RiceLad15
Hall of Famer
Posts: 16,690
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
|
RE: The economy
(08-07-2020 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (08-07-2020 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (08-07-2020 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (08-07-2020 09:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (08-07-2020 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I worked my way through Rice for a while as a server, until the draft board called me up. My pay rate was $3.00 per 8 hour shift plus a free meal. yes, a long time ago, but it served as an incentive to get out there and do better. And better and better.
But yes, you can pay servers less than MW. Just depends on if you can get enough to work for that. After all, hiring is a competitive endeavor, and unless all your competitors are paying rock bottom, you won't get many applicants for rock bottom. Economics 101, which most lefties have never taken, much less passed.
So next time I see a server drive a Lexus to work, I will just ignore it.
You never did answer my question - would you continue to work if you were offered 120% of your salary to stay home? If so, why so?
You made more per hour than I did working at a restaurant in 2006/07 - luckily the tips were good at my job, so the hourly rate ended up around $10 to $15 per hour on most nights.
Your Econ 101 comment falls short of reality - job seekers don't have knowledge of all wage scales, have time constraints, and other items that cause them to not always select jobs with the highest wage possible for their talents. You're right that you won't get the best candidates with rock bottom wages, but the reality is that the majority of tipped positions are paid the tipped minimum wage, which is why tipping is important. And this system often results in tipped employees making great money (hence the Lexus'). What you don't see if a high, guaranteed salary as a regular server, busser, bartender, etc. But you can believe what you want in terms of how the restaurant industry actually works.
And would I stay home for 120% of my salary? Probably not because of the implications that would have for my career.
With tips, I made about $1.10/hour plus my only meal of the day. You made less? What year was this? For me, 1966.
But if your career was at McDonald's? I can see a professional such as you weighing things such as career advancement, 401K, seniority, etc. Much less of a factor for the MW laborer. Even so, if the government offered 120% to everybody on your payroll, i bet it would cripple the company.
Getting back to the $600 bonus for staying home, for a lot of people it works as an incentive to NOT go back to work. Is this intended or unintended?
I misread that - I thought you said $3.00 per hour. I made in the $2 per hour range - my paychecks were absolute jokes. But the envelope of cash at the end of the shift or week was great.
And you weren't talking about McDonald's, you were asking bout my decision about returning to work. And the $600 makes sense for professionals/managers that have been laid off due to the pandemic. As I've said a few times, revising it from a blunt force approach (which was perfectly fine back in March [or whenever it was]) is needed now. It should be used to provide appropriate funds (which should scale somehow) for those laid off and who can't find a job, are actively sick, or are at high risk, at a minimum.
Can't find a job? No wonder we talking at cross purposes. I was talking about workers who could go back to their employer but chose not to because of the extra money showered on them.
We are not talking about professions/managers so much as the bottom tier of employees. I can see where a pro making $90K being laid off could really use the extra $30K - after all, the more one makes the more one assumes expensive obligations such as house payments in a gated community or top of the line cars.
For lower tier employees, the $600 gets bigger and bigger.
You have mentioned scaling. I have heard nothing from Congress on scaling. I wonder why not.
Back to the basic question, the Democrats are offering incentives to stay home. Why?
I made this comment in another thread - the number of job openings vs unemployed is greatly skewed to unemployed, so I don't think there is a meaningful number of situations like this, that exist, for it to be a primary concern, and one to rail against, and certainly not the poison pill it is being made out to be. Are better solutions out there? Yep, but this should not be an issue keeping the Senate from acting on the House bill.
Studies back this general position up.
Quote:A growing body of research has shown no such correlation between boosted unemployment pay and people not returning to work. A Yale report published in July, for example, found that the extra $600 is not the primary reason people are, or are not, working. