Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: In Defense of a Living Wage

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 13, 2011, 10:28 p.m. EST by WorkerAntLyn (254)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The complaint against living wages for low-wage workers seems to be based around two ideas.

One - that these jobs are low-skill jobs and therefore paying them a living wage is unnecessary because their skills are not valuable enough to earn it.

To these proponents I ask these questions:

If you could only ever buy anything in town after 5 pm, before 10 pm, and on weekends, would that be acceptable?

If the stores were constantly out of food or other supplies to sell you, would that be acceptable?

If no store in your area ever had enough clothing in your size, would that be acceptable?

If you could not alternatively buy clothing or items on-line because the supplier was regularly sold out, would that be acceptable?

If the stores you shop in, and the buildings you work in were never cleaned, or were cleaned only sporadically, would that be acceptable?

All these things are directly related to low-wage jobs. These jobs provide for the essential needs of every single one of us. Things we take for granted - clothes; food; sanitation. So how can we as a society say that the people who provide this for us are some sort of subclass who don't deserve to have housing and food because their skills are not "valuable"?

Two - that to pay their employees a living wage, corporations would have to raise prices and lay off employees. For that, I offer the following numbers of a typical "big business" retail store:

Daily intake: $20,000

20,000 x 30 = $600,000

Monthly intake: $600,000

If the product was sold at 200% of cost (which is we both know is quite low to sell a product at) then:

600,000/2 = $300,000

Employee weekly cost: $7,000

7,000 x 4 = $28,000

Employee monthly cost $28,000

300,000 - 14,000 = $272,000

If rent = $10,000 (A pretty gross overage. At that point it would be cheaper to buy the building, but I'm overshooting on purpose)

If electricity = $10,000 (Someone forgot to turn off the lights)

If repair = $20,000 (Darn those shopping carts and registers)

If management pay = $30,000

If loss = $5,000 (I hate shoplifters!!)

272,000 - 75,000 = $197,000

Profit = $197,000

They could double their workers monthly cost and still have a profit of $169,000.

And, atleast in most areas, there would be no need to double worker monthly cost to provide living wages. It would require the sacrifice of a minor amount of their profit, require no further mark up of prices and no lay offs.

While I myself have a job, an apartment, no family, and pay my bills with the occasional struggle but without fail, I have witnessed alot in my time in the workforce that I feel is unneccessary, unethical, and downright abusive. I do feel that company's have an obligation to pay their employees wages that ensure housing and food. In part simply because it is an ethical obligation, in part because they require a workforce from the area they set up business in or they could not operate. If they want a consistent workforce, then it seems like common sense to pay enough for the workforce to survive there.

64 Comments

64 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by guitarmywin (158) 12 years ago

Thank you for your very clear presentation. Every job is important as every person is important. Such great common sense; a breath of fresh air!

[-] 2 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Thank-you. I tried to present the facts as clear as possible. I know I myself am in favor of it, but I wanted to present an argument based on facts and not on my own opinions. I mean, when you come down to it, I just feel the practice of paying less than a living wage is unethical. But there's also the fact that these jobs provide us the essentials we depend on. Plus the fact that the companies involved can indeed pay people more without raising prices or laying off workers.

[-] 3 points by guitarmywin (158) 12 years ago

The people who are providing much needed services are subsidizing the corporations. Human labor is not a commodity and our current system is based on that error. Human beings are inherently free whether or not those around them treat them as such.

[-] -1 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 12 years ago

You do realize it is called supply and demand and people are paid what it takes to get an adequate workforce, no more, no less.

As far as facts go, I didn't see any, unless you refer to an average of 30 days/month. You haven't provided any facts at all, just some random numbers that you call high estimates and several math errors (7,000 x 4 = 28,000). Most retail jobs are meant as entry level and anyone that plans to spend their life working at a register or stocking shelves has a lot more to worry about than getting a living wage. In my town they had trouble getting people to work at some of the fast food restaurants so most stores began raising the starting pay for openers and closers by several dollars more than minimum wage (what you normally would see at a burger joint) to supply the need. Stores will pay what they need to in order to provide an acceptable level of service to their customers.

[-] 2 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

While I appreciate your pointing out my single mathematical error, however rudely phrased, the rest of your post is based on the same myths that anyone can look up to see are errors.

75% of the low-wage work force are adults. They aren't entry-level jobs. They aren't high school jobs. They are worked by people from all stages of life, and all sorts of educational background. These jobs are life-long jobs, for many people. And I think I more than adequately described why, and why the price paid to them is too low, if you bothered to read my post.

