(08-01-2015, 06:13 PM)gstanford Wrote: Some of his customers unilaterally left based on unfounded concerns about possible fee hikes (which they were assured would not happen), but he has gained more than enough new customers to offset those that left(most likely with a conservative political agenda to match Rollo's).

The employees who quit over the pay rises are better off gone.  They have demonstrated that they put themselves above other employees working there.  [B}They are not effective team players in my books and I certainly wouldn't employ them with attitudes like that.[/B]

I'm sure Dan will resolve his differences with his brother Lucas too, and I'm equally confident he won't reneg on his 70K minimum wage offer to employees while doing so.

Dan Price is made of the right stuff and we need many more like him in this world.

(08-02-2015, 02:39 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: Do you employ anyone GStan?

If so, how do your attorneys and accountants like making the same money as your mail room people and janitors? Are they "good team players" and saying, "Seems fair to me I had to spend years of my life and $100,000 on my college degree and Bubba makes the same money as I do. Bubba needs money too, and we're all on the same team!"

LOL only a crackhead would think Dan Price's company makes any sense.

There's nothing wrong with paying above market rate to keep turnover low and have your pick of the best employees. That sort of thing is done all the time.

Where Dan fails is thinking the people who were making $70K because they have job skills that are worth $70K are going to just take it when he doubles the pay of the entry level staff and leaves theirs the same, saying "You're all employees, you should all make the same!"

As noted, no one is following his lead.

(08-02-2015, 06:07 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: GStan is absolutely right.  To paraphrase Hubert H. Humphrey: "the time has come for the business world to get out of the shadow of job position rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!"

(08-02-2015, 06:52 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: Sorry dude, but Hubert Humprey of the Farm Labor Party is smoking the pot pipe as well.

Why would anyone actually waste years of their life learning a skilled trade, and spend the $100K on a college education if they could just put on a paper hat and start handing the donuts and coffee out and make the same money?

They WOULDN'T because it is WORK, and people don't do work with out the expectation of something in return.

They wouldn't because it's a great amount of MONEY, and people don't invest a great amount of money without getting something in return.

The only people who think everyone should earn the same money are:
A. Communists
B. Those who didn't do the work or spend the money

(08-02-2015, 07:01 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: Who said the skilled trade dudes can't make a few percent more than the nobodies?

(08-02-2015, 07:14 AM)gstanford Wrote: Nobody forces anyone to over-qualify themselves for work and then attach great expectations on to that.

Like I said the only thing that matters is if you are capable of performing the duties listed in your job description or not.

(08-02-2015, 07:20 AM)gstanford Wrote:

(08-02-2015, 07:17 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:

(08-02-2015, 07:01 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: Who said the skilled trade dudes can't make a few percent more than the nobodies?

Goes back to the concept of "fair".

It's not fair to spend years learning better skills and tons of money for a few percent.

And who forced you to do that?  You chose to do it, you live with the financial consequences!

(08-02-2015, 08:23 AM)gstanford Wrote: I don't believe I am owed or entitled to anything.  I do believe that if I do a fair days work that I should be compensated with fair pay.

(08-02-2015, 10:12 AM)gstanford Wrote: I am the owner.

If I were not the owner and the boss decided to pay the janitor the same as me (we don't have a janitor, that is a function provided by the building owner), I would be happy for the janitor.

The boss would have no legal power to force me to take the janitor out to lunch at my expense though and thus I wouldn't do that.  If the boss paid for both of us to go out to lunch at the company's expense I'd be only too happy to comply.

(08-02-2015, 05:45 PM)gstanford Wrote:

(08-02-2015, 05:32 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: It's also not fair for everyone to make the same amount. Maybe if everyone is standing on an assembly line and they all pull the drill press handle 800X a day, but if one guy is a janitor, one guy is a network tech, one guy is a lawyer, and the last guy is an accountant, to pay them all the same is

That is where you are totally wrong.  In society you are expected to contribute.  In return for contributing you get to live within that society and partake of its benefits.  In modern times the way this is done is that you are paid money in return for working (contributing) and you then use that money to live within the society.

In your quote above you are discriminating against peoples contributions.  They all contribute.  There is no reason why one contributor should get more than another.

(08-02-2015, 06:39 PM)gstanford Wrote: As I've stated before, all employers care about is that you can competently perform the duties in your job description.  It does not matter how you got the knowledge/qualifications to do so, only that you actually can do so.

After that if you do a fair days work you are entitled to fair compensation for that work, no matter how menial or trivial it may be.   You are employed to do it, and if you do it you should be compensated for it.

(08-02-2015, 08:41 PM)gstanford Wrote:

Quote:If your ideas (really Karl Marx's ideas) are so great, point out some place they have actually worked.

Gravity payments would be a rather obvious example.......

(08-02-2015, 09:29 PM)gstanford Wrote: The reason it has never happened is no-one other than Dan Price has seriously tried it before.

I'm sure if we could go back in time you would rant and rave just as much about automobiles replacing horses and carts.

The fact that you and your conservative cronies rant so much about this and obviously feel threatened by it is simply further proof that it is a brilliant idea.  If it truly were a crackpot idea with no hope of success you would totally ignore it.

