So Lad's argument is that the bonus for being unemployed is an unintended consequence, not a planned one? Well, that is progress, since he recognizes that a lot of people are being incentivized not to return to work. heck, Lad,if the government would pay you 120% of your salary to stay home, I bet you would too. Why go out and risk your health for less money?
My point stands - the Democrats are subsidizing unemployment. Now lad can argue their motives are pure, but nobody can deny that high unemployment is something that benefits Trump more than it benefits Biden. The last thing the Dems need is Trump saying "things are getting better - just look at the unemployment numbers coming down".
Owl69 hit the nail on the head when he said "But at some point you have to look at the tradeoff between the virus and lost economic activity." He hit it again when he said "The left needs to learn to look at economic issues from both the employee and employer perspectives."
Concern only for the worker is the hallmark of Leninism. Disdain for the employer is the hallmark of marxism.
I think perhaps the left is trying to ravage the economy so when they step in, they can say they are fixing Trump's mess. I bet the first thing they do is reduce the unemployment bonus.
The $15 MW was originally proposed by the Socialist on the Seattle City Council - the same one who this week proposed cutting the police budget in half and then was the lone council member to vote for it.
Not every job is supposed to provide a "living wage". Sliding burgers across a counter is not supposed to be a career. Nor is holding the "SLO" sign on highway construction
But what I find interesting this morning is that nobody has any quarrel with my other points about about the Democrat's economic agenda. I presume that means they accept them as correct.
(08-07-2020 08:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, I read it, and now after reading the follow-up...
A server in a diner makes $50,000/year in Fredericksburg, Texas?
The funny thing is that when you drop that number, it makes the inequality even worse from your point of view.
Fine, call it 500 bucks a week.
Unemployment is 240, pelosi **** bomb is 600 = 840. 168% of wages to go fishing.
Thank you for making the point for me.
And yes, because of the massive amount of people coming to Fredericksburg, hourly wages are equivalent at diners there and for dishwashers in Austin. Roughly at 10.50 - 12 per hour.
$12 per hour gets you $50k on 80 hrs a week for 52 weeks of the year. Hate to tell ya, but that's not a sustainable work rate for $50k per year.
Or are servers being paid above minimum wage AND getting tipped?
(08-07-2020 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, I read it, and now after reading the follow-up...
A server in a diner makes $50,000/year in Fredericksburg, Texas?
The funny thing is that when you drop that number, it makes the inequality even worse from your point of view.
Fine, call it 500 bucks a week.
Unemployment is 240, pelosi **** bomb is 600 = 840. 168% of wages to go fishing.
Thank you for making the point for me.
And yes, because of the massive amount of people coming to Fredericksburg, hourly wages are equivalent at diners there and for dishwashers in Austin. Roughly at 10.50 - 12 per hour.
$12 per hour gets you $50k on 80 hrs a week for 52 weeks of the year. Hate to tell ya, but that's not a sustainable work rate for $50k per year.
Or are servers being paid above minimum wage AND getting tipped?
yes, they are, everywhere I know of. The IHOP across the highway from me does. Do you guys really think that MW still means $7.75/hr? Nobody offers that anymore. Heck the fried chicken place has a sign in their window for $10.50, and they get mainly teenagers - AND the sign is still there. I think the IHOP people would migrate to the chicken place in a heartbeat if the CP was paying more.
(08-07-2020 08:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]So Lad's argument is that the bonus for being unemployed is an unintended consequence, not a planned one? Well, that is progress, since he recognizes that a lot of people are being incentivized not to return to work. heck, Lad,if the government would pay you 120% of your salary to stay home, I bet you would too. Why go out and risk your health for less money?
My point stands - the Democrats are subsidizing unemployment. Now lad can argue their motives are pure, but nobody can deny that high unemployment is something that benefits Trump more than it benefits Biden. The last thing the Dems need is Trump saying "things are getting better - just look at the unemployment numbers coming down".
Owl69 hit the nail on the head when he said "But at some point you have to look at the tradeoff between the virus and lost economic activity." He hit it again when he said "The left needs to learn to look at economic issues from both the employee and employer perspectives."
