, safer than previous versions.
I take issue that a vehicle with noticeably limited visibility is "demonstrably safer" than the older ones. It's only "safer" if you run into something ;/
Anyway - another thing that has gone up even more than the dollars would indicate is housing. Back then, I could find cheap places to live (not sharing) that weren't dangerous. I don't think that you can do that now.
And if you want to buy a smaller (800-1200sq ft) house on a lot, you are pretty much stuck to rotten neighborhoods in most places. So you're forced into either a mcmansion or an apartment :(
I'm just glad that I'm not a young adult trying to start out on my own in today's world.
-
Anyway - another thing that has gone up even more than the dollars would indicate is housing. Back then, I could find cheap places to live (not sharing) that weren't dangerous. I don't think that you can do that now.
That's because they changed the lending laws so that the wife's income could be included in qualifying for a loan. Sounds liberating doesn't it? Nope. Property values immediately jumped. Before, a married couple could buy a house on just one income, and now it pretty much *required* two incomes to buy a house. (not sure if I'm explaining this very well) The only ones who profited were people who already owned property at the time of the change, and the banks of course. Women were the big losers.
-
Don't have to be a heart surgeon for that one.
Not saying that you have to be. It's just that mom talked about their case once a bit. No name, nothing beyond profession. But the amount of money they managed to 'waste', and keep in mind that Mom doesn't consider a vacation 'wasted money'. For her to consider it wasted, you literally have to gain no value from spending the money.
Yeah, the student loan stuff is making me wonder if I should go back and try to get a couple interesting degrees, then see if I can get the loans dropped.
I'm back in college myself, it's refreshing. No loans though, GI Bill. Right now you have to remember that to get the loans dropped at the moment you'd need to attend a college that loses it's accreditation and then goes 'suddenly bankrupt' such that you can't get your degree or transfer your credits - no transcript office left open, plus not accredited so places won't take them.
Also, point taken on the smart phone. I should have been more specific and said they didn't need the $600 iPhone.
Reasonable.
Ok... how does the labor required to build a truck have anything to do with the price? So they have substituted capital for labor. That doesn't mean it is now cheaper to build.
A truck built to the old feature-set would be, relatively speaking, dirt cheap. The modern trucks end up costing a comparative amount, often a touch cheaper, once you do all the voodoo-math to find what equivalence you can. Things like inflation, target audience's income, etc...
That also makes them costlier. If you are going to complain that a "bare-bones" pick-up now is more expensive than the "bare-bones" of 1973, you have to understand that "bare-bones" is nowhere near as bare now as it was then.
Very much so. What I was trying to get at is that if you were to look at the price difference between a US Spec vehicle and an Indian spec vehicle of similar market segment, the safety is easily worth the money if you value your own life at all.
My point it is that we can't compare products today to products of 1970s. We have a significant amount of government regulation priced into EVERY product. (In addition to tort-protection, as well.)
True, and feel free to rail against that.
Imagine ... letting the free market work :cool:
Yep, my only complaint about it is forcing ME to get a number of features I don't want to get the feature I do. Reading up on it, the requirement is almost a classical ineffective one - two years before the cameras are required on 10% of vehicles, they're on 20% of them, and quickly trending towards being on more vehicles, because like I said, people want them. Soon enough they'll be a standard feature, and that's even without the government regulation.
BTW, the regulation was because a politician mistakenly backed over and killed his 2 year old.
-
the regulation was because a politician mistakenly backed over and killed his 2 year old.
Was he intending to back over someone else's two year old ??? >:D
I reckon that the camera would help to identify your target.
-
My '11 Ram 1500 Quad cab 4x4 has the back up camera/parking assist feature. In addition to the camera it has proximity sensors in the bumper. It does make hooking up to a trailer a one man operation.
It has a high end entertainment system with am/fm, cd, satellite, a 32g hdd, and Bluetooth connectivity for hands free phone operation and streaming music from a smartphone. The drivers seat has 38 way adjustment with adjustable lumbar support that my wife manages to turn into a torture device everytime she drives it. It has a rear window defroster and heated mirrors. New it listed as equipped for about $38k. I bought it used with 120K miles on it for a good bit less than half of that and a couple grand below blue book. I don't need all the fancy crap. Give me heat and air conditioning, a good am/fm radio with an aux input and I'm good to go.
But the loaded versions are what sells with the highest profits for the dealers and it seems that people can't live with out electric windows and built in GPS and stereo systems capable of rattling the neighbor's windows from 2 blocks away.
If I could find a basic 4x4 truck with heat and air, a basic radio, cloth seats and rubber floor mats with a manual transmision I'd jump on it, but I don't think they make 'em that way anymore.
-
with a manual transmision I'd jump on it, but I don't think they make 'em that way anymore.
With a manual? Most companies don't anymore. It as a fight to find mine back in '08.
Part of the reason is that because people don't know how to drive and they've changed up the way an automatic transmission works, you actually get better fuel economy from the automatic. It works much more like an automated manual transmission than an old slushbox style auto.
Automatic windows are cheaper now than manuals, but yeah, feature creep.
Consider that you can't get the backing sensors and such without the rest of the gimcrack, even though it's something highly useful for a work truck that tows. Faster or you don't need two people.
-
Can't you tow a heavier trailer with an automatic transmission than with a manual? Or is that just on cars?
-
I guess it's just old school-itis on my part. :old:
I've never had a manual transmission fail but I've had several autos give up the ghost on me, and replacing a clutch is a darn sight easier and cheaper than rebuilding/replacing an automatic transmission.
That's one reason I'm considering a new Jeep Wrangler, you can still get a manual and the auto is a $1300+ option.
-
I take issue that a vehicle with noticeably limited visibility is "demonstrably safer" than the older ones. It's only "safer" if you run into something ;/
Aren't trucks actually bigger than they were a few decades ago?
-
Pretty much. My '83 1/2 ton Chevy was low enough with stock height I could reach over the side of the bed and actually get stuff out of it. Not happening with my '11 Dodge.