Just like your XBONE vs PS4 rants, the more you rave the more I know I'm correct!

(08-02-2015, 10:30 PM)gstanford Wrote: I don't know what you mean "it didn't even work for Gravity", it is still happening there and he has picked up new customers in the process too.

His brother is forcing him to do it tough at the moment, but he will come through.  He certainly hasn't failed yet despite your desperately wanting him too.

This isn't communism, no matter how much you want to paint it that way.  At the end of the day there will be people at Gravity earning more than 70K, Dan included.  It just makes the basement much more livable.

(08-02-2015, 10:30 PM)gstanford Wrote: I don't know what you mean "it didn't even work for Gravity", it is still happening there and he has picked up new customers in the process too.

His brother is forcing him to do it tough at the moment, but he will come through.  He certainly hasn't failed yet despite your desperately wanting him too.

This isn't communism, no matter how much you want to paint it that way.  At the end of the day there will be people at Gravity earning more than 70K, Dan included.  It just makes the basement much more livable.

Subway Owner Wrote:If you have a store that is merely average you should profit in the ballpark of $80k/yr.

Now lets say you were lucky enough to get a great location and you store does $15k/week (the area I am in has several stores that do this and much more in sales so it is very possible), well you should be making in excess of $150k per year.

(08-04-2015, 12:21 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: He's still making substantially more than his employees.  That isn't going to change as the wages scale up.

(08-04-2015, 06:41 AM)SickBeast Wrote: I agree with paying people a decent minimum wage but $70K/year is just absurd.  I think $15/hour is a good figure and a fair wage for basic jobs with low requirements.  You can at least eek out a basic living in most places on that much.  If everyone made $70K it would drive up the price of everything to the point that $70K/year would not be enough to get by on for most people.

Actually what I think would be great is if you made the minimum wage $15/hour plus allow people to earn $20-30K tax free each year.

(08-04-2015, 07:39 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: No way, you think?!

Of course it would because a. the money has to come from somewhere and higher costs of good would be where b. even vendors paying wages nowhere near the $70K get that there is more money flowing and jack up their prices

The dumbasses who think "The jig is up! Those rich guys have to pay out of their deep pockets and now we will all prosper!" need to Google "cost push" and "demand pull" inflation.

It's also way past crazy thinking that people who have been making $70K to do skilled work won't expect to make a lot more than that if the cafeteria workers start making that to hand out jello.

(08-04-2015, 07:55 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: Actually, boosting the minimum wage wouldn't increase prices at all.  Money isn't magically created and driving inflation when the employees get more money, since that money that used to go to the owner is just going to the employees instead.

(08-04-2015, 10:03 AM)gstanford Wrote: Yes, wages are stagnant and declining.  I showed you this in a link a while back (in the console thread as part of the car debate iirc).  and yes jobs are going to wherever the labor to perform those jobs is cheapest.

(08-04-2015, 10:21 AM)gstanford Wrote: If employers want to clearly demonstrate that they are greedy, self-interested bastards who have no interest in helping the rest of society and only concern themselves with how rich they personally can get, that is fine by me.

You can clearly see profits skyrocketing while wages plummet in the first graph.

It won't end well for them.

(08-04-2015, 05:06 PM)gstanford Wrote: The gap between profits and wages should be very close like on the far left of the graph, not extremely wide as it is on the right of the graph.

and the difference is actually 8.5%, not 4%.  (53.5 - 44)  Someone obviously can't even get elementary math right!

(08-04-2015, 05:40 PM)gstanford Wrote: 53.5 was typo, should have been 52.5.  Everything else is accurate though.  The gap between the two at the far right of the graph is 8.5%, not 4%

(08-05-2015, 01:26 AM)SickBeast Wrote: I think something needs to be done about the absurd CEO salaries.  That is as big a problem as how low the minimum wage is.

(08-05-2015, 07:36 AM)gstanford Wrote: I don't believe I have ever singled out particular groups.  I've always simply referred to "rich people"....

(08-04-2015, 05:44 PM)gstanford Wrote: Here is yet another graph of profits vs wages over a larger timescale - 1970 thru 2012

(08-02-2015, 02:39 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: If so, how do your attorneys and accountants like making the same money as your mail room people and janitors? Are they "good team players" and saying, "Seems fair to me I had to spend years of my life and $100,000 on my college degree and Bubba makes the same money as I do. Bubba needs money too, and we're all on the same team!"

(08-06-2015, 01:35 AM)BoFox Wrote:   A few crazy, rare workaholics (like Oprah) might be able to climb the corporate ladder outside of "familial heritage", but it still seems like heritage still runs strong in America's veins - actually superseding the "land of opportunity" romanticism that we all would love to believe in. 

(08-06-2015, 05:04 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: A person can get a good lifestyle going in America still, especially if they team up with another working professional.

(08-05-2015, 05:55 PM)gstanford Wrote:

Quote:I try to look at these matters as "what kind of world do I leave for my son?"

Do I want Louie the janitor to make $70K at the expense of my son being able to make over $100K at a skilled trade? No.

That is because you are selfish, self-centred and greedy and can't see past your own nose.  You act only to help yourself and don't care if others in society are hurt because of it or not.  You abuse society to better yourself.  I'm the exact opposite.