In a previous post, I said I'd discuss this subject so...here goes.
Most people in the United States are overpaid for the job they're doing. How do I know this and on what basis is this statistic founded? Very simply; we now compete with the world for our jobs and many of those jobs have left the United States. When we said (back in the 1980's and 90's) that we were a global economy and had to think that way, we never even considered our wages were not competitive with the rest of the world.
You can fight my logic on this, but if we want to have the jobs that have moved to other countries, one of the things we have to do is make the finished product competitively priced with comparable quality. In order to do that, labor costs here will have to be closer to what they are in other countries. Notice I didn't say they have to be the same.
I believe we can achieve an objective of comparable quality with lower labor costs (than today) by doing the following;
1. Being willing to work for a lesser wage.2. Removing some labor expenses for employers.
3. Removing or limiting liability damages/expenses for employers.
This might require us, the labor force, to accept a lower standard of living for at least a period of time. Unfortunately, the competition is already doing this. I'm not saying we all need to be willing to move into huts with outhouses, but we may have to forego the "mcmansion."
Maybe we phase out automatic payment of Social Security Income for different groups if they don't have a financial need for that income. Maybe we cut back on the amount employers have to pay into Medicare and Social Security. Maybe instead of Medicare paying for every type of healthcare issue, it only covers emergencies and major medical.
Maybe we move to a "loser pays" legal system so that frivolous lawsuits would be reduced. I.e. the loser in a liability suit pays their own legal expenses AND that of the party that wins the suit.
These are just suggestions and you may have better suggestions.
My statement of most people being overpaid may be offensive to some, but I walk into numerous offices each day to see people playing solitaire or shopping online. Granted, many people are hard-working and there's nothing wrong with a little down-time, but we have gotten to the point where we have flat screen tv's in many households, at least two cars in the driveway and our toughest daily decision is figuring out which fast food restaurant will get our lunch dollars. Meanwhile, workers in other countries build the tv's, furniture and toys we play with.
Consider that whenever we want to buy something, we think we should get the lowest price, but then we think our own pay should be higher than whatever it is today.
Reality; the United States is not the emerging economy it once was. India, China and others are taking over that spot. Somebody has to make the goods and services these people will want to buy. Why shouldn't we be able to produce those goods and services? Eventually, they'll be wanting to watch movies at home, take lavish vacations and eat like pigs. Start now and we can be the ones raking in the dough when they start buying the toys en masse.
What do you think?
I have some questions about your recent post: There are some things that I agree with. First, Your statement with regard to the legal system and "loser pays". That would be considered "Tort Reform." I agree with Tort reform and it should have been part of the new Health Care Act. The problem with the definitive "loser pays" is that some people may not be able to hire the best attorney and though they have been wronged, they lose; now they have to pay the corporations legal fees on top of their own. Tort Reform could be tweaked on a case by case basis, but your point of frivolous lawsuits is one part of the problem on the legal side.
ReplyDeleteA question that I have is with regard to lower wages. In order to do that, wouldn't government have to step in to control or regulate the cost of living? One cannot just decide to pay lower wages when the cost of living is lower than it was. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you; all I am saying is that society as a whole would have to change in order for this to occur. Next, doesn't this seriously affect those who believe that capitalism should prevail to "get the most out of workers and make the most profit?"
Does this mean that companies will be mandated to charge less for their product if they are going to pay workers less? If a company does not reduce product cost and pay less wages, then how is the country being competitive?
I also note your statement about the worker who is shopping on the computer or playing cards. If the company does not say anything, then isn't that company able to do what it wants? Who is to regulate that behavior?
I am sure that I am taking this way too seriously. I would love to see a lower cost of living. Taking a bit from your previous post, Government should not be spending what they don't have. Many programs that promised to "stimulate" the economy went sour from the git-go (i.e. TARP, QE, etc.), but so did the Bush tax cuts. They were meant to stimulate the economy and they did not. All had the best of intentions but even when given extensions on tax breaks businesses found out how to do the same with less people. Businesses, in general, are not hiring. I would suggest to you the book THE JUNGLE by Upton Sinclair which can give a history on why regulations came into being.