-
Anyway - another thing that has gone up even more than the dollars would indicate is housing. Back then, I could find cheap places to live (not sharing) that weren't dangerous. I don't think that you can do that now.
And if you want to buy a smaller (800-1200sq ft) house on a lot, you are pretty much stuck to rotten neighborhoods in most places. So you're forced into either a mcmansion or an apartment :(
I'm just glad that I'm not a young adult trying to start out on my own in today's world.
Guess why that is! (I'll give you a hint: it's bigger, it's badder, it's TOO MUCH for Mr. Incr.. errr... no, not that one. But still, bigger and badder than it was in 1973.)
-
I've never had a manual transmission fail but I've had several autos give up the ghost on me, and replacing a clutch is a darn sight easier and cheaper than rebuilding/replacing an automatic transmission.
This; most expensive manual transmission repair I've ever had was $1,300 to rebuild a fairly uncommon one. I'm not sure I've ever had anything done to an automatic that cheaply.
Besides, with hills, I don't see how an automatic is ever going to be more efficient and/or effective than a manual until it can look out ahead of the car at the terrain, then check inside my skull to see if I'm planning to pass on the climb.
-
I had an automatic transmission rebuilt and heavy-duty clutches installed (or bands or whatever they are called) once. It cost me about $300, and he did a good job too. But that was in the 1980's. (I thought it was cheap even back then)
It was a Turbo 350 in a used Chevy pickup with I dunno how many miles because the odometer didnt work. That was my first automatic trans, before that I thought they were for wimps; especially in a truck. I can still drive a stick, but I always buy autos now. Maybe I have turned into a wimp. But they are sure nice in stop and go traffic, or creeping up a boat ramp, or...
-
Aren't trucks actually bigger than they were a few decades ago?
Yes, a lot. Too big. But they are also much harder to see out of. The dash looms up in your face and the windshield height is less (though because of the flatter angle there is actually a lot more glass). Maybe you get used to it eventually, but you really can't see at all where the end of the hood or fenders is. We have two fairly new VFD trucks and they are a real pain in tight places (where they get used a lot :facepalm: ). In contrast, the 73-87 GM trucks were much easier to see out of than the 67-72 vintage: the top of the dashboard was lower and the windows were all bigger. The 88-98 pickups were okay too.
This; most expensive manual transmission repair I've ever had was $1,300 to rebuild a fairly uncommon one. I'm not sure I've ever had anything done to an automatic that cheaply.
Besides, with hills, I don't see how an automatic is ever going to be more efficient and/or effective than a manual until it can look out ahead of the car at the terrain, then check inside my skull to see if I'm planning to pass on the climb.
Yeah, that and these damn traction control programs that cut off the power about ten feet short of reaching the top of the hill or a dry spot :facepalm:
I had an automatic transmission rebuilt and heavy-duty clutches installed (or bands or whatever they are called) once. It cost me about $300, and he did a good job too. But that was in the 1980's. (I thought it was cheap even back then)
It was a Turbo 350 in a used Chevy pickup with I dunno how many miles because the odometer didnt work. That was my first automatic trans, before that I thought they were for wimps; especially in a truck. I can still drive a stick, but I always buy autos now. Maybe I have turned into a wimp. But they are sure nice in stop and go traffic, or creeping up a boat ramp, or...
I had two TH350 pickups and I thought they were terrible. Maybe okay in a street pickup but not very reliable in a 4wd in the mountains. Both of them got terrible gas mileage. The automatic seemed to suck about a third of your horsepower and they were always having to shift down on even moderate hills, where my four speed pickups would just cruise right up the same hill in high gear without even hardly noticing.
The old wide ratio four speeds had no trouble creeping in low or reverse ;)
The much maligned 700R4 is a much better automatic than the TH350, IMO. I've got over 220K with no issues, although I suppose it might have been rebuilt before we got it. It gets (or did, some years ago) fairly decent mileage on the highway (~15mpg @ 65mph w/ac) compared to rarely even breaking 10mpg with the TH350. Only gripe I had with trailer towing is that it doesn't shift down soon enough on hills (I'm hard to please :P ) and would bog down to 30 mph and then speed up to about 50 where it would upshift and immediately start bogging down again. I learned to just manually shift it down to L2 at about 45 mph and hold that up the hill without any drama.
I always wished for a pickup with a real truck five speed, with deep low and reverse ;) I think only IH ever offered it as an option.
-
Lordy, I love being somewhere a debate over wages morphs into a discussion about truck transmissions. :cool: [popcorn] =D
-
Lordy, I love being somewhere a debate over wages morphs into a discussion about truck transmissions. :cool: [popcorn] =D
Tallpine: waging war on automatics since 1971 =D
-
Yes, a lot. Too big. But they are also much harder to see out of. The dash looms up in your face and the windshield height is less (though because of the flatter angle there is actually a lot more glass). Maybe you get used to it eventually, but you really can't see at all where the end of the hood or fenders is.
This. IMO, most of them need a pair of cameras on the front too so you can see the corners. It's hard to pull up close to anything, and when you're driving a crew cab long bed pulling a trailer, you want to get close in front fairly often to get the trailer as far out of the way as possible.
-
This. IMO, most of them need a pair of cameras on the front too so you can see the corners. It's hard to pull up close to anything, and when you're driving a crew cab long bed pulling a trailer, you want to get close in front fairly often to get the trailer as far out of the way as possible.
Yeah, might as well just do away with the windshield entirely and have a big flat screen =D
-
I have a 2001 Chevy, and I *think* I can still see the front corners okay (I didn't drive it today, and I usually don't pay attention to stuff like that except when I need to)
It is larger on the outside than my previous 1976 model, but smaller on the inside. Thicker doors I guess, but they don't look thicker. Maybe they just lean in more.
I parked next to a newer F150 last week and my Chevy was a lot smaller than the Ford, mostly in height. The bed capacity didn't look any different.
-
I have a 2001 Chevy, and I *think* I can still see the front corners okay (I didn't drive it today, and I usually don't pay attention to stuff like that except when I need to)
It is larger on the outside than my previous 1976 model, but smaller on the inside. Thicker doors I guess, but they don't look thicker. Maybe they just lean in more.