Concern only for the worker is the hallmark of Leninism. Disdain for the employer is the hallmark of marxism.
I think perhaps the left is trying to ravage the economy so when they step in, they can say they are fixing Trump's mess. I bet the first thing they do is reduce the unemployment bonus.
The $15 MW was originally proposed by the Socialist on the Seattle City Council - the same one who this week proposed cutting the police budget in half and then was the lone council member to vote for it.
Not every job is supposed to provide a "living wage". Sliding burgers across a counter is not supposed to be a career. Nor is holding the "SLO" sign on highway construction
But what I find interesting this morning is that nobody has any quarrel with my other points about about the Democrat's economic agenda. I presume that means they accept them as correct.
I think the unemployment bump served two primary purposes: 1) fill in the gap for missed earnings for a wider range of earners laid off due to the pandemic; 2) provide sufficient funding for those to not work due to the pandemic (actively sick, high risk individuals, or those deemed non-essential and subject to lockdowns).
I have 0 issue with this brute force method, give then confines and constraints at the beginning of the pandemic. We're now at a point where it's not a great tool anymore, and I would prefer a more surgical approach to achieving the two goals above, but with fewer unintended consequences. But I don't see the current downside as being such a big one as to throw out the $600, without a worth replacement. It helps to keep demand and pay rents/mortgages so people aren't evicted.
As to the philosophical debate, I don't find that the current iteration of the Republican party has any interest in actively helping the working class, just the capital class, whereas the current iteration of the Democratic party actively focuses on both.
And to the last point, I just commented on the item I felt most interested in discussing.
(08-07-2020 08:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, I read it, and now after reading the follow-up...
A server in a diner makes $50,000/year in Fredericksburg, Texas?
The funny thing is that when you drop that number, it makes the inequality even worse from your point of view.
Fine, call it 500 bucks a week.
Unemployment is 240, pelosi **** bomb is 600 = 840. 168% of wages to go fishing.
Thank you for making the point for me.
And yes, because of the massive amount of people coming to Fredericksburg, hourly wages are equivalent at diners there and for dishwashers in Austin. Roughly at 10.50 - 12 per hour.
$12 per hour gets you $50k on 80 hrs a week for 52 weeks of the year. Hate to tell ya, but that's not a sustainable work rate for $50k per year.
Or are servers being paid above minimum wage AND getting tipped?
yes, they are, everywhere I know of. The IHOP across the highway from me does. Do you guys really think that MW still means $7.75/hr? Nobody offers that anymore. Heck the fried chicken place has a sign in their window for $10.50, and they get mainly teenagers - AND the sign is still there. I think the IHOP people would migrate to the chicken place in a heartbeat if the CP was paying more.
You must not have experience in the service industry.
Restaurants hourly wage is typically far below minimum wage - in Texas it is $2.13. So employers are only required to pay employees that wage, then their tips should bring them to the state/federal minimum wage.
I would be shocked if the IHOP across from you paid the state/federal minimum wage PLUS tips. It's likely that the fried chicken place is advertising based on the total tipped wage, and not the base wage plus tips.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/m...age/tipped
edit: look at the reported data for hourly wages for tipped employees. Ranges from basically $2 to $10 per hour.
https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Emp...ourly_Rate
(08-07-2020 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, I read it, and now after reading the follow-up...
A server in a diner makes $50,000/year in Fredericksburg, Texas?
The funny thing is that when you drop that number, it makes the inequality even worse from your point of view.
Fine, call it 500 bucks a week.
Unemployment is 240, pelosi **** bomb is 600 = 840. 168% of wages to go fishing.
Thank you for making the point for me.
And yes, because of the massive amount of people coming to Fredericksburg, hourly wages are equivalent at diners there and for dishwashers in Austin. Roughly at 10.50 - 12 per hour.
$12 per hour gets you $50k on 80 hrs a week for 52 weeks of the year. Hate to tell ya, but that's not a sustainable work rate for $50k per year.
