islander wrote: 

I understand the problem is a complex one and it doesn't just require change on one end of the spectrum.  I was voicing my opinion as one of experience falling from the once middle class to the new working class.  There are a hell of a lot of us out there. I'm glad you are not one of them.  It really SUCKED seeing all that I worked for slowly dwindle away. I did the "right things".  I contributed my fair share of taxes and prepared for my retirement by contributing to a 401k and investing in the companies I have worked for. That's my bad. It's gone now. I am not crying over that anymore.

What I do see is that those on top are NOT paying their fair share of the taxes! Perhaps I was fooling myself all along and never middle class at all.  I don't deny that I was duped into believing and swallowing the BS fed to me and my generation. 

I just don't wanna fall further to the working poor. From everything I read and see, (when I am not asleep at the wheel and just doing what it takes to survive), is it's NOT getting better.  There is NO recovery. Not at the moment anyway.  That is a buzz phrase reserved for media hype and those that feed the masses.  If there is one thing I have learned and felt first hand, it is that...........one's situation can always be worse.  I've made the adjustment personally, financially and physicologically.  I've had to, for my sake and that of my kids.  I am a survivor.  

 pigtail wrote: 
We are largely in agreement. There are many factors that have conspired to make what used to be a middle class life less attainable. Not the least of which is the upward drive of the middle class itself. 2.2 kids per family is not sustainable if everyone does it. 4 cars per family, 5 TVs with DVRs, a beer fridge in the garage, a smartphone for everyone. These things that we now think of as normal take a lot of resources, so we now have both parents working, less time for the family and an uptick in Lottery ticket sales as a desperate hope for a way out.

A living wage should be attainable. But what does that entail and who for?  Should high school kids flipping burgers have a living wage?  Should a single mom have to compete with a high school kid for that burger flipping job?  If we pay everyone $15/hr (~30K$/yr or 2/3 the average wage), do we have to redefine a "living wage" because hamburgers now cost $8 at McDs or $20 at Red Robin?  What do we do for the guy who was getting by okay on 30K$/year when all his costs go up and now he's no longer even comfortable where he used to be satisfied?


pigtail wrote:
I like this idea too. But the society we live in and the rules we have set up and continue to vote to support just don't match this.  I think if we were to do something like this it would take a big step back and a lot of people wouldn't be satisfied with what is defined as luxuries.  And again, that next generation how many are there going to be? Do we stop immigration or limit the birth rate? Because there just isn't enough resource for us to expand forever.  Some jobs just aren't right for some people. It doesn't matter if they give 100% or 150%, they either don't have the skills or just aren't the right fit for the organization they are in. It's not just about putting in the effort, that effort has to be aligned with what the business is doing. You can be the best widget maker on the planet, but if your job is painting boxes it's likely that you'll need to find another job. 

My job is to provide an environment where people can be satisfied working in alignment with the company goals. I give them opportunities for creative input and responsibilities for their efforts. But I also have to ensure we are making money so that I can pay them and return something to the shareholders.  If someone doesn't work well in our environment, it doesn't matter how much effort they put in I can't afford to keep them around. 

I don't have answers for all of this. Half the country is in a tizzy because we are providing health insurance to everyone. This doesn't sound like the kind of society that is ready to set a minimum living standard like you are talking about. We could use some new ideas and new leadership in this country. But until we stop acting out of fear and start looking for genuinely good solutions we're not going to get it. Until we stop worrying more about what we are losing with every decision that how much we are contributing (and start to think of it as contributing instead of 'giving away'), we are likely going to continue down this path.  When we stop saying "those damn Republicans","those crazy liberals",  "those damn CEOs", "that stupid boss", and start saying "what can WE do?" and mean it as a call for action instead of a lament of helplessness, then we will have a chance.

 

 islander wrote:
PT
 

 aflanigan wrote: 
yep!  and I believe MORE should adopt this philosophy to pull out of this nose dive if that is even possible for my generation.  

 Isabeau wrote: 
“Are you Robert Reich? You’re a Commie dirtbag!”

---

Several of you have asked me why I care what Bill O'Reilly thinks or says about me. Frankly, I don't give a damn. But I do care that our national conversation is increasingly shrill — with name-calling substituting for civil debate and ad hominem attack for reason. O'Reilly and Fox News are partly responsible. Millions of Americans tune into his and his colleagues' rants every day. That's why I've challenged him to a debate. He obviously disagrees with me — why else would he call me a "Communist" and "secret admirer of Karl Marx," and go after me on his show this week for even bringing this up? The fact he's unwilling to debate speaks volumes — not just about him and Fox News but also about the poison he and others are infecting America with, making it almost impossible for people of different political views to engage in reasoned and civil discussion.