I parked next to a newer F150 last week and my Chevy was a lot smaller than the Ford, mostly in height. The bed capacity didn't look any different.
I don't think they started to bloat so much until mid-2000s =|
I know that back in 2008 when I shuttled a couple new pickups for my sister/brother in law down in Texas, that I was absolutely terrified trying to get one of them in and out of a crowded gas station. The other dealer where we picked it up only left a couple gallons in it and we had 80 miles to get back to my dad's home town.
Our VFD has a ~2001 Suburban and it doesn't seem too bad but then I don't drive it very often. We looked at a 2011 Traverse last year and that thing was ridiculous; it is actually the size of a Tahoe on the outside but much smaller on the inside, and you can't see the hood or fenders at all. Ladypine immediately said "No way!"
Yeah, the cabs seem to be getting smaller and the beds are certainly no larger, but the overall size has grown (and you have to remove the cab to work on the engine). Isn't "progress" wonderful ;/
-
Yeah, might as well just do away with the windshield entirely and have a big flat screen =D
I'd give that a week before somebody figures out how to hack it for DVDs while driving down the interstate, and if we're lucky, they'll have a PiP of the front view in the corner.
-
Yeah, might as well just do away with the windshield entirely and have a big flat screen =D
I often wonder why they haven't changed the dash into one big LED screen. People like gauges, but the gauges are just fed electrical signals. It would be neat to be able to customize your display.
I have a 2011 F-150. It has bucket seats in the back seat and the tail gate sits kind of high. I can't see much out the back window. If not for the backup warning radar and camera, I would have hit several things by now.
I would like to blind spot cameras myself.
-
Back on the original discussion. Below are the consequences I saw:
1. Lost some customers, but gained a bunch. The ones gains won't pay off in the short term. Sounds like he could come okay if he survives.
2. Lost some of his better employees who thought they got shafted by getting less raise.
3. Gave up salary and profit to give money away.
4. Getting sued by minority owner due to #3.
IMO, a lot of this happened because he went public about the change. He could have raised everyone's pay and even gave big raises to the higher paid people also, not went public about it.
Also, some companies do some sort of profit sharing or profit based bonus system. IMO, if you want to reward everyone, that is the better way to do it.
-
Money is not a very good motivator. But it's a great demotivator if you don't get it right.
-
I actually agree about wage stagnation. It's an issue. Part of it is you are required to buy more expensive things by unseen .gov mandates in all kinds of stuff, not just cars.
But, it's raining here, so let's have some fun.
Google says Average Entry Level salary in the US is $43,000. It also says that a single, filing alone federal tax* on that is "$4,481.25 + 25% of the amount over $32,550". So let's round that to $7000 of the top. That means +/- $3000/month take home.
MSRP (and who pays that?) for a 2016 F-250 is $32,385. Scrape together a grand down payment, 7% sales tax and dead center of my credit union's intrest rate nets you $599.95/mo for your truck. Tight, but doable.**
And as was pointed out, you are getting a LOT more stuff on that truck then even a middle of the road 1971 model got you. So, it might not be the best idea, but I think it's not as far out as you imagine.
*I'm not even looking up state tax rates. Move to FL or AK.
**The trucks in the trailer park I pass on the way to work would imply the above scenario is quite a bit more than "doable". It seems popular to park a $50,000 truck outside a $20,000 trailer.
Uh, no. That's the average of all wages, NOT specifically entry level. Unless I am reading this wrong.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
-
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=average+entry+level+wage
[shrug] Dunno where they got it. I wasn't doing a deep anylasis on it, I was just curious how it worked out.
4x4 adds $2,795 to the price. So ~35k, still actually less then the "average" entry level annual income.
I believe this was the source.
"The average Entry Level salary is $42,963 . Filter by location to see Entry Level salaries in your area. salary estimates are based on 592 salaries submitted anonymously to Glassdoor by Entry Level employees.Jul 1, 2015"
-
Money is not a very good motivator. But it's a great demotivator if you don't get it right.
That is a good point. Our management (or HR) has stated that people don't leave the company due to money, but IMO, people will ignore a lot of negatives if the pay is right or those negatives become magnified if they feel underpaid.
-
That is a good point. Our management (or HR) has stated that people don't leave the company due to money, but IMO, people will ignore a lot of negatives if the pay is right or those negatives become magnified if they feel underpaid.
In general, there are so many factors in figuring take home pay (potentially different tax bracket, health plan, child support expanding to absorb its percentage of the new check, etc.) that it's difficult to tell if you're actually getting a raise unless the difference is pretty substantial. Combine that with having to change routines, and most likely go through another probationary period with minimal to no benefits, and there is a fair incentive to stay put.
-
I'd give that a week before somebody figures out how to hack it for DVDs while driving down the interstate, and if we're lucky, they'll have a PiP of the front view in the corner.
Why wait (http://www.dvdbypass.com/)?
I often wonder why they haven't changed the dash into one big LED screen. People like gauges, but the gauges are just fed electrical signals. It would be neat to be able to customize your display.
They have: Tesla Model S has it.
http://fontsinuse.com/uses/3997/2013-tesla-model-s-dashboard-display
Well, it's technically 2 displays.
-
It would be great to have everything in one place so that it can all quit working at once :cool:
Have you tried turning your car off and turning it back on again ???
-
Can't you tow a heavier trailer with an automatic transmission than with a manual? Or is that just on cars?
Depends on the transmission. If you've got a HD automatic like an Allison, then hell yeah you can tow a metric fuckton.
Dodge derates the Cummins in the Ram if you have a manual transmission clutch can't handle the torque.
Also real trucks have an automatic transmission. Planetary automatic FTW!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.favcars.com%2Fcaterpillar%2F797%2Fpictures_caterpillar_797_1998_1.jpg&hash=9fbea8a2b60e9e8bb8f38348b2aff0b2dfd620e9)
-
Depends on the transmission. If you've got a HD automatic like an Allison, then hell yeah you can tow a metric fuckton.
Dodge derates the Cummins in the Ram if you have a manual transmission clutch can't handle the torque.
