That will certainly help the economy.
Did the staff agree to the job with the wage presented at signing?Name a job that cant be done with a small bit of training? Thats irrelevant. The point is that the doctors whole practice relies on the staff. A doctor is making millions. The staff should be paid a respectable wage so that you can afford a 1bedroom apartment to live in. Its common sense.
Of course. When you need money you gotta take whats there. Its more money then sitting home.Did the staff agree to the job with the wage presented at signing?
So either become a surgeon or live pay check to pay check. Got itAn eye Surgeon for one. To answer the first question.
A doctor would not be a success if he or she was bad at their job either. Again, staff are easy to train for the job.
It is not the responsibility of employer to pay what a person/employee believes to be enough.
I understand the point you are trying to make. I only see things differently/
What prevents her from attending the required college education to become said eye surgeon?So either become a surgeon or live pay check to pay check. Got it
So either become a surgeon or live pay check to pay check. Got it
Name a job that cant be done with a small bit of training? Thats irrelevant. The point is that the doctors whole practice relies on the staff. A doctor is making millions. The staff should be paid a respectable wage so that you can afford a 1bedroom apartment to live in. Its common sense.
So they agreed to the terms of employment, and now are not content with what they agreed to?Of course. When you need money you gotta take whats there. Its more money then sitting home.
I'm not a surgeon and I don't make minimum wage.So either become a surgeon or live pay check to pay check. Got it
So either become a surgeon or live pay check to pay check. Got it
LoL, the doctor's job can't be done with a small amount of training.Name a job that cant be done with a small bit of training? Thats irrelevant. The point is that the doctors whole practice relies on the staff. A doctor is making millions. The staff should be paid a respectable wage so that you can afford a 1bedroom apartment to live in. Its common sense.
Because you aren't going to pay extra for ammo just because the guy who boxes it's rent went up.Im
im not sure what ammo has to do with a living wage. But anyway. With UPS you can make $90k a year. Amazon does the same job but better service. Also my wife is a practice manager at a laser eye center an they pay her $23 an hour. She runs the office. Shes been looking at other jobs an most wont pay much more. With out a front office the doctor does no business. Her boss walks into work with a $16k dress but gives bullshit raises. So a practice manager is a good solid position job. If she was on her own she wouldn't be able to live. She would be forced to live with her parents. It dont make sense to me.
Let's put an interesting twist on this scenario. Let's say I'm of the ilk that truly wants my employer to cover my cost of living regardless of what that would be ( forget about the market and supply and demand for the sake if argument)Because you aren't going to pay extra for ammo just because the guy who boxes it's rent went up.
Why should Amazon pay more for that labor than it's worth just because some of the people doing it have expensive apartments?
What all the "living wage" people don't get is that labor is just a product. Just like ammo or bubblegum.
The employee is selling labor, the employer is buying it. Why should the employer pay any more for it than necessary ?
The "cost of living" is just the overhead of the business that is selling labor (the employee in this case)
Are you in the habit if playing extra for products just because one seller's overhead went up ?
If the price of Winchester white box went up by $3/box because the rent on their factory went up, you're not going to keep buying it unless UMC and everyone else got hit the same way.
Totally agree, with some stipulations. The market sets the value of that position, within a range that will not be exceeded based upon available labor in a specific geographic region, regardless of skill attained or years of experience. Ex- with 10+years experience in my field as a journeyman that range in Rochester is vastly different than NYC or Souix City Iowa, with generally accepted maximums. TLDR- 2-3x wages in NYC vs the later. Basically, without striking out on my own I will receive a maximum wage based upon market conditions and could not expect much more.Get a skill that has value, get paid for that skill.
If someone can walk in off the street and be trained for your job in days, weeks or even months you do not have a job that requires a skill.
There is not only a severe lack of skilled labor out there but a severe lack of work ethic and way too much entitlement. Work hard, work more, get skills, improve those skills, dont be a shitbag, dont make bad decisions, and you can literally go anywhere.
