|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 6 users and 48 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Rick on Sat, 01/28/2006 - 6:58am.
In a piece that cautions against hasty action, the editiorial page of the Olympian misses the point about the practice of externalizing costs. They think it must be just a mistake:
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Adam Smith is rolling over in
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Sat, 01/28/2006 - 12:45pm.I read something recently in
Submitted by The Rambling Taoist on Sat, 01/28/2006 - 5:48pm.Where's Will? Is Wal-Mart EEE
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 01/28/2006 - 6:22pm.I think that some of wal-mart
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 7:46pm.I agree completely that corpo
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 2:12pm.EDIT: Also, I can understand advocating for a minimum for those in the workforce. The "Living Wage" is hardly a minimum, though.
On This Week with George Step
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 2:26pm.I think that the government h
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 3:08pm.The argument would be that un
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 3:57pm.The auto-insurance-like healt
Submitted by The Rambling Taoist on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 4:27pm.A guaranteed right to work?
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 8:43pm.I like the idea of a living w
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 7:35pm.Also, it seems like you're asking for a lot to happen all at once. It would take revolutionary acts to make ALL of those things happen within a few years. What do you think is one small thing, that people could reasonably do right now?
This may sound heartless, but
Submitted by The Rambling Taoist on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 8:10pm.As to the one thing that could be done right now, I'd say go for the living wage. Hike the fed. minimum wage at least to $10 per hour. People would have more money in their pockets which they would spend in their communities, thereby helping small enterprises to stay in business and able to afford the wage hike.
Taoist:You would be creating
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 8:42pm.You would be creating an enormous block for anyone with even the most passing thought of being an entrepreneur.
I promise you, if you were to raise the federal minimum wage to $10/hour you would push everyone borderline small business out. The only companies left standing would be Wal-Mart, Target, McDonald's, et cetera.
This is exactly what I was th
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 8:54pm.$8.20 would meet the federal
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 8:35pm.Some groups call for 110% of the poverty level.
I wouldn't mind seeing a gradual increase with the ultimate goal being set somewhere inside of those two numbers, and taking into account unique local situations. That would keep things going and allow people to get used to it gradually. I think anything dramatic would have severely negative effects.
Fire, So you're okay with wo
Submitted by The Rambling Taoist on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 8:50pm.Rob, I do agree that an incremental wage hike is more reasonable than a one-time whopping increase. The goal, however, would be the same -- Raise all boats as one.
Since when did we get guarant
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 8:53pm.Join a Union if you want to get your employer to hike your wages.
TFI- Don't you think that if
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 9:10pm.Don't you think that if an employer will not pay workers enough for them to survive then it's on the voters/workers to demand something be done by voting for wage increases and pressuring government to sponsor living wage bills? In my eyes it's probably the only way it's going to happen.
I'm trying to understand your point. Don't you think that you are entitled to a paycheck for your hard work? If your employer decided not to pay you I assume you would fight it, any of us would. As I was saying, if the people decide we need a living wage then we should, and most likely will, have one.
I misunderstood your point.
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 9:19pm.Why is it the job of the government to force a company to pay a "living wage?" This pressure can be applied the same as a union.
I'm not saying it's the job o
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 9:25pm.Doesn't a union serve the sam
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 9:47pm.Unions aren't available to a
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 9:50pm.If a union isn't available to
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 10:49pm.Do you think we should be paying people a "living wage" for a job that, in all reality, anyone on the street can do?
Out of curiousity, has anyone done (or found) the math on what a living wage in the US would be per hour/yearly salary?
For a single person, Living W
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 10:59pm.This is my back of the hand estimation - and this is a absolute minimum living wage approximation. Living wage may actually be more than this estimate. Paying people more makes sense, it benefits the economy.
When people at the bottom of the ladder get more income, they are much more likely to spend it, in comparison to those at the top of the income ladder - who are much more likely to sit on the increased income. Therefore, the spent money benefits the economy more. This is one reason (among many) why the Bush administrations' tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% are an absurdity.
You raise an interesting poin
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 11:02pm.You raise an interesting point, but I think that leans toward maintaining socio-economic imbalances. If a hard worker can't afford to pay for the extra schooling it takes to get a trade job, then what? The service industry is ALWAYS hiring. Service workers, while not "skilled" in the traditional sense, do a job that we have decided needs to be done, and should be protected in the same ways a trade worker is.