Or are servers being paid above minimum wage AND getting tipped?
yes, they are, everywhere I know of. The IHOP across the highway from me does. Do you guys really think that MW still means $7.75/hr? Nobody offers that anymore. Heck the fried chicken place has a sign in their window for $10.50, and they get mainly teenagers - AND the sign is still there. I think the IHOP people would migrate to the chicken place in a heartbeat if the CP was paying more.
You must not have experience in the service industry.
Restaurants hourly wage is typically far below minimum wage - in Texas it is $2.13. So employers are only required to pay employees that wage, then their tips should bring them to the state/federal minimum wage.
I would be shocked if the IHOP across from you paid the state/federal minimum wage PLUS tips. It's likely that the fried chicken place is advertising based on the total tipped wage, and not the base wage plus tips.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/m...age/tipped
edit: look at the reported data for hourly wages for tipped employees. Ranges from basically $2 to $10 per hour. https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Emp...ourly_Rate
I worked my way through Rice for a while as a server, until the draft board called me up. My pay rate was $3.00 per 8 hour shift plus a free meal. yes, a long time ago, but it served as an incentive to get out there and do better. And better and better.
But yes, you can pay servers less than MW. Just depends on if you can get enough to work for that. After all, hiring is a competitive endeavor, and unless all your competitors are paying rock bottom, you won't get many applicants for rock bottom. Economics 101, which most lefties have never taken, much less passed.
So next time I see a server drive a Lexus to work, I will just ignore it.
You never did answer my question - would you continue to work if you were offered 120% of your salary to stay home? If so, why so?
(08-07-2020 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]The funny thing is that when you drop that number, it makes the inequality even worse from your point of view.
Fine, call it 500 bucks a week.
Unemployment is 240, pelosi **** bomb is 600 = 840. 168% of wages to go fishing.
Thank you for making the point for me.
And yes, because of the massive amount of people coming to Fredericksburg, hourly wages are equivalent at diners there and for dishwashers in Austin. Roughly at 10.50 - 12 per hour.
$12 per hour gets you $50k on 80 hrs a week for 52 weeks of the year. Hate to tell ya, but that's not a sustainable work rate for $50k per year.
Or are servers being paid above minimum wage AND getting tipped?
yes, they are, everywhere I know of. The IHOP across the highway from me does. Do you guys really think that MW still means $7.75/hr? Nobody offers that anymore. Heck the fried chicken place has a sign in their window for $10.50, and they get mainly teenagers - AND the sign is still there. I think the IHOP people would migrate to the chicken place in a heartbeat if the CP was paying more.
You must not have experience in the service industry.
Restaurants hourly wage is typically far below minimum wage - in Texas it is $2.13. So employers are only required to pay employees that wage, then their tips should bring them to the state/federal minimum wage.
I would be shocked if the IHOP across from you paid the state/federal minimum wage PLUS tips. It's likely that the fried chicken place is advertising based on the total tipped wage, and not the base wage plus tips.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/m...age/tipped
edit: look at the reported data for hourly wages for tipped employees. Ranges from basically $2 to $10 per hour. https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Emp...ourly_Rate
I worked my way through Rice for a while as a server, until the draft board called me up. My pay rate was $3.00 per 8 hour shift plus a free meal. yes, a long time ago, but it served as an incentive to get out there and do better. And better and better.
But yes, you can pay servers less than MW. Just depends on if you can get enough to work for that. After all, hiring is a competitive endeavor, and unless all your competitors are paying rock bottom, you won't get many applicants for rock bottom. Economics 101, which most lefties have never taken, much less passed.
So next time I see a server drive a Lexus to work, I will just ignore it.
You never did answer my question - would you continue to work if you were offered 120% of your salary to stay home? If so, why so?
You made more per hour than I did working at a restaurant in 2006/07 - luckily the tips were good at my job, so the hourly rate ended up around $10 to $15 per hour on most nights.
Your Econ 101 comment falls short of reality - job seekers don't have knowledge of all wage scales, have time constraints, and other items that cause them to not always select jobs with the highest wage possible for their talents. You're right that you won't get the best candidates with rock bottom wages, but the reality is that the majority of tipped positions are paid the tipped minimum wage, which is why tipping is important. And this system often results in tipped employees making great money (hence the Lexus'). What you don't see if a high, guaranteed salary as a regular server, busser, bartender, etc. But you can believe what you want in terms of how the restaurant industry actually works.