The scourge of widening inequality is causing large numbers of Americans, working harder than ever but getting nowhere, to feel frustrated and angry. O'Reilly and his ilk are using that anger to turn us against one another at the very time we most need come together to solve our problems. This is contemptible.

 islander wrote: 

 Coaxial wrote: 
They better, else they get red beads in their coffee .

 islander wrote: 
It's all about fostering an environment where kaizen is embraced by everyone involved. Knowing you, I'm sure your group does nothing but look for new and better ways to do their jobs.

 aflanigan wrote:

 If they are decent managers, they will develop the yardstick based on the environment they are in.
 aflanigan wrote: 
I  came from Bell labs, so I'm very familiar with Deming and his beads. Fortunately, even within the highly scripted / a process for everything world of the labs, there is room for employees to have input, even if it has to be informally.  As much as I loved the labs, I did find the atmosphere a bit too starched. So in the world I control, I trust my employees and I give them tools, leeway and encouragement to find and fix problems. Those that do are rewarded. Those that don't usually find they don't want to be here very long. It does take participation from the crew as well. And they have to believe that this is an environment that will accept challenge to norms and give a fair hearing to grievances - it's my job to foster that environment.

Edit: I don't want to turn this into a treatise on management. I agree there is a fundamental problem with the middle class and the whole dynamic of this country. I fear what it means for our future and our democracy. But the answer can't be "just pay people more" or "just buy American". The world has changed, we need to change with it. It won't be easy, but it is doable. It's happening in small sectors all around you.  Companies do want to make money - just as workers do. The key is finding the balance that works for everyone. CEOs/ Management really aren't 'out to get you', they would love to give you a raise because of the great benefits you brought to the company.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Where does the sun rise?

 islander wrote: 
That's a fairly big if. Who gives them the yardstick?

Have you ever heard of Demings' red bead experiment?

 aflanigan wrote: 
That is the job of mangers and directors.  They assess how much value a person is bringing and pay them accordingly.  If they are good at it, they will have happy well paid employees who are productive and if budgets are managed well, the business should succeed. If they overpay their people, there will not be enough money / resource left to operate the business. If they underpay they will have employee churn and they will underperform in their market.

All of my employees do have an equity stake. So the better the company does, the better they do. It's a simple way to get people vested in the best outcome. 

 pigtail wrote: 
I'm going to give a few details on our company. It's in no way unique and probably represents a majority of small companies. To be clear, I'm an owner, not "the" owner.  All of my employees also have an equity stake in the company making them owners as well. But I have a large enough percentage that I get to make extra declarations when we do work with lenders. The average of my entire company payroll is a little over $62K per employee (the average pay is high enough we have lost our tax perks, we do pay more than an average wage, but my crew has a fairly unique and diverse skill set and a willingness to work hard in oddball situations). Just about 35% of my employees have a 2 or 4 year degree, and another 25% have a certificate of some kind.  The highest paid person on the payroll makes just shy of 4X what the lowest makes.  The two highest paid employees do have degrees, but the #3 &4 do not. Their pay (and that of everyone else) is based on the value they bring, not the paper they carry.  I do have a much larger stake and will eventually make a lot more than most of the other employees. I took a huge risk coming to this company and I have put a ton of myself into it. There have been many personal sacrifices along the way and there continue to be many more as we go along, I'm willing to make them and I took that risk long ago so yes, I deserve more of the payout.  I stayed here when many others left, so I get the benefit when the big check rolls in. And if it never comes, then I'll go along and do something similar somewhere else because that's apparently how I'm wired.  

I said nothing about education. I do think it is valuable, but my complaint with the article and the subsequent sentiments here is that the general thought is "we should just pay people more". That's just not a sustainable way to run a business/economy/country. Part of the problem Detroit had was that it was paying people more than they were worth. You could sustain it for a while, but eventually it comes to a halt. 

Am I lucky? Yes. Is luck the only component of my success? No.  Is my business unique? No. Most businesses work like this.  There is a core group who takes a lot of risk in starting up, puts in tons of hours, gives up time with family, takes phone calls at 3:00AM on weekends.  These people get the lions share of the rewards. Not because they bring more value, but because they take more risk.  As the business continues to operate, we pay people based on the value they bring. We also buy equipment based on the value it brings. If something does more for us, or saves us energy or time, we will pay more for it.  If employees are always contributing new ideas, going above and beyond, being creative and looking for ways to improve the operation, they will get raises and new positions with more responsibility and therefore more pay.  If they show up, punch the clock and go home they won't.  

Janitors don't make a lot because in terms of value it's not a high skill job. There are lots of people who can and will do it and that keeps the wages low due to competition (competition exists on both sides of the ledger). This says nothing about the worth of the person, simply the wage they will be able to get based on the labor they trade. There are opportunities for everyone. It's not easy and it's not guaranteed - even if you do all the 'right' things it still takes a bit of luck. But if you work hard and consistently do the right things you'll have opportunities to take advantage of lucky breaks. A lot of people get their start as janitors - but the position of janitor will rarely make much money.

