Hostess was mis-management, including an 80% raise for the entire C level the year before. The union trouble only started when the union worked out that the concessions they were being asked for would be hoovered out of the dying company, which would still die.
When a company blames pensions, usually what they actually mean is that the pension funds which were supposed to be prudently invested so they would be sufficient to cover pension were instead plundered and now there's not enough to cover it.
It's the corporate version of blowing the rent money in Vegas.
That only works if your base pay is actually enough to live within. Otherwise, you're stuck depending on bonuses to live, and suffering payday loans when the bonus doesn't come. It's better to do away with the bonuses (that is, money your employer pays you if/when he feels like it) and have a consistent income that makes ends meet.
I'm betting you haven't asked your employer to flip a coin to decide if you get paid this month or not.
Let's help you stop smoking by sending you on a Magical Mushroom Tour!
That seems a lot more sensible than the currently approved pill that has an 8% success rate and occasionally triggers a literally homicidal rage in otherwise normal people.
You're confusing profit and revenue. Profit is what you have left after you pay for everything you needed to bring in your revenue. So that 8 billion isn't being divided among the employees, it's being divided among the stock holders (minus what they keep aside for later).
The exception is Hollywood. In Hollywood, every movie takes a loss for tax and profit-sharing purposes.
Otoh, inconsistent income forces workers to very expensive and barely legal payday loans. Not only is that worse, but they can't avoid it even if they know it's a bad idea. Unlike the loans you are worried about.
It is worth noting that more and more parents wish to discourage their kids from those "starter" jobs anyway since it mostly trains them to accept being treated as sub-human by bad managers while being underpaid.
However, it can be safely said that few teens actually qualify for any of the benefits programs since they still live with their parents.
This thread comes from an article about Amazon raising it's minimum hourly to $15/hr. Then you asked about teens.
As for Sanders, note that his reaction to the $15/hr announcement is that Bezos did exactly the right thing and he has called on other low-paying employers to follow suit.
Your dislike of the idea has lead you right off the rails in search of an objection. Even $100/hr isn't a living wage if you only work one hour. "Living wage" has always meant an hourly rate that offers a decent living if you work at or near 40 hrs/week.
That's because they have other social programs that allow for people to demand a worthwhile wage.
Employers WILL arbitrarily lower wages when the unemployment rate is positive and the government pushes people to employment in order to get benefits.
For non-human worker units (aka machines) they either pay what it costs to keep them running or they do without. Why do we willingly subsidize the operating cost of human worker units? If they won't pay what it costs to keep a human alive and in good enough condition to work, why shouldn't they do without?
So, insults rather than arguments. I guess you're saying that now that you're over 18 you are learning disables? So much so that even riding the short bus can't help you?
So basic income it is. Easier to administer and actually closes the gap. It also avoids rewarding employers for paying less than the work is worth and expecting the rest of society to pay enough to keep their workers from dropping dead.
Or were you thinking of lowering the minimum wage to a penny because surely working 80 hours a week for a cheeseburger will help get people out of poverty.
They will likely see some improvement as well since they could more easily get another job paying $15 and their employer can't afford for everyone to leave.
So no, they won't be pissed off. They will see benefits as well.
You mean at an age where we don't believe they are mature enough to vote, make decisions about cigarettes and alcohol, or enter into binding contracts?
What's next from you? Making people carry through with what they said they wanted to be when they were four years old?
What of people who were doing everything "right" who got derailed by circumstances beyond their control? Or does that not exist in your odd little world?
If raising the minimum wage would effectively outlaw part time warehouse work at Amazon, how do you explain Amazon voluntarily increasing to $15/hr? Looks like it isn't so impossible after all.
And if it's not actually impossible, then nothing is "effectively outlawed" at all.
I'm reminded of an interview with a sandwich shop owner in N.Y. city complaining bitterly that with unemployment going down he has to be nice to his employees and even, God forbid, make sandwiches himself sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Hostess was mis-management, including an 80% raise for the entire C level the year before. The union trouble only started when the union worked out that the concessions they were being asked for would be hoovered out of the dying company, which would still die.
When a company blames pensions, usually what they actually mean is that the pension funds which were supposed to be prudently invested so they would be sufficient to cover pension were instead plundered and now there's not enough to cover it.
It's the corporate version of blowing the rent money in Vegas.
That only works if your base pay is actually enough to live within. Otherwise, you're stuck depending on bonuses to live, and suffering payday loans when the bonus doesn't come. It's better to do away with the bonuses (that is, money your employer pays you if/when he feels like it) and have a consistent income that makes ends meet.
I'm betting you haven't asked your employer to flip a coin to decide if you get paid this month or not.
Let's help you stop smoking by sending you on a Magical Mushroom Tour!
That seems a lot more sensible than the currently approved pill that has an 8% success rate and occasionally triggers a literally homicidal rage in otherwise normal people.