And would I stay home for 120% of my salary? Probably not because of the implications that would have for my career.
(08-07-2020 09:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]$12 per hour gets you $50k on 80 hrs a week for 52 weeks of the year. Hate to tell ya, but that's not a sustainable work rate for $50k per year.
Or are servers being paid above minimum wage AND getting tipped?
yes, they are, everywhere I know of. The IHOP across the highway from me does. Do you guys really think that MW still means $7.75/hr? Nobody offers that anymore. Heck the fried chicken place has a sign in their window for $10.50, and they get mainly teenagers - AND the sign is still there. I think the IHOP people would migrate to the chicken place in a heartbeat if the CP was paying more.
You must not have experience in the service industry.
Restaurants hourly wage is typically far below minimum wage - in Texas it is $2.13. So employers are only required to pay employees that wage, then their tips should bring them to the state/federal minimum wage.
I would be shocked if the IHOP across from you paid the state/federal minimum wage PLUS tips. It's likely that the fried chicken place is advertising based on the total tipped wage, and not the base wage plus tips.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/m...age/tipped
edit: look at the reported data for hourly wages for tipped employees. Ranges from basically $2 to $10 per hour. https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Emp...ourly_Rate
I worked my way through Rice for a while as a server, until the draft board called me up. My pay rate was $3.00 per 8 hour shift plus a free meal. yes, a long time ago, but it served as an incentive to get out there and do better. And better and better.
But yes, you can pay servers less than MW. Just depends on if you can get enough to work for that. After all, hiring is a competitive endeavor, and unless all your competitors are paying rock bottom, you won't get many applicants for rock bottom. Economics 101, which most lefties have never taken, much less passed.
So next time I see a server drive a Lexus to work, I will just ignore it.
You never did answer my question - would you continue to work if you were offered 120% of your salary to stay home? If so, why so?
You made more per hour than I did working at a restaurant in 2006/07 - luckily the tips were good at my job, so the hourly rate ended up around $10 to $15 per hour on most nights.
Your Econ 101 comment falls short of reality - job seekers don't have knowledge of all wage scales, have time constraints, and other items that cause them to not always select jobs with the highest wage possible for their talents. You're right that you won't get the best candidates with rock bottom wages, but the reality is that the majority of tipped positions are paid the tipped minimum wage, which is why tipping is important. And this system often results in tipped employees making great money (hence the Lexus'). What you don't see if a high, guaranteed salary as a regular server, busser, bartender, etc. But you can believe what you want in terms of how the restaurant industry actually works.
And would I stay home for 120% of my salary? Probably not because of the implications that would have for my career.
With tips, I made about $1.10/hour plus my only meal of the day. You made less? What year was this? For me, 1966.
But if your career was at McDonald's? I can see a professional such as you weighing things such as career advancement, 401K, seniority, etc. Much less of a factor for the MW laborer. Even so, if the government offered 120% to everybody on your payroll, i bet it would cripple the company.
Getting back to the $600 bonus for staying home, for a lot of people it works as an incentive to NOT go back to work. Is this intended or unintended?
(08-07-2020 08:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Disagree with the PPP comment at the end.
The PPP requires that at least 60% of the loan cover payroll, employers maintain at least 75% of salaries be maintained, and employers maintain staff. So basically the PPP helped employers in the program cover some costs of salaries, in a similar manner to kurzarbeit.
Correction noted, in part. I was thinking of the $600/week for unemployment rather than PPP, since that was what we had been discussing. Just didn't shift gears fast enough.
But I still say PPP was not implemented like
kurzarbeit. We took something simple and made it complicated by adding a bunch of bureaucratic hoops.
(08-07-2020 09:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Disagree with the PPP comment at the end.
The PPP requires that at least 60% of the loan cover payroll, employers maintain at least 75% of salaries be maintained, and employers maintain staff. So basically the PPP helped employers in the program cover some costs of salaries, in a similar manner to kurzarbeit.
Correction noted, in part. I was thinking of the $600/week for unemployment rather than PPP, since that was what we had been discussing. Just didn't shift gears fast enough.