In an earlier post on this thread I noted and linked to sites that discuss that. It's usually tied to the poverty line. $8.20/hr would bring people up to the federal poverty level, and in some areas, up to $18/hr would be needed just lift everyone to the poverty level. Living wage advocates want to see it raised to 110% of the poverty level. The poverty level in Thurston County is around $24,000 a year I believe.
$24,000 is for an individual,
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 2:20pm.TFI, If the workers are
Submitted by The Rambling Taoist on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 10:18pm.If the workers are making, marketing and selling the product, shouldn't they be rewarded by being paid enough money to survive? If there were no such workers, most companies wouldn't thrive or even survive.
One would think a grateful owner would want happy and committed employees -- employees who would take pride in their workmanship. It's kind of difficult to be happy and committed when you make $8/hr and you can't even afford a decent place to live or health insurance.
I'm not in disagreement that
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 10:47pm.What we're discussing here isn't good business but the role of government.
In my estimation, if business
Submitted by The Rambling Taoist on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 11:17pm.Since you believe government
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 11:58pm.Being a business owner, you're making a moral decision to pay your employees a decent wage, offer heath coverage, etc., etc.
What you're advocating, essentially, is for government to swoop in and make the decision for the business. Why not advocate for government to do the same in our personal lives?
I'm really hoping we don't head down the same road Europe has taken.
I don't think you read my res
Submitted by The Rambling Taoist on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 2:46am.Further, I don't view this as a moral issue. I'm a Taoist -- I don't even believe in the concept of morality.
Regardless, even if the peopl
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 8:06am.Employment is an employee and employer coming to an agreement as two private parties. I don't see why it's the business of a third party, whether it's the general public or government taking it upon themselves, to step-in.
I want to hear more of your i
Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 9:06am.If the people should not turn to the government, and unions are not available to all, then what power does a worker have to improve his quality of life?
Who doesn't have a union?Any
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 9:24am.Any skilled worker has access to a union.
Other than that, you can get a second job, have a spouse with an income, et cetera.
If you don't have a skill to offer, why should a business offer more than you're worth?
Now, if a business can offer you a paycheck above the normal rate for a position and still manage to stay open, more power to them and more power to you.
This goes back to earlier: Do you really think the person flipping a burger at McDonald's should be making $35,000/year?
Who decides how much a person
Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 9:47am.Why not $35k/year? Who created the system of value that we put on one another? People of priviledge who aren't affected by it. This is the socio-economic imbalance I mentioned earlier, the upper classes deciding the value of the lower class. Of course they're not worth $35,000 a year, that would threaten my wealth. Survival of the fittest. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It's nobody job to help you. Put your big boy pants on. Look at me, I'm OK, what's your problem?
I'm saying that if people want ten dollars an hour, and they have a union, they should go that route. If their is no union available, and people of power think they don't deserve more because they are just unskilled service workers, then they should take it to elected officials and demand to be paid what they NEED.
I'm not talking about worth, to me, we're all worth the same. This is simply about what people need to survive. When single mothers (like mine did) have to work three jobs to support herself and one child, something is wrong. I remember a year in high school when I hardly saw my mom, she was at her first job before I got up, and didn't get home until 8 at night, after a forty five minute drive. This what it comes down to for me. Healthy, happy families = a healthy happy workforce. Instead of making one person work three jobs in order to survive, while some people can't get any job, let's make it so that one job is all you need.
TFI wrote, "Employment is an
Submitted by The Rambling Taoist on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 10:47am.Yes, there are two parties involved, but they are UNEQUAL parties in terms of power. How many burger flippers are able to negotiate a wage one-on-one with their employer? It's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. And, since there aren't enough jobs to be had, a lot of people end up taking it because they have no other viable options.
I agree with Rob's points. Even further, money is something that is symbolic. It doesn't exist in nature. It's a system humanity came up with and it's all about defining power -- the haves vs. the have nots.
A person's worth is intrinsic.
TFI wrote, "Now, if a busines
Submitted by The Rambling Taoist on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 10:54am.Who determines what a "normal" rate is? The people with the most power, of course.
Why are food service workers paid so meagerly while stockbrokers make loads more? We all need to eat, but no one NEEDS to trade stocks. It would seem our priorities are upside down. We often pay those professions more for services we don't necessarily need than we do for professions of services we need to survive.