You're confusing profit and revenue. Profit is what you have left after you pay for everything you needed to bring in your revenue. So that 8 billion isn't being divided among the employees, it's being divided among the stock holders (minus what they keep aside for later).
The exception is Hollywood. In Hollywood, every movie takes a loss for tax and profit-sharing purposes.
Otoh, inconsistent income forces workers to very expensive and barely legal payday loans. Not only is that worse, but they can't avoid it even if they know it's a bad idea. Unlike the loans you are worried about.
I'm absolutely Amazon is doing this because they believe it is good for Amazon. They are, after all, a large corporation.
All I'm saying is that the fact that they're doing it shows that it is doable.
It is worth noting that more and more parents wish to discourage their kids from those "starter" jobs anyway since it mostly trains them to accept being treated as sub-human by bad managers while being underpaid.
However, it can be safely said that few teens actually qualify for any of the benefits programs since they still live with their parents.
This thread comes from an article about Amazon raising it's minimum hourly to $15/hr. Then you asked about teens.
As for Sanders, note that his reaction to the $15/hr announcement is that Bezos did exactly the right thing and he has called on other low-paying employers to follow suit.
Your dislike of the idea has lead you right off the rails in search of an objection. Even $100/hr isn't a living wage if you only work one hour. "Living wage" has always meant an hourly rate that offers a decent living if you work at or near 40 hrs/week.
Exactly that. Those manuals in the box from the '80s and '90s? Never read.
I'm not disputing that slaves are lousy workers. Just telling you that saying it will get you called a Nazi, by people like you.
Why would people like me disagree with people like me? Logic fail.
Look closely at the people you imagine will call me a Nazi. Don't you see the straw coming out of their sleeves?
That's because they have other social programs that allow for people to demand a worthwhile wage.
Employers WILL arbitrarily lower wages when the unemployment rate is positive and the government pushes people to employment in order to get benefits.
For non-human worker units (aka machines) they either pay what it costs to keep them running or they do without. Why do we willingly subsidize the operating cost of human worker units? If they won't pay what it costs to keep a human alive and in good enough condition to work, why shouldn't they do without?
So your main upset is that they don't hurry up and die?
You might find that they are willing to violently oppose your nice plan for them.
So, insults rather than arguments. I guess you're saying that now that you're over 18 you are learning disables? So much so that even riding the short bus can't help you?
You seem to be pointedly missing it. The slaves were lousy workers because the pay was lousy (zero).
If you got paid nothing, I'll bet you would do the bare minimum to not get whipped too.
You'd also probably desert at your first opportunity. Imagine that.
So your claim now is that they are inherently inferior? Sieg Heil!
So basic income it is. Easier to administer and actually closes the gap. It also avoids rewarding employers for paying less than the work is worth and expecting the rest of society to pay enough to keep their workers from dropping dead.
Or were you thinking of lowering the minimum wage to a penny because surely working 80 hours a week for a cheeseburger will help get people out of poverty.
A lot better than it will if they don't see a wage increase.
It would work even better if all employers had to pay better so they would make more at their other job as well.
Perhaps even enough that they don't need taxpayer funded assistance anymore. It might even eventually be enough to cover the last round of tax cuts.
Don't you think you might enjoy not paying a cheap-ass employer payroll subsidy tax?
So not overpaid, just adequately paid.
They will likely see some improvement as well since they could more easily get another job paying $15 and their employer can't afford for everyone to leave.
So no, they won't be pissed off. They will see benefits as well.
And at each and every one of those steps, labor is a small contributor to the price. Profit for the management and capital class is a larger chunk.
Even less of the cost is attributable to people being paid minimum wage.
If you were offered less than it costs to continue existing, you might not be willing to do much more than fog a mirror either.
Kinda like at one time, slaves were claimed to be universally lazy. It couldn't possibly have had anything to do with not being paid, no no no.
Yes, so outrageously expensive that Amazon is voluntarily increasing wages to match the goal.
But since you seem content to use your tax dollars to supplement inadequate pay, why not just finish the job and implement the basic income?
You mean at an age where we don't believe they are mature enough to vote, make decisions about cigarettes and alcohol, or enter into binding contracts?
What's next from you? Making people carry through with what they said they wanted to be when they were four years old?
What of people who were doing everything "right" who got derailed by circumstances beyond their control? Or does that not exist in your odd little world?
If raising the minimum wage would effectively outlaw part time warehouse work at Amazon, how do you explain Amazon voluntarily increasing to $15/hr? Looks like it isn't so impossible after all.
And if it's not actually impossible, then nothing is "effectively outlawed" at all.
I'm reminded of an interview with a sandwich shop owner in N.Y. city complaining bitterly that with unemployment going down he has to be nice to his employees and even, God forbid, make sandwiches himself sometimes.