Most doctors don’t make millions. In addition without the doctor your wife wouldn’t need to manage the office. I think $23/hour for an office manager of a small office isn’t a bad wage outside of NYC.Name a job that cant be done with a small bit of training? Thats irrelevant. The point is that the doctors whole practice relies on the staff. A doctor is making millions. The staff should be paid a respectable wage so that you can afford a 1bedroom apartment to live in. Its common sense.
That is definitely the goal. Destroy small business so only the mega corporations can make money and keep donating to their political cronies.It's impossible to force a business to operate at a loss long term.
If your goal is to put them out of business then take over, then *that* is an excellent plan.
Murder all the private businesses, declare capitalism has failed, then declare that you speak for "the people" and achieve your totalitarian goal.
It's a very workable plan, and it's doing very well for them.
The only flaw is that a lot of the people who think they will be in charge, will find out quickly that they are the most dangerous and will find themselves edited out of a lot of picture and articles.
You have no idea do you? When I first started minimum wage was $4.75/hour. In my area for years and years most jobs without training or a degree we’re paying minimum wage. I started at one of those jobs when I was 17 and quickly got a raise. With in a year or so I was promoted to a manager the day I graduated high school and I was making $9.50/hour and that was double minimum wage. At 19 I bought a $10,000-$11,000 car and had my first car loan and I paid cash for a $3,500 jet ski. A few years later I paid for half my wedding in cash and didn’t even have a credit card until I was married. I paid for everything, college, car, insurance, gas, food, clothes. I was working 55 hours a week and going to college. I always had 2-3 jobs and I made way more money than anyone I knew because I busted my ass. In high school 11 th and 12 the grade I had three jobs and took not a single day off for those two years.So you been making more then $10 an hour since you were 17. Thats not hard to do lol
Exactly.Let's put an interesting twist on this scenario. Let's say I'm of the ilk that truly wants my employer to cover my cost of living regardless of what that would be ( forget about the market and supply and demand for the sake if argument)
What would bar me from living like a millionaire if my employer covered all costs associated with it? The ultimate grift of an employer. It eliminates drive and motivation to achieve. It's entirely unsustainable.
While I generally understand most if your statement above, I'm confused by the last sentence. Are you specifically speaking in regards to those who have a college degree VS those who do not or just generally those just starting working lacking skills VS those with experience?I would argue things are even more the opposite of what the forced minimum people want.
I just got my 4 year degree as it was required for my promotion. That feeds the "free college, everyone is entitled to a degree" machine. Ok.
The amount of knowledge gained in the degree program that is useful to my career is 0. The skills I have learned actually interacting with people are invaluable.
So we are incentiveising "higher education" failure and then in turn, when you gained no skills playing that game ww are incentiveising the forced payment on the other end for the skillless turnouts.
It's like we can't take money fast enough away from the skilled to give to the failures.
Ps- the average wage for a cardiologist fellow in Rochester is around 500k annually. I know this for a fact. Subtract malpractice insurance, the cost of a practice if private, office space, staff, the education associated with it and you will find actually how little they make as compared to gross income. I'm not inferring it's a pittance, but the room for errors in that profession are miniscule whilst weighing thier objective compensation for thier time.Exactly.
Does the Starbucks in Beverly Hills need to pay their baristas enough for them to live in multimillion dollar mansions ?
Should they make more than a heart surgeon in Iowa who has a 50 acre ranch that costs $500k
In a real sense what is currently happening is that those with actual skills are having their money robbed from them and given to those without any real skills.While I generally understand most if your statement above, I'm confused by the last sentence. Are you specifically speaking in regards to those who have a college degree VS those who do not or just generally those just starting working lacking skills VS those with experience?
Clarity would be honestly appreciated.
PS- i agree that people or otherwise called " soft" skills are in many ways more valuable than knowledge of a task. Interaction with others is far more valuable and transferable across different fields of work and life than task based talents.