We've got a 5 speed Allison in a 5 ton 6x6 and I have to admit that thing works nice :)
"Dodge" - there is the problem ;) Nice engines, but too bad they don't come with a truck :P
-
It would be great to have everything in one place so that it can all quit working at once :cool:
My F-150 has a little LCD screen in the dash. The speedometer, odometer, and other stuff is still in gauges. They aren't analog readings though. Loss of power to the dash drops everything. They could still put little backup gauges around if someone is concerned. The LED displayes are bright, have good resolution, and last a long time. The small ones get pretty cheap also.
-
Tallpine: waging war on automatics since 1971 =D
A manly man's transmission
http://www.4wdhub.com/trans/sm420.html (http://www.4wdhub.com/trans/sm420.html)
My Kaiser has one of those in it.
-
A manly man's transmission
http://www.4wdhub.com/trans/sm420.html (http://www.4wdhub.com/trans/sm420.html)
My Kaiser has one of those in it.
No... THIS!!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi189.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz114%2Fejrego%2F3%2520Oliver%25201650%2520Repower%2FIMG_3812.jpg&hash=8775178e517402cbf34c78394823c7603dcbf828)
-
Kind of hard to judge scale in that picture but that chain looks kind of puny, I don't think it would hold up to the grandson's tricycle.
-
Kind of hard to judge scale in that picture but that chain looks kind of puny, I don't think it would hold up to the grandson's tricycle.
I think that chain is only driving a small oil pump. Not really sure...
-
A manly man's transmission
http://www.4wdhub.com/trans/sm420.html (http://www.4wdhub.com/trans/sm420.html)
My Kaiser has one of those in it.
Yeah, I had a couple of those in my 1965s: one in the two ton and one in the step side. Nice transmissions; I think they shift better than the SM465. I'm on my third truck with one of those.
Come to think of it, the other two ton (1958) might have had a 420 also. =|
-
Kind of hard to judge scale in that picture but that chain looks kind of puny, I don't think it would hold up to the grandson's tricycle.
Runs the hydraulic pump.
-
Maybe the guy should have just bought all of his employees a brand new pickup and be done with it :laugh:
-
I think that chain is only driving a small oil pump. Not really sure...
The tranny is one from a Oliver Super 88 tractor.
-
The tranny is one from a Oliver Super 88 tractor.
That brand of tractor used to be found oliver the mid-west =)
-
Maybe the guy should have just bought all of his employees a brand new pickup and be done with it :laugh:
We've been tossing the idea around here of, instead of maintaining a company fleet, putting all the sales reps and office staff on the waiting list for Elios; everybody can have their own for less than the cost of just putting the sales staff in nice looking econoboxes, and the fuel savings will be immense when you figure half the company does 500+ miles a week, with some clearing 1,000/week on occasion. Push that over to "vehicle allowance" and give the option of having it go straight back to the company for each employee to buy their car.
Still working out the tax details of how to handle some financing the car and others just using it as a company car, but I'm hoping we go ahead with it. 90% of the driving done by sales and office staff is only one person and one seat worth of cargo, so we could get by on 1-2 trucks and 8-10 Elios without losing capability.
-
We've been tossing the idea around here of, instead of maintaining a company fleet, putting all the sales reps and office staff on the waiting list for Elios; everybody can have their own for less than the cost of just putting the sales staff in nice looking econoboxes, and the fuel savings will be immense when you figure half the company does 500+ miles a week, with some clearing 1,000/week on occasion. Push that over to "vehicle allowance" and give the option of having it go straight back to the company for each employee to buy their car.
Still working out the tax details of how to handle some financing the car and others just using it as a company car, but I'm hoping we go ahead with it. 90% of the driving done by sales and office staff is only one person and one seat worth of cargo, so we could get by on 1-2 trucks and 8-10 Elios without losing capability.
So the sales reps and office staff are Morlocks? ???
-
We've been tossing the idea around here of, instead of maintaining a company fleet, putting all the sales reps and office staff on the waiting list for Elios; everybody can have their own for less than the cost of just putting the sales staff in nice looking econoboxes, and the fuel savings will be immense when you figure half the company does 500+ miles a week, with some clearing 1,000/week on occasion. Push that over to "vehicle allowance" and give the option of having it go straight back to the company for each employee to buy their car.
Still working out the tax details of how to handle some financing the car and others just using it as a company car, but I'm hoping we go ahead with it. 90% of the driving done by sales and office staff is only one person and one seat worth of cargo, so we could get by on 1-2 trucks and 8-10 Elios without losing capability.
Somehow all I can think about is sharing the road with 18 wheelers in one of those :O
-
So the sales reps and office staff are Morlocks? ???
Very close. They'd be waiting for Eloi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloi), not Elios (http://www.eliomotors.com/). The Eloi probably taste a lot better, though.
-
I wonder if the Elios will ever make it to production.
-
Maybe the guy should have just bought all of his employees a brand new pickup and be done with it :laugh:
I know of one concrete company that does that for their salesman. They buy the trucks and pay for all the fuel in them and the ones I have seen were top of the line trucks like a Ram Big Horn or F-150 Platinum. Whether it saves them money I don't know.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I know of one concrete company that does that for their salesman. They buy the trucks and pay for all the fuel in them and the ones I have seen were top of the line trucks like a Ram Big Horn or F-150 Platinum. Whether it saves them money I don't know.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A $40K pickup once versus $70K salary every year ;)
Plus ... it neatly ties this thread together :laugh:
-
So the sales reps and office staff are Morlocks?
That would be an upgrade for sales.
Somehow all I can think about is sharing the road with 18 wheelers in one of those
Meh; no worse than any other vehicle under about 20 tons. A fully loaded 18 wheeler or large bus will fold an F-450 into about the same size ball as it does with a Geo Metro. Watched it happen once. Thankfully, there was no way anybody was going to see what the Ford's occupant(s) looked like until the FD did a lot of cutting, so I was gone before they got inside.