As for the numbers, I assure you they aren't random at all. They are numbers from a retailer I worked for. I overestimated the rent and electricity because it was one of the few aspects I was unfamiliar with. But it's easy to guess that both are extremely high estimates. Because for rent, to buy a building would be cheaper than that as a monthly rent cost, and clearly that price of electricity is far too high.

[-] 2 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

What good is an economic system if it can't provide for those who are working enough to live on? There is nothing I see in Capitalism which dictates that a living wage can't exist . Heck, many of the increases in living standards were actually legislated (child labor laws, minimum wage laws, can't dump toxic waste in your neighbor's yard laws, etc.) with no harm to Capitalism's ability to serve human beings.

[-] 2 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Very true. There's actually a lot of arguments that the opposite is true, and that these higher wages are good for it. You don't have to take my word for it either. Do some research on Universal Living Wage. Many sites have far more information than I presented here.

[-] 2 points by MrX (61) 12 years ago

WorkerAntLyn, Great post! I remember when 150% was standard retail markup. Products were manufactured without modern automation, scanning equip... the products then went through brokers, then cross docked through distribution warehouses, and finally to the retailers. With all the innovation in the past 30-40 years, the elimination of most of the broker fees and the direct distribution of a lower quality product, we consumers have not seen any break in prices, and these corporations do not even pay a decent wage to their employees.

Retail markup is 400% on a lot of products these days, and probably way higher on cheap Chinese imports.

Remember the American factory workers dream, was automation, and better jobs. Not automation and more money in the CEO's pockets!

[-] 2 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Good points all!

Oh, I'm sure the mark up on the cheap imports ranks well above 400%. Take into consideration this - Dollar stores clearly get their goods for less than a dollar or they wouldn't stay in business. A friend once saw in the dollar store the same brand item a store she worked in sold for $7. So the company was clearly marking up somewhere around 750% if not more.

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 12 years ago

Thank you. Low wage is designed to keep laborers down and wealthy property owners with all the power. The 1% likes all things of value to come from their land and Wall St, certainly not labor. They talk of $10 heads of lettuce if they increase wages, that is ridiculous. Wage is a pittance of costs! If lettuce sells for $10 a head, you better believe I will have hydroponics in every room of my house.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Low wage is Profits-over-Humanity. It's used by those who put their profits above their workers. It's funny how people always say that higher wages will hurt small business owners, yet the times I've worked for smaller business owners I've gotten better wages than big businesses provided.

My suggestion if they start charging $10 a lettuce is to get in contact with your local farmers, or find out what stores sell their products. In fact, I'd suggest doing it now. Depending, some of the stores may be slightly higher priced than the "cheap" big places are at the moment - but remember that buying from them supports the locals. (And trust me, it's way better tasting!)

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

It was suggested I make changes to my numbers to include taxes, and insurances. To be honest, I don't think I can refine my numbers beyond this new set without getting into specifics I do not have available per the companies. But I feel that the numbers still speak for themselves:

Daily intake: $20,000

20,000 x 30 = $600,000

Monthly intake: $600,000

If the product was sold at 200% of cost (which is we both know is quite low to sell a product at) then:

600,000/2 = $300,000

Employee weekly cost: $7,000

7,000 x 4 = $28,000

Employee monthly cost $28,000

300,000 - 28,000 = $272,000

Rent - $5000

Electricity - $2,000

If repair = $20,000 (Darn those shopping carts and registers)

If management pay = $30,000

If loss = $5,000 (I hate shoplifters!!)

272,000 - 62,000 = $210,000

Health Insurance - $5700

(Based on 10 employees being full time and having benefits, along with management)

Liability Insurance - $5000

210,000 - 10,700 = $199,300

(These two numbers are high, as they are based on individual health insurance, and a midground liability insurance. Health Insurance rates are lower for companies, and the liability insurance has alot of factors involved. Most likely they would not choose this, as it would equate to around $60,000 in liability insurance within a year. If they paid $60,000 in insurance, the claims would have to yearly equal over that, which I would hope would be unlikely)

Payroll Taxes -

Regular: $2100, $406, $1736 Management: $3600, $435, $1860

(The employer's payroll tax is based on numerous factors - number of employees, witholdings by employees, deductions by employees etc. Without knowing these, it's impossible to put an exact number. If we give them 35 employees at this location, we can atleast give an estimate, based on the fact that none of them most likely earned over $300 a week, so the maximum should be around $15.)