My final question is this: why is it always the worker that has to pay the burden? People want to blame the worker for "being lazy, not producing, asking for too much money, etc. Why can't companies (big corporations)look to figure out how worker and boss can get along well together to have a stake in the company? I would use the owner of Chik-Fill-A as an example. His employees get Sunday off and they get healthcare coverage. News did stories on how the workers respected the owner and the owner got the best out of his employees because they all had a stake in the company and its morale.
You asked for thoughts and you make some interesting points. I think there a mutual respect approach might also work.
I can't say I don't agree with you, because I do. In my opinion your facts are well stated. When are folks going to realize that China and India are sleeping giants? Which is not to say they don't deserve the employment, but this country is losing out on the whole because many of the things we buy are now manufactured in China or any country where sweatshops are the norm. That's not right either, but at least they seem grateful to have any kind of employment and the pitiful security they have in order to better themselves! Seems to me our work ethic at this point is a lost cause.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to people playing solitaire or whatever turns them on at work, that, my friends, is thievery, plain and simple. Most companies should have pinhole cameras on these jokers so they can be thinned out of the legitimate work force. And dogs are more intelligent about messing where they eat, for heaven's sake. Maybe I'm old school because I was taught to do a days work for a days pay, no matter how miniscule my paycheck was. Too few people have pride in workmanship anymore (or so it would seem). It's like my Dad said recently about this country: how about everybody getting up and going to work every day? For whatever you CAN make? Too many people are just a burden to this society. That would be a start! And not fiddling around not doing your job. He'd have fired (and did, when he was working) somebody who was lazy and costing the company. They don't deserve their jobs. As for all the legal mumbo jumbo anonymous posted, that has nothing to do with any one individuals' work ethic. Sometimes I think all this legalese is ridiculous, too. You have lots of these attorneys and unions (and I know I'll raise some neck hairs here, but it's the way I feel)who make it very difficult for employers to even hire worthy individuals who may be hard workers because everybody is sue or benefit happy these days. Come on people, what's fair about all that? They ultimately hurt other people who aren't even remotely involved with a lawsuit or crying because they have to pay a portion of their health insurance, etc. It wouldn't be happening if everyone had a mutual respect for their fellow man! About out of room, so I'll conclude this by saying I hear you and amen. And it's me, Michelle Corbin (so you know who I am). You shouldn't comment if you're afraid to identify yourself, either. I have to post this as anonymous because of the way I'm set up, but I will tell you who I am. 'Nuf said!
I will attempt to address some points made by the first Anonymous commenter and thank you for some good points.
ReplyDelete1. I agree there are things about "loser pays" that need tweaking, but if we had some variation of it I think good lawyers would still take cases on contingency that were valid and winnable.
2. I don't understand the question of government having to step in to regulate a lower cost of living. I agree society as a whole DOES have to change. If my wages go down, I have to find a way to survive on those lower wages. If enough of us have lower wages, the price of our goods and services usually fluctuates accordingly in order to sell goods and services.
3. Government currently mandates minimum costs of goods and services by imposing massive regulations, taxes, fees and compliance costs that businesses have to pay before they can ever make a profit, thereby affecting the price a business can charge for goods or services.
4. You're right about companies monitoring employees' usage of their time and property. It was merely an observation.
5. The worker IS NOT always the one that must "pay the burden." Your evening news and newspapers will not tell you about the struggles the business owners go through. I submit to you that the majority of jobs are through small businesses and many regulations put on large corporations are also placed on small businesses. I further submit that most small business owners will do whatever it takes to keep good employees
Bottom line is we're competing with the world population for jobs and we have to take drastic measures to get those jobs back to America. Blaming large corporations (that many of us have our IRA's and 401k's invested in) won't bring the jobs back.
Thanks again for your comments.