But I still say PPP was not implemented like kurzarbeit. We took something simple and made it complicated by adding a bunch of bureaucratic hoops.
But they're still similar in nature. Basically the government providing incentives to keep people employed and on the payroll by footing a portion of the labor effort. And that's a key takeaway, as we now see how beneficial even a bungled program could be - this could be a building block to future changes.
Another key takeaway is that they weren't implemented in the exact same method, and the PPP (from my understanding) was overly complicated and unclear, which resulted in many employers not applying for the program for a multitude of reasons. From personal anecdotes, my cousin did not apply for the PPP based on advice from his accountant (I believe their worry was about potential repayment due to them using a lot of contractors regularly), where as my mother did apply for the PPP, and is happy she did.
(08-07-2020 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]yes, they are, everywhere I know of. The IHOP across the highway from me does. Do you guys really think that MW still means $7.75/hr? Nobody offers that anymore. Heck the fried chicken place has a sign in their window for $10.50, and they get mainly teenagers - AND the sign is still there. I think the IHOP people would migrate to the chicken place in a heartbeat if the CP was paying more.
You must not have experience in the service industry.
Restaurants hourly wage is typically far below minimum wage - in Texas it is $2.13. So employers are only required to pay employees that wage, then their tips should bring them to the state/federal minimum wage.
I would be shocked if the IHOP across from you paid the state/federal minimum wage PLUS tips. It's likely that the fried chicken place is advertising based on the total tipped wage, and not the base wage plus tips.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/m...age/tipped
edit: look at the reported data for hourly wages for tipped employees. Ranges from basically $2 to $10 per hour. https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Emp...ourly_Rate
I worked my way through Rice for a while as a server, until the draft board called me up. My pay rate was $3.00 per 8 hour shift plus a free meal. yes, a long time ago, but it served as an incentive to get out there and do better. And better and better.
But yes, you can pay servers less than MW. Just depends on if you can get enough to work for that. After all, hiring is a competitive endeavor, and unless all your competitors are paying rock bottom, you won't get many applicants for rock bottom. Economics 101, which most lefties have never taken, much less passed.
So next time I see a server drive a Lexus to work, I will just ignore it.
You never did answer my question - would you continue to work if you were offered 120% of your salary to stay home? If so, why so?
You made more per hour than I did working at a restaurant in 2006/07 - luckily the tips were good at my job, so the hourly rate ended up around $10 to $15 per hour on most nights.
Your Econ 101 comment falls short of reality - job seekers don't have knowledge of all wage scales, have time constraints, and other items that cause them to not always select jobs with the highest wage possible for their talents. You're right that you won't get the best candidates with rock bottom wages, but the reality is that the majority of tipped positions are paid the tipped minimum wage, which is why tipping is important. And this system often results in tipped employees making great money (hence the Lexus'). What you don't see if a high, guaranteed salary as a regular server, busser, bartender, etc. But you can believe what you want in terms of how the restaurant industry actually works.
And would I stay home for 120% of my salary? Probably not because of the implications that would have for my career.
With tips, I made about $1.10/hour plus my only meal of the day. You made less? What year was this? For me, 1966.
But if your career was at McDonald's? I can see a professional such as you weighing things such as career advancement, 401K, seniority, etc. Much less of a factor for the MW laborer. Even so, if the government offered 120% to everybody on your payroll, i bet it would cripple the company.
Getting back to the $600 bonus for staying home, for a lot of people it works as an incentive to NOT go back to work. Is this intended or unintended?
I misread that - I thought you said $3.00 per hour. I made in the $2 per hour range - my paychecks were absolute jokes. But the envelope of cash at the end of the shift or week was great.
And you weren't talking about McDonald's, you were asking bout my decision about returning to work. And the $600 makes sense for professionals/managers that have been laid off due to the pandemic. As I've said a few times, revising it from a blunt force approach (which was perfectly fine back in March [or whenever it was]) is needed now. It should be used to provide appropriate funds (which should scale somehow) for those laid off and who can't find a job, are actively sick, or are at high risk, at a minimum.
(08-07-2020 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You must not have experience in the service industry.
