|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
This is another theme that has come out in our economic discussions, and I'm curious to see what HubPages thinks:
What responsibilities, beyond wages, do employers have to their workers?
Consider the following hypothetical:
Bob goes to work for Bigmart. When he applied for the job, he knew that it was for minimum wage, and he still chose to take it. Bob is a hard worker, and a model employee, but Bigmart never offers him more than his minimum wage job. At minimum wage, Bob can barely keep a roof over his head, and keep his family fed. He can't afford healthcare and is even looking into going on public assistance just to help make it through.
My question is:
A) Does Bigmart have any additional responsibility to Bob, other than his agreed upon wages?
B) If so, what is the source and extent of that obligation?
They have no obligation to Bob, but its a good thing businesses don't act like this. I'm sure there will be a disgruntled employee who will respond to my post telling me how wrong I am, but the truth will be they didn't actually resemble Bob in any way at all.
Bigmart is in no way responsible for Bob's lack of advancement but Bigmart is doing itself a great disservice. By refusing to increase his salary (recognizing that he is competent to do the job) they in essence take another possible customer out of their targeted dynamic. That is something Henry Ford realized so many years ago. He gave everyone a wage that if they wanted they could buy the product they were producing.
Big business and corporate greed are in a race to the bottom to get every last penny of greedy profit they can all the while raping the customer base of disposable income to spend on their products. The greed is clouding their good sense and creating a dead end where they get it all.
That's great (to pay workers enough to buy what they're building) but only if it's a cheap product. I can't see paying Boeings workers enough that they can all own a 747.
But can a cabinetmaker be paid enough to buy a kitchen? Can a oil worker afford to buy heating oil? Can a resturant worker afford to eat out? These are the examples I make. Anyone can go to an extreme to disprove a theory but can common sense see a way to make life affordable and not feed a corporate greed paradigm?
Can the business afford to pay that much? People forget that aspect of it.
I worked for a pretty high-end restaurant. Say they paid me $60 in a 6-hour period, and I cleared $1000 in food. They would have lost money if they raised my pay to $100 for 6-hours.
I don't know why, but the kind of argument you are making always comes with ignoring the actual money available.
As I said any extreme can blow apart an example. You are prone to the extremes to a fault. You totally get what I am saying but seem to choose to be argumentative rather than helpful. The paradigm exists because it favors one to the other. The greedy need no excuse to wallow in their greed, they are immune to the fundamentals when confronted with logic because of it.
I'm not talking about extremes, I was talking about a relatively well-off business. I've seen businesses that pay $9/hr that couldn't even afford a $0.50 raise to every employee.
The extreme is to say that employees should be paid more without looking at any of the data.
I too have worked in high end restaurants where the wages were not much above the norm. Where I made my money was in the tips where I could more than afford a meal. There are variables that apply to most every situation but your argument is way too specific and does not address the issue or its gist.
You're completely ignoring my point. My argument points out that you can't make a blanket statement. It's IMPOSSIBLE to even say how much a business COULD pay its employees, let alone SHOULD pay, without a detailed look at their financials.
We have so much wealth in the US, and one reason is that we drive the prices for everything down so low. Along with that, the wages for low-skill jobs go down as well.
And you can't make a blanket statement that the wages one would have to pay an individual would greatly affect the business' vitality based on the same set of circumstances you cite.
The reason we have so much recent wealth is due to our industry leaders tapping in on cheap Chinese and Far Eastern Labor. The formula for the fall is already in the cards and you ignore the fact that this is a race to the bottom to pay labor less and less while big business pockets billions at the expense of both the foreign and domestic labor pool.
Lower wages are also being paid teachers that must go into major debt to qualify for low wage entry level assignments. A local school district "REQUIRES" elementary school teachers to get a masters degree within five years of beginning employment. Car mechanics that must take factory training are making much less to begin jobs where the dealership dictates lower and lower labor peice rates to fix their products. There are endless examples to repudiate your cheaper products and services to compete on an equal basis. These higher skilled jobs are going by the wayside as we become a throw away society tied to the cheap foreign labor to replace the crap products that break. Made in America stands for something the rush to cheap is destroying.
I never ignore your points but sometime I get impatient with your ability to keep up with the argument with out a bunch of explanation.
I didn't make that statement, now did I?
I don't need any explanation, you just aren't getting what I'm saying. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep pretending that I'm saying things that I'm not saying.
Once again tit for tat. Maybe you don't understand in making your argument you infer exactly the statement through your argument and then come back that the example you cite is not what you meant. Typical.
"Can the business afford to pay that much? People forget that aspect of it.
I worked for a pretty high-end restaurant. Say they paid me $60 in a 6-hour period, and I cleared $1000 in food. They would have lost money if they raised my pay to $100 for 6-hours." - JaxonRaine
Your statement infers that the viability of the business could not sustain the higher wages required to pay people what they needed to use the employers services or product. That was direct, and while not using the word "blanket" statement, it was pretty clear in its' meaning in countering my argument.
Infer what you want.