Federal Unemployment Tax - $16.80 (Employee). $18 (Management) State Unemployment Tax - $560 (Employee), $600 (Management)

(Since the 0.2% FUTA surtax expired on June 30, 2011, FUTA taxes for calendar year 2011 will be calculated using two rates: 6.2% of taxable wages paid through June 30, 2011; and 6.0% of taxable wages paid after June 30, 2011. The taxable wage base is the first $7,000 paid in wages to each employee during a calendar year. Employers who pay the state unemployment tax on a timely basis will receive an offset credit of up to 5.4%, regardless of the rate of tax paid to the state. Therefore, the net FUTA tax rate for wages paid through June 30, 2011 is generally 0.8% (6.2% - 5.4%), for a maximum FUTA tax of $56.00 per employee, per year (.008 X $7,000. = $56.00). The net FUTA tax rate for taxable wages paid after June 30, 2011 is generally 0.6% (6.0% - 5.4%), for a maximum FUTA tax of $42.00 per employee, per year (.006 X $7,000. = $42.00). Information regarding the change in FUTA rates can be found at the IRS website using this link http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=242752,00.html. State law determines individual state unemployment insurance tax rates.

I set the UT at 2% of payroll, but may be high in some areas, and may not be true in any given month if the employee has already earned the wage limit. Management, for example, most likely only paid the first month for FUT, and I would imagine no more than the first two months for SUT.)

199,300 - 11,331.80 = $187,968.20

Once again, doubling wages paid (And taxes, but not to management, since those would be unchanged, and no changes made to health insurance.):

187,968.20 - 32,258.80 = $155,709.40

I hardly think that's a large sacrifice. And as I said before, in most cases there would be no need to double the wages. So the added amount would probably be less than I give here.

Also, please remember that all this was based on items selling at a mere 200% to cost. If we alter the percentage to cost:

20% of stock at 200%, 20% of stock at 400%, and 60% of stock at 300% -

120,000/2 = 60,000

120.000/4 = 30,000

360,000/3 = 120,000

600,000 - 210,000 = $390,000

Take these same deductions from 390,000 and you get a monthly profit of $277,968.20.

What happens when you sell more of the items at 300-400%? What happens when you sell the products at 700% of the cost?

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 12 years ago

The Revolution has a new theme song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L-GOHa5-YQ

http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-the-name-of-allah/

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 1 points by omegablue13 (2) 12 years ago

numbers change they can add subtract and due what they need to there own ends keep on believing the 1% when they tell you that .A pair of Nike air Jordan's to make pay labor and ship here to the U.S cost Nike $4.35 and sells here for $130.00 ... year 1980 bosses made 300 times more then there top employee now in the year 2011 they make on average 1200 times more all the while our wages stay sluggish at best . illegal immigrants broke our unions and froze our wages and the big box store's there goal is to kill and chance at one day owning a small business they want it all and they want us to work until they day we die ..keep in mind what they fear most like much of what happened in the early 1900's when people got together and formed unions is what they feared most and continue to fear if we all unite and refuse to work for slave wages we all win .. oh Mr.Exxon it cost you so much more to get and make your oil then why have you and your big oil buddies bragged about record profits really an oil crisis you say oh that's what you tell the simple minded folk so is just a bunch of b.s thought so .. but feel free to believe the same guy trying to sell you something for he is the same guy who sets the price ..here i know it looks a lot like a big pile of sh-t but look at the nice brownish color and it's one of a kind and can be yours for the low price of a 1 million dollars and mite i interest you a bridge i have for sale in Brooklyn ..don't stop believing just know what your believing and who's telling you

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 12 years ago

If you accounted for all overhead and the numbers still worked, then you have a valid point. Where are property insurance, health insurance, liability insurance, unemployment insurance, payroll taxes, workers comp, OSHA fees, Quartery Filings? Taxes and insurance are what will bury a company. Not to mention abrupt cost increases from gasoline, electricity, workers comp claims, unemployment tax rate increases, penalties and interest from federal and state. Account for those, then we can talk.

[-] 2 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

These extra fees are the very reason I overestimated in some places - like rent, electricity - even repair is running high.

Also, the truth is, for the retailer I based these numbers on, this was less than their monthly intake. It was based on a low day on a low month. This was not weekend numbers, holiday numbers, etc. I left all those out. And the employee payroll is in fact based on a higher week than the intake was. The mark-up percentage is also lower than was charged, which adds to the overall profits. I could answer about a lot of what the company paid - and did not pay - in other areas as well, but hesitate to do so as even the numbers I listed could be called a breech of contract by my former employer, despite my altering them as stated.