Restaurants hourly wage is typically far below minimum wage - in Texas it is $2.13. So employers are only required to pay employees that wage, then their tips should bring them to the state/federal minimum wage.
I would be shocked if the IHOP across from you paid the state/federal minimum wage PLUS tips. It's likely that the fried chicken place is advertising based on the total tipped wage, and not the base wage plus tips.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/m...age/tipped
edit: look at the reported data for hourly wages for tipped employees. Ranges from basically $2 to $10 per hour. https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Emp...ourly_Rate
I worked my way through Rice for a while as a server, until the draft board called me up. My pay rate was $3.00 per 8 hour shift plus a free meal. yes, a long time ago, but it served as an incentive to get out there and do better. And better and better.
But yes, you can pay servers less than MW. Just depends on if you can get enough to work for that. After all, hiring is a competitive endeavor, and unless all your competitors are paying rock bottom, you won't get many applicants for rock bottom. Economics 101, which most lefties have never taken, much less passed.
So next time I see a server drive a Lexus to work, I will just ignore it.
You never did answer my question - would you continue to work if you were offered 120% of your salary to stay home? If so, why so?
You made more per hour than I did working at a restaurant in 2006/07 - luckily the tips were good at my job, so the hourly rate ended up around $10 to $15 per hour on most nights.
Your Econ 101 comment falls short of reality - job seekers don't have knowledge of all wage scales, have time constraints, and other items that cause them to not always select jobs with the highest wage possible for their talents. You're right that you won't get the best candidates with rock bottom wages, but the reality is that the majority of tipped positions are paid the tipped minimum wage, which is why tipping is important. And this system often results in tipped employees making great money (hence the Lexus'). What you don't see if a high, guaranteed salary as a regular server, busser, bartender, etc. But you can believe what you want in terms of how the restaurant industry actually works.
And would I stay home for 120% of my salary? Probably not because of the implications that would have for my career.
With tips, I made about $1.10/hour plus my only meal of the day. You made less? What year was this? For me, 1966.
But if your career was at McDonald's? I can see a professional such as you weighing things such as career advancement, 401K, seniority, etc. Much less of a factor for the MW laborer. Even so, if the government offered 120% to everybody on your payroll, i bet it would cripple the company.
Getting back to the $600 bonus for staying home, for a lot of people it works as an incentive to NOT go back to work. Is this intended or unintended?
I misread that - I thought you said $3.00 per hour. I made in the $2 per hour range - my paychecks were absolute jokes. But the envelope of cash at the end of the shift or week was great.
And you weren't talking about McDonald's, you were asking bout my decision about returning to work. And the $600 makes sense for professionals/managers that have been laid off due to the pandemic. As I've said a few times, revising it from a blunt force approach (which was perfectly fine back in March [or whenever it was]) is needed now. It should be used to provide appropriate funds (which should scale somehow) for those laid off and who can't find a job, are actively sick, or are at high risk, at a minimum.
Can't find a job? No wonder we talking at cross purposes. I was talking about workers who could go back to their employer but chose not to because of the extra money showered on them.
We are not talking about professions/managers so much as the bottom tier of employees. I can see where a pro making $90K being laid off could really use the extra $30K - after all, the more one makes the more one assumes expensive obligations such as house payments in a gated community or top of the line cars.
For lower tier employees, the $600 gets bigger and bigger.
You have mentioned scaling. I have heard nothing from Congress on scaling. I wonder why not.
Back to the basic question, the Democrats are offering incentives to stay home. Why?
Side question: why are restaurants exempt from the MW?
I think it is relieve the small business who make up most of the restaurant industry from excessive costs. After all, owning a restaurant is already one of the riskiest business ventures there is. Increasing payroll costs would just increase failures.
I am always amazed by how many people dream of opening a restaurant. What is so attractive about long, late hours and high risk, only to be told that since you are rich, taxes are gong up?
(08-07-2020 10:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Side question: why are restaurants exempt from the MW?
I think it is relieve the small business who make up most of the restaurant industry from excessive costs. After all, owning a restaurant is already one of the riskiest business ventures there is. Increasing payroll costs would just increase failures.