-
That's on top of salary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Meh; no worse than any other vehicle under about 20 tons. A fully loaded 18 wheeler or large bus will fold an F-450 into about the same size ball as it does with a Geo Metro. Watched it happen once. Thankfully, there was no way anybody was going to see what the Ford's occupant(s) looked like until the FD did a lot of cutting, so I was gone before they got inside.
At least the truck drive would know he hit something.
-
Looks like it working out for Gravity and pissing a few folks off.
http://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/the-70000-minimum-wage-experiment-reveals-a-dark-truth.html/?ref=YF&tpl=op
-
Looks like it working out for Gravity and pissing a few folks off.
http://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/the-70000-minimum-wage-experiment-reveals-a-dark-truth.html/?ref=YF&tpl=op
That article added no new information except that the company hasn't failed yet.
He just destroyed the incentive structure in his business. It's unlikely to cause immediate collapse of a already profitable business. Instead, it will manifest in slowly deteriorating quality due to an exodus of his better employees, leading to an exodus of clients.
It's great he wants to sacrifice and help out his employees. But I'm betting his noble self-congratulations will start to wane as he is putting in 120 hour weeks and sees his employees work 40 hours and go home to enjoy their families. (And he may start to understand the incentive problem at this point. I'm betting pride won't let him admit it until the company fails, though.)
-
There is no incentive to be a high performer.
Eventually the floor will be established of what the minimum amount of work is that is required to keep your job; then that is what on average the staff will end up doing.
If there is a profit sharing plan, that will inspire some to work harder and they will probably feel animosity toward those who refuse to pull harder.
Interesting experiment but I don't really think it is sustainable.
-
That article added no new information except that the company hasn't failed yet.
He just destroyed the incentive structure in his business. It's unlikely to cause immediate collapse of a already profitable business. Instead, it will manifest in slowly deteriorating quality due to an exodus of his better employees, leading to an exodus of clients.
It's great he wants to sacrifice and help out his employees. But I'm betting his noble self-congratulations will start to wane as he is putting in 120 hour weeks and sees his employees work 40 hours and go home to enjoy their families. (And he may start to understand the incentive problem at this point. I'm betting pride won't let him admit it until the company fails, though.)
Oh, I should also note he may, very likely, get better output from his employees who weren't making $70K already. Of course he had a reason he wasn't paying them that much already: the value they added to the company did not justify it. Thus, their better output is highly unlikely to be enough to compensate for the significant salary increase.
-
But if they were already a poor performer, working a little better still may not be to the level of better employees.
IMO, it is the better employees that make things work. The ones who get the job done consistently, who can solve problems without constantly making the boss figure it out. The ones who don't need to be "managed" all the time who the boss can assign tasks without worrying about it getting done right.
-
But if they were already a poor performer, working a little better still may not be to the level of better employees.
IMO, it is the better employees that make things work. The ones who get the job done consistently, who can solve problems without constantly making the boss figure it out. The ones who don't need to be "managed" all the time who the boss can assign tasks without worrying about it getting done right.
The ones who are leaving because they are making the same as the mail clerk....
-
There is no incentive to be a high performer.
Eventually the floor will be established of what the minimum amount of work is that is required to keep your job; then that is what on average the staff will end up doing.
If there is a profit sharing plan, that will inspire some to work harder and they will probably feel animosity toward those who refuse to pull harder.
Interesting experiment but I don't really think it is sustainable.
$70k/year is the minimum salary for the company, not everyone only gets paid that, appears that some people will get paid more.
Earlier this year, a small Seattle-based payment processing company made headlines when its 31-year-old CEO made a rather jarring change to the company’s pay structure: Gravity Payments would pay all employees, at a bare minimum, $70,000 annually.
I think it is pissing people off because the owner decided to reduce his own salary to pay the workers more, this almost totally unheard of in the modern business environment where the top keep growing their salary by shitting on workers.
-
Huh. It's mentioned that he was inspired by a study showing that ~$70k is the 'optimal' happiness point.
I think I've read that study. The best way I can explain it is that it turns out that money doesn't buy happiness, but it sure can be used to prevent or 'pay off' unhappiness.
IE, when you're hitting ~$70k/year, you stop gathering extra unhappiness from lack of funds.
Extra money will make you happier if you're unhappy because you're having trouble meeting your bills, having to budget every dollar, etc... If you're unhappy because you have no friends, or don't have a girlfriend or something, then more money will only provide a transitional, almost illusionary gain in happiness.
-
Not sure why some folks outright hate the guy. I can understand the adage of "Hire good people, pay them well". It's a good strategy, and I've seen it work. "Hire good people, pay them market or below market wages, demand above average performance" only works if you can handle high turnover or it's a terrible economy.
That said, I would have just given everyone a $20k raise instead.
-
Huh. It's mentioned that he was inspired by a study showing that ~$70k is the 'optimal' happiness point.
I think I've read that study. The best way I can explain it is that it turns out that money doesn't buy happiness, but it sure can be used to prevent or 'pay off' unhappiness.
IE, when you're hitting ~$70k/year, you stop gathering extra unhappiness from lack of funds.
Extra money will make you happier if you're unhappy because you're having trouble meeting your bills, having to budget every dollar, etc... If you're unhappy because you have no friends, or don't have a girlfriend or something, then more money will only provide a transitional, almost illusionary gain in happiness.
I don't understand the study, as $70K buying power varies WIDELY across the country. I wouldn't be very happy getting $70K in San Francisco.
Re: Rev's point on giving everyone a $20K raise - I kinda agree, but would probably go with a percentage vs a dollar amount.
-
I think it is pissing people off because the owner decided to reduce his own salary to pay the workers more, this almost totally unheard of in the modern business environment where the top keep growing their salary by shitting on workers.
I'm disappointed Tapatalk doesn't have the raised eyebrow smilie.
Pissed off? I'm not even annoyed- this is his company and he can do as he wants. (disclaimer: his brother appears to disagree)
His experiment does not cost me anything. I'm merely certain it is doomed to failure, because I understand human nature. (Of which, the laws of economics are a subset.)
As I noted, he is making a generous sacrifice. I think it is a foolish one, though.