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 12 years ago

Rather than over estimate some areas of cost, you should be true to the actual costs of running a business. Otherwise, your argument could lack validity. Why do I know? I have owned a small business for 17 years. Your ideas look great on paper, but in the functioning world, there are so many more variables that affect the bottom line. There are those that take advantage, but most of us get by slow and methodically as we work our way to our financial security. Just because you are the owner, does not mean you are well off.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

I have done most of the numbers you suggested with a few that exceptions.

Both OSHA fees and Worker's Comp are, in a way, punishments to a company for mistakes and poor behavior. To suggest that what is paid out from these has to be included before the worker's salary's can be increased? My salary doesn't go up just because I pay a parking fine. Neither should the company's.

Property Insurance is not applicable if the business rents the property. They don't insure products - those are recorded under loss along with theft. They are not responsible for replacing the building if it is damaged - that's up to the property owner. Even building damage and repair is taken care of by the property owner if you rent. So the only neccessary things to have insurance on would be equipment - and those would have been payed for with the initial purchase of the equipment. While a continued insurance of the equipment would no doubt be required - or at least in the company's best interest - this would not be a monthly cost.

I am well aware that being an owner doesn't mean you're well off. I have known several small business owners. These numbers were based off a larger company, as that was who I worked for.

[-] 0 points by wellhungjury (296) 12 years ago

OSHA inspection fees and certificates are not punishments, but annual requirements.

Workers Comp is a fee that is quarterly or monthly assessed on type of work being done.

Property Insurance absolutely is paid by the business owner on rentals. You risk losing everything if the damage to the property is your fault. Also, taxes and insurance on capital is a monthly or quarterly overhead.

Twist it all you want, all cost that are assessed to a business, affects the bottom line...including employee wages. Your point is that business should pay people more and I tell you that most businesses pay all that they can. Otherwise, why take the risk?

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Osha inspections are not annual requirements. Their own sites say that they do not require inspections of every business every year. And fees are punishments - for those who have safety and health violations

Likewise, worker's compensation has to do with the number of accidents that have occurred.

As a renter, I am well aware of what is required for renting. And property insurance is not required of renters. The owner is responsible for insurance, not the renter. You can insure your own property inside the building, but you cannot insure that which you do not own.

You can twist the facts for somebody else, please don't try it with me.

As for my new numbers:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-defense-of-a-living-wage/#comment-514788

I am not "twisting" things in anyway. I am presenting numbers. And, no, most businesses are not paying "all they can". Considering businesses once payed a good 23% more to their bottom most workers a few decades ago, and many businesses now make more money than ever. If they managed to make their costs risk-worthy back then, saying they cannot now is ignoring the facts.

There's plenty of examples both historically, and present day, of businesses who manage the task of paying their employees a living wage and not going out of business. Here's just one:

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Costco-s-love-of-labor-Employees-well-being-key-1140722.php#page-1

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 12 years ago

Bottom line is that you speak as though you know all situations and that is not true. I have an annual OSHA inspection each year. I pay monthly on worker comp. It is a form of insurance. I pay insurance on property because if damage occurs to the rental, I could possibly be liable. The insurance is to cover your a$$, not the property owner. I do not support paying minimum wage to out of high school people. I never have paid minimum, even in my lowest skilled positions. But the point is that you are trying to legislate what an employer will pay to an employee regardless of if the economic conditions. This will only result in one thing, people being laid off. It is just the way it is. It is clear that you have never had to walk this walk of which I have for 17 years. Picking and choosing articles does not make you right all the time. By the way, I am the lowest paid in management and I am the owner. Why, because that is what it has been taking to keep the company in the black. When times get good again, will I be scoffed at for taking some of the profit? Probably! After all, if the company fails, its my ass. Everyone else can go find work somewhere else. I am a good person and pay my people as high a level that I can, but there is always someone wanting more. They assume that I must be rich, because my name is on the check. I am done with you.

[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

This sounds like you have it all worked out! So why haven't you started this company and provided employment for lots of people? We need the jobs!

[-] 2 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Currently saving to do so. I want to minimize my loan by having a portion of the necessary money in cash. Pretty much, everyone admits that starting a business means taking a loss instead of a gain the first 2-5 years while you build a base of consumers.

As we're all too aware of, it's not easy to save up money in the current economy. Unfortunately, I've also had to take away from savings several times because of personal emergencies. But, trust me, I would definitely research the cost of living in an area before opening my business, and pay my employees that - and never federal minimum.