The people with power don't d
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 11:35am.If everyone capable of flipping a burger said, no more. I will only flip a burger for $15/hour and a company was unable to fill the position, one of two things would happen: There would no longer be people flipping burgers or a company would figure out a way to start paying $15/hour.
Of course, the cost of that burger would go up dramatically to the point that nobody would buy them.
We determine what a person is worth, the market. We have determined a person flipping a burger is worth minimum wage because we aren't willing to pay more than that for a pre-made burger.
On the other hand, we've determined stockbrokers are worth quite a bit more because we're willing to pay for their service.
The best way I can explain this is prostitution, the ultimate market. You pay $10 for the woman down at The Holly because she's probably VD-ridden, above 50 and going to require a condom or five for protection.
You pay $1,000 for the former Playmate because her services are in high demand.
It's not about needs and wants, it's about where the market places their priority. In the case of prostitution, the priority of the market is with those who look better (re: skilled labor) versus those who are no different from the masses (re: unskilled labor).
You seem to have some insight
Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 1:58pm."The people with power don't
Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 2:09pm.This my point.
The problem is that the people, for the most part, don't realize this.
I don't know if prostitution is an apt metaphor, realistically, if you substitute looks with how hard a person works then you get just the opposite. Hard workers get paid terrible wages, unless protected by unions. The woman with five kids cleaning the CEO's office gets a pittance in comparison to the man at the desk. We value the CEO in our society more, but why? Some would say, that's just the way it is. I say, no. I refuse to accept a system that values station over ethics and hard work.
We don't value people, as far
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 2:25pm.We value them based on what they can offer us. If we (literally) swapped the CEO and the woman cleaning the office, do you think the job of the CEO is still going to be completed in a productive manner? Or do you think the company is going to crash and burn? Unless that janitor is Will Hunting, I'm going to say 99% of the time the company would crash and burn.
In the same vein, the office
Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 4:39pm.The janitor probably puts in more actual work hours than the CEO. If you want to look at productivity, then I'd say the janitor produces more tangible results than the CEO.
If a clean office is a need according to the people that work there, and they are not willing to clean it themselves, then the janitor offers a needed service that they have the skills to provide.
Would clients of that company do business with them if they had a dirty and unkempt office? Probably not, it would reflect poorly on them. That tells me that the janitor offers a valuable service that the company needs in order to grow. In a watch, the small cogs are just as important as the large cogs. This holds true in society as well.
The CEO has a better chance o
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 4:50pm.That, Mortamer, I would be willing to bet on.
I think they would both need
Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 5:07pm.I once had an intern at BRAC who made coffee one morning, had never done it before and didn't know that the beans needed to be ground before you can use them. I can imagine a CEO trying to figure out how to use buffers and vacuums and other professional grade janitorial equipment.
Great movie about this, Dan A
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 8:10pm.Trading Places
You didn't pick up on the Mor
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 8:27pm.EDIT: Evidently, it's spelled with an "i" instead of an "a." To be quite honest, I had no clue how it was spelled. Not a name I find myself writing (or saying, for that matter) a lot.
EDIT: There's a Trading Places reference in Coming to America, too.
I think that the janitor woul
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 8:58pm.I don't know about it though Randolph.
I think we should just ask the Butler, Coleman.
I didn't pick up on the Mortamer reference! But maybe I did subconsciously, because I thought of the movie anyway.
I'm jumping in on the general
Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 9:34pm.Also doesn't the guy who did Super Size Me have a similar show now, of people trading lives?
How much does a package handl
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 9:41pm.For instance, the garbage man. He's making some pretty solid money, especially if he's working for LeMay.
How much would everyone pay for a burger at McDonald's? I mean, if you had to buy a burger, what would you pay?
Do you know if package handle
Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 9:49pm.McDonalds could charge much more if their customers had money to burn and were starved for a burger right at that moment.
Union janitors in NYC make good money, in comparison to others in their industry, but then they are in NYC where the cost of living is high.
Little bit of quick research
Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 01/30/2006 - 9:53pm.Found this on Teamster site: "FedEx claims a typical driver makes $50,000 to $55,000 a year. But as one ground driver pointed out, the fuel, maintenance and loans on his truck cut his salary to $20,000."