I am the responder to this particular post on this particular subject: My name is Chris Litton. I have an Associate's Degree in Law Enforcement, a Bachelor's degree in legal studies. I have worked for 13 years as a paralegal in the state prosecutor's office in Rhode Island. I also possess a Master's degree in Divinity. I have worked in communities where there is economic poverty and various other communities.
ReplyDeleteAs for the solitaire players, Steve was making an observation. He included that someone may be on break or lunch using the computer. I believe his point was that if it was the norm, then, yes that is wasteful. My point was to be that it is the companies responsibility to monitor. You are welcome to seek out the supervisor whenever you see this and point out the infraction.
As for the "legal mumbo jumbo"; this is a perfect example of why it is important to separate frivilous lawsuits from collective bargaining:THEY ARE DIFFERENT! Frivilous lawsuits increase the companies liability which can affect a companies hiring. I have seen enough of those to know that the system needs to be reformed.
My point, Steve agreed, some tweaking needs to be done so that frivilous lawsuits are minimized. Steve, my concern is a single lawyer going against a corporations legal department is like going against Goliath. Judges play favorites;I have seen it firsthand. I think we agree that the system needs to be changed.
Michelle, I worked in an office that was not union and my job was in jeopardy every four years when a new leader was elected (I knew what I was getting into). Unions can be good to an extent but they also help keep mediocre or less stellar employees over good solid ones.
Steve, point 2: What I am saying is that government set a minimum wage. If businesses pay below that, then they are in violation of the law, which could encourage labor violations or lawsuits (and our goal is to minimize that). Gov't would have to change those laws. I would think that another problem would be subsidies that various companies recieve. In order to send a clear message to reduce the cost of living, subsidies would have to be eliminated to tell the company, "this is what you get so figure out how to sell it for less." That way, some things (necessities) would be more affordable for people.
Points 3&5: I understand your point about government taxing and regulating in excess for the small business. Obviously, that is a disparity that should be corrected. An example is that "salmon" is regulated by 19 different agencies. That is ridiculous! Let's take an extreme example: If regulation means that you are not allowed to pour your dry-cleaning chemicals into the stream behind your business (NOT SAYING YOU DO), then I am for that regulation cause it can get into the water supply. Something similar occurred in Baltimore many years ago. Companies poured their waste into Baltimore Harbor destroying the bay.
As for the the point of the worker. I made the statement because it seems your posts, more than not, question the worker as opposed to the company and corporate practices. I raise this because on Facebook you were upset about people stating that a person who had accepted a job but did not answer calls and never showed to work had mental issues. She may have or may not.
I have worked with people that spent years on the street and were prostitutes and addicted to drugs. Now, they are trying to get clean (legitimately) and they can't find work because of their past. They are trying to change their lives. they have been pre-judged rather than giving them a chance. There is a level of responsibility that they have to prove themselves at work but I have seen too many not even get the chance.
Before I post my response, to whom do you refer when you say "our goal is to minimize" labor violations and lawsuits?
ReplyDeleteHere's my response.
Wow! Great back and forth. I appreciate the challenges.
Chris, I’m not advocating breaking minimum wage laws. I am saying it’s time to consider regulations, minimum wage and subsidies may need to be revised in order to compete for those manufacturing jobs. In my area, I pay $8/hour to start and can’t find reliable people at that rate. People think they’re worth more than they are. Think about it; I am saying that just to get warm bodies that will show up for work, I have to pay far above minimum wage. Paying more would be great if customers were willing to pay $10 to get a shirt cleaned and pressed.
I don’t exempt myself from all of this. As a society, we think WE should buy goods and services at rock-bottom prices, WE should be paid top wages and the companies WE have OUR mutual funds, IRA’s and 401k’s invested in should give US maximum profit, while keeping the manufacturing jobs here in America. Really? Try reading my “Who’s Greedy L” post from March 11, 2011.