I am always amazed by how many people dream of opening a restaurant. What is so attractive about long, late hours and high risk, only to be told that since you are rich, taxes are gong up?
Restaurants are exempt from the minimum wage because they are tipped positions. However, the employer has the obligation to make sure the minimum wage is met if tips do not meet it.
The issues you outlined are why they are exempt from the minimum wage - it's typically a low margins business, and operators have argued for being exempt because it increases operating costs. Some restaurants try to go the no tipping approach by increasing real prices on the menu, but I think psychology dictates that most people would rather pay "less" for an item and tip, then pay the full price up front.
(08-07-2020 09:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Disagree with the PPP comment at the end.
The PPP requires that at least 60% of the loan cover payroll, employers maintain at least 75% of salaries be maintained, and employers maintain staff. So basically the PPP helped employers in the program cover some costs of salaries, in a similar manner to kurzarbeit.
Correction noted, in part. I was thinking of the $600/week for unemployment rather than PPP, since that was what we had been discussing. Just didn't shift gears fast enough.
But I still say PPP was not implemented like kurzarbeit. We took something simple and made it complicated by adding a bunch of bureaucratic hoops.
But they're still similar in nature. Basically the government providing incentives to keep people employed and on the payroll by footing a portion of the labor effort. And that's a key takeaway, as we now see how beneficial even a bungled program could be - this could be a building block to future changes.
Another key takeaway is that they weren't implemented in the exact same method, and the PPP (from my understanding) was overly complicated and unclear, which resulted in many employers not applying for the program for a multitude of reasons. From personal anecdotes, my cousin did not apply for the PPP based on advice from his accountant (I believe their worry was about potential repayment due to them using a lot of contractors regularly), where as my mother did apply for the PPP, and is happy she did.
Bottom line: If there is a way to do things that is simple and works, and another way that is complicated and uses lots of bureaucrats, we are going to go the complicated/bureaucrat route every time.
(08-07-2020 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I worked my way through Rice for a while as a server, until the draft board called me up. My pay rate was $3.00 per 8 hour shift plus a free meal. yes, a long time ago, but it served as an incentive to get out there and do better. And better and better.
But yes, you can pay servers less than MW. Just depends on if you can get enough to work for that. After all, hiring is a competitive endeavor, and unless all your competitors are paying rock bottom, you won't get many applicants for rock bottom. Economics 101, which most lefties have never taken, much less passed.
So next time I see a server drive a Lexus to work, I will just ignore it.
You never did answer my question - would you continue to work if you were offered 120% of your salary to stay home? If so, why so?
You made more per hour than I did working at a restaurant in 2006/07 - luckily the tips were good at my job, so the hourly rate ended up around $10 to $15 per hour on most nights.
Your Econ 101 comment falls short of reality - job seekers don't have knowledge of all wage scales, have time constraints, and other items that cause them to not always select jobs with the highest wage possible for their talents. You're right that you won't get the best candidates with rock bottom wages, but the reality is that the majority of tipped positions are paid the tipped minimum wage, which is why tipping is important. And this system often results in tipped employees making great money (hence the Lexus'). What you don't see if a high, guaranteed salary as a regular server, busser, bartender, etc. But you can believe what you want in terms of how the restaurant industry actually works.
And would I stay home for 120% of my salary? Probably not because of the implications that would have for my career.
With tips, I made about $1.10/hour plus my only meal of the day. You made less? What year was this? For me, 1966.
But if your career was at McDonald's? I can see a professional such as you weighing things such as career advancement, 401K, seniority, etc. Much less of a factor for the MW laborer. Even so, if the government offered 120% to everybody on your payroll, i bet it would cripple the company.
Getting back to the $600 bonus for staying home, for a lot of people it works as an incentive to NOT go back to work. Is this intended or unintended?
I misread that - I thought you said $3.00 per hour. I made in the $2 per hour range - my paychecks were absolute jokes. But the envelope of cash at the end of the shift or week was great.