Businesses are not inherently evil. They don't set out to take advantage of people. They do try to make a profit and payroll is often one of the largest expenses a company has, so it gets a lot of attention.  Owners make more because they have more at risk. They often personally sign for debts of the company, they take a fiduciary responsibility for their employees and stockholders. A lot of them personally go bankrupt when a company fails. I offer a lot of coaching to my employees, to people in my community, to people here as well. I don't claim to know it all, but I've got a pretty proven model that does work. I have made a lot of money for my shareholders and my employees (with a lot of contributions from them as well). We have provided a great service and done some pretty cool things along the way.  I work with a lot of other owners and business leaders. I never see the kind of thoughts attributed to them expressed or demonstrated. I'm sure there are examples, but people who behave that way will eventually fail. People who expect to get paid more than they are worth will eventually fail too.

 aflanigan wrote: 
sup?

are you referring to mutual versus stock companies?

i could get behind a mutual aid society

if so we may actually agree on something? 

 islander wrote: 
It would be nice if we could rely on a simplistic view regarding wages or salary being equal to measured worth or value of an employee's contribution, but measuring the quality of someone's work is a problematic undertaking, particularly if one wishes to tie it to financial data (such as profits). Do we really know whether we can accurately assess an employee's relative contribution to the financial well-being of the company they work for?

On whaling ships they operated on a share principle. Based on the perceived value of a workers' job and status in the heirarchy aboard the ship, they received a percentage (a lay) of the profits. The captain got a relatively short lay, and a lowly seaman got a relatively long lay (say, the 777th lay, as in Moby Dick) Some progressive companies operate on a similar, profit sharing principle.

 islander wrote: 

I also think you missed the gist of this. Think about this and how it has become the "norm"... Are you as an employer willing to pay a worker what they are worth even if it means they are not academically proven?  Do you demand useless degrees from applicants simply to walk through your doors and fill out an application? 

While I don't deny that having an education behind you is power and a way to prove to some suit that you can "go the distance", it's not a catch all for everyone.  There are countless EXPERIENCED individuals that either couldn't do the college degree because of economics, family needs or simply not fitting into the academic box.

The gap between the NEW middle class (executives and business owners) and the NEW working poor (your workers, public educators and those that joined the ranks of the workforce fresh out of high school) is obvious in just about every small business parking lot.  Look at your car vs the poor SOB that either has to rely on public transportation or an unreliable POS with four bald tires to get there everyday.  Its blatently obvious in just about every small business. 

Business owners are perpetuating and mimicking the corporate formula.  "I am the OWNER therefore I am entitled to ______________ (fill in the gap).  You work for me and should not be anywhere close to my income." 
Following this FAILED formula will only lead to small business demise in the end as well.  Every worker bee make small businesses competitive everyday and are just as entitled to sharing the wealth or at the minimum deserve a living wage.

What is a good janitor or receptionist's "value" in your opinion?  Is it higher than that of your next door business owner?

BTW this is not a personal attack, I don't know you or how you run your business.  I am simply responding to your post as an underpaid and VALUABLE worker bee.

 Isabeau wrote: 
there's rarely a sole reason for something like this

i was referring to over regulation (or bad regulation) on small businesses (when regulation goes beyond common sense or is sponsored by those who seek an advantage through bribery/lobbying)

however, in reich's own words he points out that the system is rigged and inequality is created

rigged by whom? created by whom? the 1% aren't elected to congress and they don't approve any laws/rules or regs

our elected officials are corrupt, for sale, and they're selling political privilege

when they wet their lines they'll eventually get a bite

there's a four trillion dollar pie auctioned off at a deep discount and everyone wants a slice

 

a video from his site

edit - btw reich was a guest speaker at one of our conferences a few years ago

he's a nice guy, and we agree on many problems, but not the solutions

 glmace wrote: 
I think I got the crux, but there was not much there beyond a lament we can't all have more. Sure a apprentice electrician does more and works is way up to being a journeyman, but I don't think they bring enough value int eh first year to be worth fancy new cars (I work with a LOT of electricians, I'm pretty familiar with their system). I hear all the time that people should make a living wage, but there are jobs that simply don't have enough value to be worth a living wage.

I get it from the people I hire all the time - "I want a raise".  I respond with "okay, why?". Rarely do I get anything about what they have done to increase productivity, solve problems or add value. I usually get "it's been over a year since I had my last raise", or "Joe makes more", or they point to a salary survey.  This is the fundamental problem. There is a disconnect between what people demand and what they are willing to do to get it. 

I'm in complete agreement that the middle class is in decline, that there is a class war (and the rich are winning it), and that this all has a very troubling end. But the people most impacted are the first to rush out to Wal Mart to get more for less. Simply buying American is also a bit myopic in the world we have today. What we need to do is find a way to compete on value instead of price. There are things we can bring to the table that are worth more. But simply paying people inflated wages so they will have more money is not a sustainable way to improve the economy. 

 islander wrote: 
I completely agree, bottom line is the industrialized, modern society that we have produced is simply unsustainable. We must face this or we will get nowhere.

 glmace wrote: 
well said sir. * hoists a Guinn *