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 12 years ago

WorkerAntLyn, Before you ask for a Living Wage you should really understand what you are asking for. You are asking / accepting to be abused, through rent of your body / life, for exploitation and profit. Otherwise the employer would not hire you - since that is his only motive, to profit from you. Once you accept to have a master you are in no position to dictate to him / her any terms. It is the role of masters to dominate and profit and the slaves to obey and oblige.

The only way out is to help establish a new economic system that is not based on profit (i.e., where there would be no employers or employees). Profit can only exist in an economic system with private ownership, otherwise nothing could be personally / individually / privately claimed. It is only in an economic system with common ownership (i.e., not forms of private ownership) that one can be neither a slave nor a master. An economic system which will necessarily require cooperative consensual production for the survival and welfare of all its members - with equal power. Only such an economic system can support true Democracy.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

While I share a particular interest in cooperatives, I disagree with the idea that private business immediately equals exploitation and abuse. The small business owners I've known are proof that this is false. They were hard working, and saw those that worked for them as friends as much as co-workers. They knew that each decision they made directly effected the lives of others. I'm sure this is not always the case, but still it points out that employer/employee does not have to be an abusive relationship about exploitation and slavery.

The problem is that many businesses have become irresponsible. They do not want to realize that their actions have a direct result on those in their employ. They ignore their moral and ethical obligations, and fail to realize these self same practices are the most benefit to them - not just their employees. By practicing good ethics, they create a pleasant environment by which others can thrive, and which gives the company a good public appearance, by rewarding effort, they encourage employees to try harder, and by providing their employees with the ability to supply for themselves, they create customers for their own products.

It's really a shame that exploitation and greed have become the realm of business instead.

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 12 years ago

What is Capital? It is the value created in the act of production by the producer (i.e., labor) that is not reimbursed to him / her. It is the surplus value that the capitalist pockets after having paid for the cost of maintaining labor (wage), and the means of production (e.g., land, factory, tools, raw materials, etc.). Since this administrative function is not central to production (whereas labor is) this effectively is theft - theft from labor.

Most businesses (i.e., small businesses) are not very profitable and a significant proportion especially in times of economic crises end in bankruptcy. But to the extent they are based on a profit model (i.e., being in business itself qualifies for that) they are in the exploitation business even if / when they don't make it. That is because business are in competition with each other. Even if one thief steals from the other the lesser thief is still a thief. The lesser thief may also not be as lean and mean (i.e., have "morals" etc.) as the other thief but he /she is still a thief. That is because only equal ownership i.e., common ownership, non-private ownership, equal power removes the hierarchy of employer / employee, predator / prey relationship.

Businesses of any size in order to be profitable (i.e., stay in business) have to exploit. It is also true that to survive the competition they have to become more exploitive over time or eventually risk going bankrupt especially given the vicissitudes of the market. Greed is not the cause of this but a necessary symptom of the competitive and exclusive nature of capitalism (and any system based on private ownership for that matter). No wonder that "exploitation and greed have become the realm of business instead."

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

There are two factors that affect prices:

  • Cost of production.
  • Consumer's purchasing power.

They of cause interconnected and correlated. So, even trough business will still be able to afford the production, the increase in purchasing power will give rise to the demand which will lead to rise of prices on demanded items. The rise in prices will increase the cost of production which will lead to price rise on other items. The process will repeat until we get to the point of equilibrium and the living wage is not living again. It's called inflation.

The system is designed to keep people in poverty. Good luck fixing it.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Inaccurate. The decision to raise prices without rise in production costs is based on greed, not demand. If 21 people want apples, and I only have 20, I can go get more apples. I don't have to charge the 21st person more because I didn't pay any more for it.

If another seller charges them more to get it off of them, I still don't have to charge more for it, because chances are, when I come back with more apples the next day, people will return to me if I charge the lower price.

The idea that giving everyone working enough money to survive will cause inflation is not only ridiculous, but debunked by the very facts of the matter:

The worth of wages has fallen 23% in 30 years. COLA has risen.

Clearly the reduction of wage worth hasn't aided in the reduction of COLA. So what proof can you offer that the reverse is true?

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

Good example, I don't even have to go too far for one. You see, the more people chose poison themselves with COLA the more it's priced. Also notice, the production cost is also decreased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

It's like...basics of economics.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

I love how they need a model to tell them that if there's a lot of apples, people won't pay as much for them, and if there's less oranges people will pay a higher price for them. It's really hilarious to me, actually. All the same, it's inaccurate when applied to COLA, and the very page you linked to gives good examples of why.