-
How dare he pay all his employees enough not to be desperate or live in squalor.
Everyone knows that markets and Christianity demand a certain level of poverty. If he wants to go around paying people money, he should move somewhere backwards where everyone hates their quality of life, like Norway or Finland, with their foolish pay systems.
-
How dare he pay all his employees enough not to be desperate or live in squalor.
Everyone knows that markets and Christianity demand a certain level of poverty. If he wants to go around paying people money, he should move somewhere backwards where everyone hates their quality of life, like Norway or Finland, with their foolish pay systems.
Trololololol
-
As I noted, he is making a generous sacrifice. I think it is a foolish one, though.
Agreed.
I don't care what he does with his own resources. I'm just tired of the idiot being lauded as brilliant for the stunt.
-
Agreed.
I don't care what he does with his own resources. I'm just tired of the idiot being lauded as brilliant for the stunt.
Giving people a living through work isn't a stunt - that's what this whole "job creator" mantra is supposed to be all about.
-
How dare he pay all his employees enough not to be desperate or live in squalor.
Everyone knows that markets and Christianity demand a certain level of poverty. If he wants to go around paying people money, he should move somewhere backwards where everyone hates their quality of life, like Norway or Finland, with their foolish pay systems.
Making under 70k dooms you to a desperate life of squalor?
Do markets and Christianity demand poverty or point out that certain behavior leads to poverty?
So Christianity needs to shut up about traditional/sexual mores but speak out and demand governments regulate contracts, employment and distribution of property?
With all the new diversity over in Norway and Finland I suspect either their "foolish pay systems" as well as their generous welfare benefits will have to go or they will have to curtail their "diversity" fetish.
-
I don't understand the study, as $70K buying power varies WIDELY across the country. I wouldn't be very happy getting $70K in San Francisco.
Re: Rev's point on giving everyone a $20K raise - I kinda agree, but would probably go with a percentage vs a dollar amount.
While buying power does vary, from what I understand, only something like 10% of the country is more than 20% away from the median. There's a reason I stuck the ~ before the figure, it means "approximately". So while yes, in some areas you might need $100k to be equally 'happy', there's also areas where $50k balances it out (there are more $50k areas than $100k ones).
Making under 70k dooms you to a desperate life of squalor?
No, I'd argue that it's the statistical point at which marginal happiness increase from more money becomes insignificant, IE 'undetectable'. On the other hand, we don't know how much of a raise his previously lowest paid employee was receiving.
-
No, I'd argue that it's the statistical point at which marginal happiness increase from more money becomes insignificant, IE 'undetectable'. On the other hand, we don't know how much of a raise his previously lowest paid employee was receiving.
DeSelby was the one who set up the straw man of desperation and squalor making under 70k.
Of course the obvious answer to my RHETORICAL QUESTION is a simple "no".
-
While buying power does vary, from what I understand, only something like 10% of the country is more than 20% away from the median. There's a reason I stuck the ~ before the figure, it means "approximately". So while yes, in some areas you might need $100k to be equally 'happy', there's also areas where $50k balances it out (there are more $50k areas than $100k ones).
Well, yes, I know what "~" means, but I generally apply "~$70K" to $72K, or $67K, not $50K or $100K. :P
-
Well, yes, I know what "~" means, but I generally apply "~$70K" to $72K, or $67K, not $50K or $100K. :P
20% of $70k is $14k, so yeah, I was probably stretching the 'approximate' a bit. But then, I don't have the study handy to see what their variance and standard error was.
-
How dare he pay all his employees enough not to be desperate or live in squalor.
Everyone knows that markets and Christianity demand a certain level of poverty. If he wants to go around paying people money, he should move somewhere backwards where everyone hates their quality of life, like Norway or Finland, with their foolish pay systems.
Deck the thread with posts of folly,
Trololololol
-
I would imagine at 70k you would attract a lot of people to wanting to work there giving you a much higher worker pool to choose from. As long as he can fire all but THE hardest and smartest workers I can see this working out.
-
I would imagine at 70k you would attract a lot of people to wanting to work there giving you a much higher worker pool to choose from. As long as he can fire all but THE hardest and smartest workers I can see this working out.
It depends on a lot of things, not least of which are the jobs being filled. For many jobs, the marginal value of a slightly smarter or harder working employee isn't high enough to offset the higher wage. The jobs for which that extra ability really matters will tend to pay more anyway.
It is also very expensive to repeatedly hire/train/fire people to find the ideal person for the job.
Or, as Hayek put it:
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
As for this particular example, it is fine if someone wants to try to distort the market at their own cost for the benefit of their employees. Companies certainly have plenty of history of trying to distort the market the other way. What I don't want is for people to point to this case - whatever its ultimate result - and use it to justify further artificial price manipulation by the government. The long term impact of that will almost certainly be negative for everyone but bureaucrats.
-
I think people are pissed because if his business thrives, that means other businesses are going have to pay a much higher salary to keep people.
Wasn't there a thread earlier this year about businesses keeping IT wages low?
-
I think people are pissed because if his business thrives, that means other businesses are going have to pay a much higher salary to keep people.
Wasn't there a thread earlier this year about businesses keeping IT wages low?
Honestly, paying above market wage CAN have the benefit of making retention of employees easier.
I have no problem with paying above market wages, it can be a viable economic strategy. (But only if one or few companies do it, otherwise the wages are no longer "above market.")
My problem is I'm pretty sure 70K is a bit too much "above market" for many of his employees for it to be viable long term, especially for entry level employees.
I have no fear whatsoever that this will pervade the market, unless enforced by government fiat. (Which would end up making $70K worth about $30K in today's dollars...)
-
I think people are pissed because if his business thrives, that means other businesses are going have to pay a much higher salary to keep people.
Wasn't there a thread earlier this year about businesses keeping IT wages low?
That would explain it, if it were only business owners and CEOs, and such, that disapproved. A better explanation is that lots of us wage-owners know the harm that's been done by the entitlement mentality, and we see this as contributing thereto.
-
I think people are pissed because if his business thrives, that means other businesses are going have to pay a much higher salary to keep people.