And you weren't talking about McDonald's, you were asking bout my decision about returning to work. And the $600 makes sense for professionals/managers that have been laid off due to the pandemic. As I've said a few times, revising it from a blunt force approach (which was perfectly fine back in March [or whenever it was]) is needed now. It should be used to provide appropriate funds (which should scale somehow) for those laid off and who can't find a job, are actively sick, or are at high risk, at a minimum.
Can't find a job? No wonder we talking at cross purposes. I was talking about workers who could go back to their employer but chose not to because of the extra money showered on them.
We are not talking about professions/managers so much as the bottom tier of employees. I can see where a pro making $90K being laid off could really use the extra $30K - after all, the more one makes the more one assumes expensive obligations such as house payments in a gated community or top of the line cars.
For lower tier employees, the $600 gets bigger and bigger.
You have mentioned scaling. I have heard nothing from Congress on scaling. I wonder why not.
Back to the basic question, the Democrats are offering incentives to stay home. Why?
I made this comment in another thread - the number of job openings vs unemployed is greatly skewed to unemployed, so I don't think there is a meaningful number of situations like this, that exist, for it to be a primary concern, and one to rail against, and certainly not the poison pill it is being made out to be. Are better solutions out there? Yep, but this should not be an issue keeping the Senate from acting on the House bill.
Studies back this general position up.
Quote:A growing body of research has shown no such correlation between boosted unemployment pay and people not returning to work. A Yale report published in July, for example, found that the extra $600 is not the primary reason people are, or are not, working. Rather, the most important factor in whether people returned to work was the availability of jobs.
“We think the reason for the lack of difference is that scarce job opportunities rather than labor supply has been the main factor in determining employment during the pandemic,” the report co-authors told CNBC Make It. “While some people may have chosen not to look for work because of the generosity of [unemployment] benefits, the dominating factor in employment levels has been low labor demand...”
An analysis from Ernie Tedeschi, an economist at Evercore ISI and former Treasury Department official, found that roughly 70% of people who returned to work in June were previously making more on unemployment benefits. This could be due, in part, to the rule that workers cannot turn down suitable work, including a callback to a previous job, or quit in order to continue receiving benefits.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/04/research...-work.html
(08-07-2020 10:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 09:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020 08:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Disagree with the PPP comment at the end.
The PPP requires that at least 60% of the loan cover payroll, employers maintain at least 75% of salaries be maintained, and employers maintain staff. So basically the PPP helped employers in the program cover some costs of salaries, in a similar manner to kurzarbeit.
Correction noted, in part. I was thinking of the $600/week for unemployment rather than PPP, since that was what we had been discussing. Just didn't shift gears fast enough.
But I still say PPP was not implemented like kurzarbeit. We took something simple and made it complicated by adding a bunch of bureaucratic hoops.
But they're still similar in nature. Basically the government providing incentives to keep people employed and on the payroll by footing a portion of the labor effort. And that's a key takeaway, as we now see how beneficial even a bungled program could be - this could be a building block to future changes.
Another key takeaway is that they weren't implemented in the exact same method, and the PPP (from my understanding) was overly complicated and unclear, which resulted in many employers not applying for the program for a multitude of reasons. From personal anecdotes, my cousin did not apply for the PPP based on advice from his accountant (I believe their worry was about potential repayment due to them using a lot of contractors regularly), where as my mother did apply for the PPP, and is happy she did.
Bottom line: If there is a way to do things that is simple and works, and another way that is complicated and uses lots of bureaucrats, we are going to go the complicated/bureaucrat route every time.
Absolutely agreed, but I hold out hope.
We see that with how coronavirus response was handled. Instead of just sending everyone a $1,200 check, Congress add a few loopholes and created a situation where people are still waiting on it (mine, for example, was mailed to my address in Houston because of my tax filings this year, has never made it to me, and I've never been able to tell the IRS I didn't receive it...).
(08-07-2020 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]We see that with how coronavirus response was handled. Instead of just sending everyone a $1,200 check, Congress add a few loopholes and created a situation where people are still waiting on it (mine, for example, was mailed to my address in Houston because of my tax filings this year, has never made it to me, and I've never been able to tell the IRS I didn't receive it...).
And this is the government that democrats want to take away our guns and run our health care system? Not to mention redistributing income and wealth?