By this very theory, COLA should have rock-bottomed long ago due to the fact that both housing and food are available in excess. Cars should be available for pocket change because the number available well exceeds demand. I can appreciate a good mathematical model, but you can't put an equation on greed. You can't calculate ethics. There's a very human factor involved here.

From where I stand, looking at those human factors, I'll say this - Force the businesses to keep up with COLA for it's workers, regardless of where it sets up shop, and watch how fast prices level out because they can no longer get a higher profit margin via the use of exploitation.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

COLA did not rock-bottomed due to excessive marketing and mind manipulation techniques.

Cars are divided into classes. All cars in their class are around the same price, that's because people in that class won't pay more for them.

You can also read about natural unemployment and how it's required for the proper operation of the economy. Most of the arguments also apply to the minimum wage argument which by itself discussed in details.

From where I stand, looking at those human factors, I'll say this - Force the businesses to keep up with COLA for it's workers, regardless of where it sets up shop, and watch how fast prices level out because they can no longer get a higher profit margin via the use of exploitation.

Oh...Right...Let's base the whole economy on the price of COLA! Or even better, let's use it as currency!

This is the most ridiculous idea I have heard on improvement of the economy.

Welcome to the matrix...

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

You know, I'm starting to think you don't understand what COLA is. Cost Of Living Allowance. COLA. The suggestion that forcing employers to match employee wage to cost of living is hardly ridiculous. Nor is the concept that the lack of ability to exploit will disable their ability to artificially raise prices.

I'll give up on this conversation. We're going in circles because we're both determined that we're right. I'll only say this: The idea that a business cannot give workers a living wage is just one more marketing technique. It is not based on facts.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

Of cause we are not talking about Cost Of Living Allowance because you used an abbreviation without clearly defining it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cola

If we weren't both determined that we are right, there wouldn't be any debate. So your quitting in a middle of conversation does not make sense.

The determination of price is not something of a debate. Price is determined by what a buyer is willing to pay, a seller is willing to accept and the competition is allowing to be charged.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/price.html

In labor market is the same thing, only the buyer is the employer, seller is the employee and competition are all the other potential employee.

There is nothing that else that determine how much money are worth. It's the basis of capitalism and no one can argue that even the capitalists themselves.

If you came here to listen to responses like this:

Thank you for your very clear presentation. Every job is important as every person is important. Such great common sense; a breath of fresh air!

And ignore all legitimate critique, then you're not gonna learn anything. I had to actually learn how this tyrannical system works to be able to debate it properly.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

We weren't discussing COLA because I did not define it properly? Because I would have capitalized "cola" for what reason? My meaning was clear because I spoke of cost of living, housing, and food.

Clearly the determination of price is a debate. It's debated on the very wiki page you listed, and has been debated by schools of economics and individual economists, and continues to be. Because they admit that you cannot rely strictly on mathematics. There's psychology, and history involved. Supply and demand aren't as simple as an equation, so neither is price.

Price is cost of production x whatever mark up a producer charges. Retail price is cost of production x whatever mark up the retailer charges.

These will vary and do vary due to region, season, and marketing. Retailers want the highest price a consumer is willing to pay for it. Some may say, that's economics. To some extent I agree. To another extent, I feel there comes a point it's no more than greed.

When you apply this to a fair workforce, you're explanation of employee and employer is true. On the grounds that the employee is in a position to freely choose who to work for, and refuse a lower price than they are willing to accept. (Much like a consumer.)

But, like the psychology and history of economics, to turn human beings into a math problem is not so simple. When you ignore the fact that this isn't someone buying an apple, but a person in desperate need of food accepting any possible work at any price, it stops being so pretty.

That is what I came here to point out. There is no legitimate critique you could give me or have given me that answers or lessens the facts I presented in my original post.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

"stops being pretty"? A certain percent of people being in poverty just to keep the value of the pieces of paper at certain number is not pretty. It's ugly. What I'm trying to point out is if to implement the solution you are proposing, it's gonna get even uglier.

We can argue what determine price or we can just look at it logically. The purpose of corporation is to maximize it's profit. So, the corporation will rise the price to the point of the maximum profit. It doesn't make sense to sell a product for $5 when consumer is willing to pay $10 for it.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

I feel the numbers disagree with your assumption that demanding a living wage will make things uglier. If intake is high enough (and in truth it's plenty high enough), wages can be raised without raising prices or the need for layoffs. If the company is told - no matter how high you raise your prices, you can't pay your employee's less than cost of living, then it discourages them from using higher prices to "off-set" the pay increase and leading to the workers being put in the same position. At the very least this should be true on the items that are human necessity.