Wasn't there a thread earlier this year about businesses keeping IT wages low?
The market responded to the IT wages and those companies are having trouble hiring at that wage. The problem is the Govt keeps stepping in to bring in more ex-pats to help the companies maintain the current wages. Not sure if that is a good thing or not.
-
I think people are pissed because if his business thrives, that means other businesses are going have to pay a much higher salary to keep people.
Wasn't there a thread earlier this year about businesses keeping IT wages low?
Ayep. And not just the H2B visa fraud, but also companies actually sharing salary information to attempt price fixing via cartel.
-
Ayep. And not just the H2B visa fraud, but also companies actually sharing salary information to attempt price fixing via cartel.
Don't unions due something similar, from the other side?
-
Still in the news
http://www.inc.com/magazine/201511/paul-keegan/does-more-pay-mean-more-growth.html?cid=sf01002
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-gravity-ceo-dan-price/
Article alleges he was retaliating and/or reacting to a lawsuit from his partner suing him for grossly overpaying himself. The wage hike was just publicity or possibly a way to drop profits even further.
"
Price announced his magnanimous act a month after his brother sued him for, in essence, being greedy....
In a follow-up interview in mid-November, I pressed Price about the inconsistency. How could what he told me about being served two weeks after announcing the raise be true when the court records indicated otherwise?
“Umm, I’m not, I have to look,” he said.
The court document, I said, definitely says March 16.
"
-
I would imagine at 70k you would attract a lot of people to wanting to work there giving you a much higher worker pool to choose from. As long as he can fire all but THE hardest and smartest workers I can see this working out.
I have been saying this for years. Not so much in the IT realm, thought it could apply, but with cops. Don't like the people applying to be cops at 30k a year (local cop shop starting wage)? Then kick it up to 35 or 40, that should drastically increase the quality of applicants, even bring in people looking to switch careers, and it will allow the agency to be more selective in their psych profiling.
-
I would agree that higher wages can be very useful to attract better workers if used correctly. That assumes you make good hiring decisions and don't reward the low performers. Phillips 66 refinery over in Sweeney doesn't really pay more per hour, but they have favorable overtime rules and still offer a pension for hourly employees. They seem to treat employees decently also. They get hundreds (sometimes thousands) of applicants for each position and can take their pick. A nearby plant of ours just lost one of their best operators to them. I guess each busniess has to look at the cost/benefit of having an above average work force.
I don't think that is what this guy did. He was just handing out raises for little intent toward helping his business. He actually lost good employees since he wasn't equitable in the way he did it.
-
The man's wife has now accused him of physical abuse, including "waterboarding" her! :O
He has denied the claim. Who knows what the truth is?
-
How dare he pay all his employees enough not to be desperate or live in squalor.
Everyone knows that markets and Christianity demand a certain level of poverty. If he wants to go around paying people money, he should move somewhere backwards where everyone hates their quality of life, like Norway or Finland, with their foolish pay systems.
I lived just fine at 36k only a few years ago. it's called living within your goddamn means
-
I lived just fine at 36k only a few years ago. it's called living within your goddamn means
Truth.
So my car is a POS, and I spend a couple hundred a quarter on parts and a weekend tearing it apart to put the parts in. My house is a rented garage apartment with 525sf of main living area and a 525sf workshop. I don't have cable or a big screen. I don't need a big house or a fancy car to be happy.
One of the reasons I love to hear from my friend who's on a mission in Chile is that she's learning to recognize what's really important in life; she writes of meeting happy families with 6-8 people living in a one room house the size of her bathroom back home, and coming to an understanding that they're really better off than most of the people we know here who have a lot more stuff. Many of them poop in a hole in the back yard and wipe with leaves, but they don't argue about money. They walk 4-5 miles to catch a bus into the city from time to time. They have a roof over their heads, 1800-2400 calories a day and a family that cares, and they're thankful for that instead of looking for ways to "get ahead." They work, and what they earn goes to the essentials and then to something special for the family. Occasionally, they borrow for medical expenses or to send a kid to school, but the idea of going into debt for luxuries is utterly foolish to them. Many of us could learn a lot from people we consider too poor to be happy.
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-gravity-ceo-dan-price/
Article alleges he was retaliating and/or reacting to a lawsuit from his partner suing him for grossly overpaying himself. The wage hike was just publicity or possibly a way to drop profits even further.
"
Price announced his magnanimous act a month after his brother sued him for, in essence, being greedy....
In a follow-up interview in mid-November, I pressed Price about the inconsistency. How could what he told me about being served two weeks after announcing the raise be true when the court records indicated otherwise?
“Umm, I’m not, I have to look,” he said.
The court document, I said, definitely says March 16.
"
Didn't he also cut his own pay at the same time (IIRC, it was to either to $1 per year or the same $70k as his employees). So it looks like an attempt to ward off/provide a defense to the lawsuit.
I have been saying this for years. Not so much in the IT realm, thought it could apply, but with cops. Don't like the people applying to be cops at 30k a year (local cop shop starting wage)? Then kick it up to 35 or 40, that should drastically increase the quality of applicants, even bring in people looking to switch careers, and it will allow the agency to be more selective in their psych profiling.
Actually, no. Most people who become cops aren't doing it for the money. It's like a calling. They've wanted to be cops since they were kids. I know, I met a lot of them when I on Active Duty. They all had the same plan. (In fact I often wondered if they taught recruiters to pitch "The Plan" to any kid they met that said they wanted to be a cop.)
"The Plan":
Most cop shops required (at the time) that you be at least 21 and have either some college or an Associates Degree in Criminal Justice, before you could even take the test.
So what to do when you are 18, want to be a cop, but can't swing college? Join the Army as an MP.
You get:
Four years of Law Enforcement experience.*
You can take college classes while serving and if you are diligent you could get an Associates Degree in those 4 years.
You get the Veteran's Preference Points on whatever Civil Service/Police Academy test they make you take. So if you do halfway decent, you're at or near the top of the hiring list.
Plus you now have the GI bill so you can complete your BS degree.