I said that we always need to consider the financial health of a company, and gave an example of why. I didn't say that every business would be crippled or bankrupted by raising wages. Not even close.
Once again, the only blanket statement that I made is that the financial health of a company needs to be considered to even see if they could raise wages.
One last try rhamson.
I asked if a business can afford to increase wages.
I gave an example of a business that couldn't really.
Is the proper logical deduction that I am saying
1 - All businesses can't afford to raise wages.
2 - Some businesses can't afford to raise wages.
Couple that with my second post on the topic, where I said that we can't determine if a company even can raise wages without considering the financials, and the only logical deduction is that I am saying the financials must be considered. I even said, in my post, that the blanket statements you are talking about don't work.
I have not been all over the place, it's not my fault you can't understand what you're reading.
If you can't keep up and wish to play word games where you can only see your opinion then I can't help you. I have better ways of spending my time rather than playing these games of yours.
May be not enough to own one, but enough to travel on one at will.
A: No, Bob knew what the job paid before he took it, if he doesn't like it, he can look for another job.
B: No further obligation exists.
Somewhere else where jobs are in short supply?
I suppose he could move to China, but how would he afford that?
I don't know how it is where you are but the US has plenty of jobs in certain parts of the country.
Yes, I remember some years ago sitting in a local pub with your UK alter ego having a similar discussion.
There's loads of jobs quoth he. So we searched through pages and pages of jobs but couldn't find one for him that wouldn't have resulted in a drastic pay cut (and he wasn't over paid to begin with).
Moving of course requires a considerable amount of money, more than could be afforded by somebody earning the minimum wage.
You use minimum wage over and over, if you have a marketable skill you are not earning minimum wage.
I only mentioned a minimum wage in that post to illustrate the futility of telling people to move!
All right, forget minimum wage, the average family would find it very expensive to move if they were unemployed.
It is easier for one member of the family to actually look for work somewhere else.
Ah yes, the sanctity of marriage, one partner living at the other end of the country and only being able to afford to go home once a year!
You are very good at telling other people what they should do and how little they should be prepared to live off aren't you?
What is that expression about walking a mile in another man's shoes?
I said look for work, I didn't say move across the country without your family. Try and stay on topic.
US wages haven't kept up to inflation period.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-2 … e-day.html
I bet Bigmart cares about it's shareholders.
Yes, they should care about their workers enough to at least have some sort of increase in pay for their more productive workers. Not only on a human interest side but to reduce turnover.
The corporate climate of America has caused this. It's profits over people. It wasn't like this 30 or 40 years ago.
The labor unions combated and rectified this problem. How soon everyone forgets.
The system says "no obligation to Bob", that is what the government is for. However I bet if the owners had to live in the same communities as the workers, there would be some change of heart.
Bigmart has lots of responsibilities to Bob. They have a responsibility to:
provide a safe workplace
pay Bob the agreed amount, on a timely basis
keep Bob free of sexual harassment
maintain Bob's unemployment and workman's comp. insurance
There are many others as well but Bob's compensation is another matter. Bigmart has a job available that is worth only at minimum wage. It doesn't need a careful employee; mistakes are tolerable. It doesn't need an employee that is on time every day or even there at all; such things are forgivable. It doesn't need an inventive employee that works at finding better ways of doing the task; they have taken care of that.
Bigmart is able to use entry-level employees to fill this job, employees that would be unfit to handle a more advance task. The task Bob was hired for does not need top quality workers.
Neither Bob, you, I or anyone else can make that determination; only Bigmart. That Bob is an exemplary employee and performs far beyond the minimum doesn't change the requirements of the job and Bigmart has no responsibility to pay any more for a job than it is worth. It may well be to their advantage to do so and keep Bob on the payroll, but they have no responsibility to do so.
Bigmart, in conjunction with the free market place, is the determining factor as to what a job OR an employee is worth, no one else - not even the employee. If Bob disagrees or he feels his abilities transcend the job he is free to find other work.
by awesome776 years ago
Coming from a very poor background, I have come to realize that most rich people do not give a rats ass about the poor! If in doubt, show me a rich person and you will see someone that has gone to great lengths to...
by SparklingJewel5 years ago
here is one "perspective of facts"...anyone have another as well put together source of a "different perspective of facts" ?Seriously, just like the economy and how it is run, or how businesses are...
by Josak6 years ago
Wages have not been keeping up with the cost of living for a long time now in the US and the primary reason is the weakening of the unions, the problem really began during the presidency of Ronnie the union buster...
by Barefootfae5 years ago
Once again there is a call to raise the minimum wage.Now....common sense and a little education will tell you that when you raise the minimum wage, prices go up to compensate. Also, you stand the chance of having a nice...
by awesome777 years ago
The minimum wage is a joke and I think it should be abolished. Let the market system determine what the wages should be!I know, some of you will scream and holler, but as a former retail business owner, it undermines...
by Sooner286 years ago
Republicans in the Senate, along with four Democrats, voted against ending a filibuster on a bill that would end oil subsidies. The Republican party votes for tax breaks for the rich, denies people the RIGHT to...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.