It doesn't make sense to sell a frivolous product for $10 dollars rather than $5 if the consumer is willing to pay for it - agreed. But when you cross that over into products required for survival - housing, and basic food (Not fast food, restaurant prices, etc - since these are again frivolous), then it becomes about greed rather than simple profits.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

Of cause. The capitalism is all about greed. Restaurant food is not required for survival, and even if it were, corporation's purpose is not to empathize with the consumer, but to maximize the profit.

In addition, there would be a huge problem in determining the cost of living as it fluctuate from region to region, but even bigger problem would be to enforce it. Can you imagine how many government employees would it take to determine and enforce it, region by region?

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

I said when it applies to necessities it becomes greed. I also said restaurant's and fast food did not count toward products necessary to survival, therefore did not fall under greed for higher prices. You are taking pieces of my arguments and not the whole thing, and are even misquoting me.

I'm not against profits. I work in business. I've worked in it for a long time, and I probably know more than you do about it's daily functions. But I have always had a firm belief, and have seen the proof with my own eyes - and wallet - that business is at it's best when combined with ethics.

They have no problem figuring out fluctuation of taxes from city to city, and those are smaller regions than would be required for this. The determination of COLA would be a simple equation, many calculators already exist for it. And it would take no more employees than enforcing minimum wage does. The companies files reports with the IRS. Workers file their earnings with both the IRS and the Census. The information and ability to implement it already exist.

[-] 1 points by Timmeh (39) 12 years ago

While corporations might be able to afford a living wage, what about smaller businesses?

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Most smaller businesses I've worked for pay higher wages than the corporations do to begin with because they recognize the worth of their workers.

Smaller businesses don't require as large a staff, or place to rent. A quick model would look like this:

Daily intake: $2,000

2,000 x 30 = $60,000

Monthly intake = $60,000

Product sold at 200% of cost.

60,000/2 = $30,000

Open Sun-Sat 10am-6pm.

8x7= 56 hours

You probably only need 2-3 employees. Let's say the COLA in your area is $10.

3x40x10 = $400

Employee weekly cost = $400

400x4= $1600

Employee monthly cost = $1600

30,000-1600= $28,400

If rent = $2000

Electricity = $500

Repair = $2000

Loss = $1000

28,400-5,500= $22,900

Say we add in a manager so you can take a few days off. Since you're a small store, you probably wouldn't be paying them salary. You'd be paying them hourly too. But they are management, so let's give them $20 an hour (Twice the COLA)

40x20x4= $3200

22,900-3200 = $19,700

Final profit for the month: $19,700

If your intake was less than $2000, it would probably be a good idea to stick to a staff of 2, not three, and not hire a second manager until business picked up. Or note what times were low-traffic and not be open on those days. (I know small local stores who aren't open certain days of the week because it's not profitable to be. This also makes it possible for them to staff well on higher traffic days.)

[-] 1 points by Timmeh (39) 12 years ago

By the way, I appreciate how much time you've put into this; it is clear that you have actually thought this out and aren't just spouting random crap.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Thank-you. I've been involved in the financing section of retail for most of my working life. So I will admit it's my area of expertise. But while I base my models on retail, I feel like it holds true in other areas.

The truth is, those of us who live in the city have a higher cost of living by the nature of having to live through a middle man. The price the dairy farmer would charge us for picking up milk from him is less than the store. Because while the dairy man is adding a mark up to cover price of production and still make a profit, the store we buy it from adds their own mark up in order to make their own profits, making it more expensive.

In retail, we're the middle man. We add expense by our very existence. But we're paid for the convenience of our customers not having to drive out to the farm. If we demand lower costs from producers, and harm their ability to produce, if we don't pay our workers a price for which they can survive, we're killing our own customers. Because our workers and producers are our customers. It's why I say good ethics is good for business.