Since you brought up the Baltimore dry cleaner issue, I’ll give you a very specific case. I opened my dry cleaning plant July, 2005 with all the required licenses. I began paying to the state an “environmental fee” that all dry cleaners are required to pay. I was registered with the county and state as a dry cleaning facility. In 2007 the state DEP conducted a “random” inspection (conveniently right after I’d fired an employee). Since I didn’t have a required permit, they fined me over $6,000. Upon review of the license application process, the DEP admitted there was no way for me to know the permit was required, but ignorance of the regulation was no defense. The DEP also noted that I had “the cleanest dry cleaning plant in Northwest Florida .” I had properly disposed of any waste the entire time and there was no environmental impact. I immediately applied for the permit and to make matters worse, it took the state TWO YEARS to get me the permit because they had filed it away and forgot about it. These people didn’t save the environment. They only took from me what anyone else would’ve been arrested for. Where am I supposed to come up with that money? Exactly, nobody cares! I’m an evil rich corporation and I’m greedy. Please forgive me if I’m a little bitter.
As for the employer vs. worker issue; I respect your experience and background in legal matters. I hope you’ll consider that my posts come from an extensive background as a front line employee, middle and upper manager and now business owner/operator. I have hired 112 people in the past six years to fill 5 positions. Maybe it’s me, but most have quit w/no notice and given no reason. I’ve hired recovering drug and alcohol addicts. I’ve rehired people who quit with no notice. I’ve hired people that are in treatment programs and even people considered disabled who can’t find work anywhere else. I know something about giving people second chances.
My post was intended to say that we, as a society (myself included) might have to think way “outside the box” in order to compete globally for jobs we want to have back.
Steve, I think you are misunderstanding my point and to answer your questions:
ReplyDelete1. When I say "we are trying to minimize labor violations and lawsuits," I am talking about you and I agreeing to reduce frivilous lawsuits (I am agreeing with you from the previous post). That comment was more for Michelle.
2. I am not saying you are violating wage laws. What I am saying is that there is a minimum wage law. In order for companies not to violate, the government would have to reduce the wage(Government involvement). I am not saying you are violating anything it is the point of government involvement.
3. THe Baltimore thing was paint and manufacturers (not dry cleaners) who dumped chemicals into the bay and finally were held accountable.
3. As for your situation, I do believe that you had the necessary permits and the government should refund your money because you had evidence of purchasing the permits. I agree that you were wronged. You should not have had to pay the fine, at least. No one is saying you are "evil."
4. I do appreciate your position as an employer. My legal arguments in the last post were in response to Michelle. She thinks legal matters are stupid, yet cannot tell the difference. I was agreeing with you that frivilous lawsuits can hinder companies from taking chances and hiring good workers. It also causes companies to be cautious in other ways and forces them to sell products at higher prices to cover the possibility of being sued. I agree with you that the lawsuits and the system needs an overhaul. I also have a friend that cannot work because she was hurt on the job, in the store, and during work. Home Depot fought her because they refuse to acknowledge that it was a legitimate claim. Her legal resources ran out and can no longer continue to fight for her rights to be compensated after the injury. She is in constant pain and cannot work (two vertebrae fused). The system needs overhaul on all sides.
Finally, I had to edit so much cause I exceeded the character limit that may be reason for not getting my point across well. I tried to separate comments to you from comments to Michelle. Sorry for the confusion
Chris,
ReplyDeleteThanks! I hope that although we may disagree on points, you will continue to post and encourage anyone else interested in these matters to post as well. I truly appreciate posts that come from experience and/or subject knowledge, not just sound bites.
1. Understood.
2. I AM saying less government involvement. Even if it means we might have to throw out some minimum wage laws. I don't know that is the answer, just that we must consider it when looking at competing for wages.
3. Thanks for your support. I AM a corporation and while most people wouldn't consider me personally evil, they DO think most business owners are fat-cat greedy people. I have experienced this first hand and I often found myself thinking that long before I was a business owner.
4. I think what your friend faces with Home Depot is disgusting and it sickens me that so many large corporations get away with that crap.
Suffice it to say you and I approach these issues from two very distinct experience backgrounds. I respect that and will always do my best to keep the debate civil. While I allow others to post, I hope you'll find it extremely rare that I'll argue someone else's point for them.
Thanks again and keep the creative juices flowing.