*- YMMV, we were Direct Support so, we spent A LOT of time in field doing combat stuff, not so much LE stuff. But four years as an MP is 4 years as an MP. And you have something that the "College Boys" don't have. The Tee-shirt. As in BTDT. Most cop shops like experience.
Damn near every one of my existing troops and the new ones that came in over the next four years gave me the above answer when I asked them why they joined the Army and became an MP. Not one mentioned money, they all talked about what department or agency they wanted to go to work for.
-
Slight thread veer, but it seems to me, that this is a better way to reward your employees "equally". Yes, the unskilled $30k/yr employee gets the same bonus as the skilled $100k/yr employee, but the $100k/yr employee is still making $70k/yr more in salary.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/12/hilcorp-energy-gives-100000-bonus-to-all-1381-employees/?intcmp=hpbt3
-
Actually, no. Most people who become cops aren't doing it for the money. It's like a calling. They've wanted to be cops since they were kids. I know, I met a lot of them when I on Active Duty. They all had the same plan. (In fact I often wondered if they taught recruiters to pitch "The Plan" to any kid they met that said they wanted to be a cop.)
There are other sorts in civvie law enforcement I have known.
0. Sorta lazy, but smart enough and an OK guy.
Lots of opportunities to do good. Also lots of opportunities to do nothing. An above average intelligence LEO can make it work while still nabbing bad guys at a good clip.
1. Really likes to fight and put a hurting on folk.
No other occupation other than patrol that allows one to justifiably put a hurting on your fellow man from such a position of advantage...and get paid for it. No, pro boxing doesn't come close. And neither does military service.
2. Likely bound for a life of crime, but smart enough to know it and take steps.
Yeah, some LEOs fall prey to the ethical traps involved with their jobs. Others are looking for them. Everything from petty graft to LEOs working financial crimes using knowledge gleaned from the job to speculate in real estate.
3. Its a job.
'Nuff said.
4. No where else can someone of limited intellectual and moral and physical potential have so much authority over fellow men and women.
Where else can an overweight, not-so-bright gal with zero skills and qualifications lord it over so many men and women? This sort can be seen as affimative action hires throughout gov't bureaucracies, not just law enforcement.
-
4. No where else can someone of limited intellectual and moral and physical potential have so much authority over fellow men and women.
Where else can an overweight, not-so-bright gal with zero skills and qualifications lord it over so many men and women? This sort can be seen as affimative action hires throughout gov't bureaucracies, not just law enforcement.
We had one of those working code enforcement until she broke both of the Crown Vics they had left over, (busted the driver's seat right out of one on a bump) and somebody found a reason to roll her out the door. Not sure what she weighed, but I had a coworker about the same height (5'2") who was 385 and both smaller and more agile than the officer. How she even passed the "fit through the door" test is a mystery, since the back of the station doesn't have double doors.
-
Slight thread veer, but it seems to me, that this is a better way to reward your employees "equally". Yes, the unskilled $30k/yr employee gets the same bonus as the skilled $100k/yr employee, but the $100k/yr employee is still making $70k/yr more in salary.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/12/hilcorp-energy-gives-100000-bonus-to-all-1381-employees/?intcmp=hpbt3
Still a *expletive deleted*it idea. As I have always done, I'm going to pay employees the lower of what I think they are worth, or what they are willing to accept when accepting employment, and then provide bonuses based on what I can pay metered out by their achievements above and beyond (same with raises). Literally -any- other method is crap in my opinion.
Want more $? Ask. If I cant, I'll say so and say why. If I wont, I'll say so, and say why. I am totally willing to also make a deal...you prove X to get Y? Totally acceptable if agreed upon. If that bothers you, say you will leave. I'll Either reconsider can't/won't, or show you the door. But what I don't want is people who are staying, but want more, but are unwilling to ask, or prove that they are worth more.
It's not what you -deserve- because as far as I am concerned, deserving something means I owe you something. It's what we can agree that you are worth...what you are willing to accept to do X, and what I feel X is worth. If those are different, then either I'll learn and have to pay more to get X, or you will not have a job and either find someone else who will pay more for X, or pay the same for <X.
-
Still a *expletive deleted*it idea.
Oh, I agree. I just think it's a better alternative than what the OP guy did, but still far from ideal, since (to me at least) a bonus should be predominately based on performance.
Though it looks like this company just had a really great year and wanted to give out dough, more as a gift than as a true bonus, so in that case it doesn't seem too unfair to give everyone the same amount. Heck for all we know, they may have given out performance bonuses plus this cash on top.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/05/26/does-70000-minimum-wage-work/84913242/
Followup article in today's USA Today.
-
The article talks about other companies that were "inspired" to drastically raise wages, as Gravity did. I don't understand that at all. Without government intervention; without unions being involved, management is voluntarily giving their employees more money? A lot more money? How can this be?
-
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2016/07/judge-rules-in-favor-of-gravity-payments-ceo-dan.html?ana=RSS%26s%3Darticle_search&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bizj_seattle+%28Seattle+-+Puget+Sound+Business+Journal%29
Gravity wins in the end.
-
Gravity wins in the end.
Doesn't it always? :D
I'm still waiting to see if people will admit that he's a pretty smart businessman.
-
Doesn't it always? :D
I'm still waiting to see if people will admit that he's a pretty smart businessman.
Well, his PR stunt worked to help him avoid responsibility for his prior malfeasance so I guess that is pretty clever. He's smart in a Hillary kind of way.
-
Doesn't it always? :D
I'm still waiting to see if people will admit that he's a pretty smart businessman.
From what I heard previously, the business was doing well, his move disrupted things quite a bit both with customers and with payroll. He seemed to be coming out of it okay, but I would hardly call that smart. If he was smart, he could have done something close or similar, caused less disruption, and still gotten the publicity.
-
In the news again: sexual assault allegations.
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/08/22/socialist-ceo-dan-prices-story-takes-a-dark-turn-n491461
-
I prefer to say he was accused of male feminism.
-
Progressive socialist politics, big supporter of liberal causes...
Yeah, it most mostly consensual sex...
And besides, he didn't have malicious intent.
So all's good.