[-] 1 points by Timmeh (39) 12 years ago

This model does not work for many small businesses. For example, dairy owners often enter into a contract to sell their milk at a certain price. If they enter in at a low price, and then a month later the price of milk soars the dairy loses a large amount of money. Now, if the dairy (whom we assume has legal workers) pays their workers a reasonable amount maybe one worker may have to be laid off, or some people will have to forego bonuses. However, with the wages you are talking larger dairies (15+ workers) will take a major hit. And with a larger dairy/farm business it is not feasible to lay off large amounts of employees, unless people are willing to work all hours of the day to run said farm/business. And a dairy cannot cease all functions on certain days to cut costs. My hometown had many dairies when I was growing up, now it has one; and this one has only been able to survive because the owner is an excellent business man as well as an excellent dairy man; however the farming business is so volatile that increasing wages by a large amount will only help the few family-owned farms and dairies left in our country to go under.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Don't forget that in the case of the business I proposed, I based wages on the area. In most rural areas, COLA is far less then in the cities. I don't believe in a one-wage-fits-all solution. If it's cheaper to buy housing and food in the dairy farmer's area than in the city where the milk ends up being sold, there's no reason to pay the dairy farm workers the same wage as the city workers.

My example was based on retail. Yours is based on production. The producer (in this case the dairy farmer) has the right to demand a price that covers his costs. (Including employee wages.) The stores, however, mark up that cost regardless. (As low as 200% to as high as you can make it.) The fact that the middle man (In this case the retailer) is demanding lower costs from production (the dairy farmers) while paying their workers less than survival, and marking up the price of the item so somewhere around 400% is just another example of greed and corruption.

[-] 1 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

welcome to the american caste system

[-] 2 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Harsh, but not an unfair comparison in some situations.

I feel that we can, however, bring about changes to the system. I want to leave a better world to the future generations, not a worse one.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

you should check out the vanguard doc two americas on current prob on the net as well

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

I will look into it. Thank-you.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

Thank you for posting this; if you need people to do a day's work then you should give them a day's pay for it even if the job in question isn't obviously important. This holds for both moral and practical reasons, and laying out the practical reasons is the best way to convince people who disagree with you ideologically.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Thank-you. I hope that my post can make at least a few people change their mind on the subject. But I've been arguing in a living wage's favor for a long time, before I even started coming to the OWS board and before it's existence even, and most people not already in it's favor refuse to be converted even when given the facts. So I don't doubt that I'll be told that I'm greedy, and want hand outs, and am against businesses. Even though I'm friends with small business owners, have a job, and have never accepted a cent from the government or for anything other than a hard day's labor.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

This is not an accurate presentation. PearleVision lists average store sales as $60000 w profit of $96000. Basin Robbins stores have about a $250000 gross income and need to open for 70 hours a week with a minimum of 2 employees full time.

Costco has a 2.7% profit margin. You are posting erroneous data that you are simply guessing.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

There is no defense for a living wage

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Thank-you for trolling.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

your welcome.. I know you dont to be surrounded by like minded people alone. how would you ever learn anything?

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Sigh. I don't know why I bother sometimes. I've had this discussion with you already, and you've made your point clear. You are a superior human being and all others should starve and go homeless while supporting your lifestyle. I hardly consider that an attitude worth learning.

But, by all means, please continue to troll my thread. It will bring it to the top of the list so others with more open minds and hearts can see the facts I presented.

[-] -2 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 12 years ago

San Francisco recently raised the mandatory minimum wage to over 10.00 an hour.Yet I somehow don't think the lives of those people will be improved much.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Possibly true. But San Fran's living costs is over $10. I believe I've read their COLA is more like $15. However, the $10 wage will at least aid those with two jobs, or those sharing living expenses, as it should bring their wages to above COLA.

Unfortunately, it won't help those living alone, working part time, or who are incapable of finding (or not allowed by their current employer) to have two jobs. Still, I feel it's a step in the correct direction.

[-] -2 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

how the fuck would you know where is your proof for this claim?

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Please refrain from profanity. A recent article mentioned San Fran's new mandatory minimum wage. The COLA (Cost of Living Allowance) for San Fran is higher than $10, though. So the raise may not be enough assistance to some. (Part time workers, those living alone, etc)

[-] -2 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

first of all it is a free country and if i feel like swearing i will second off i took mvsn's statement to mean that it wouldn't matter these people are heathens whatever you give them it doesnt matter type i could have misinterpreted the statement i suppose

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 12 years ago

Trolls just like to jump in whenever they see profanity. It's like troll snacks or something. It's not that I'm bothered by the profanity, it's just that I get tired of the trolls.

It's possible it was what he meant. I've run across a lot of that attitude too. "It's their fault because they aren't trying hard enough." type of stuff, while ignoring the very set up of the system or what services these jobs provide for them. (Essentially, the services we all depend on everyday.)

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

that is how i took it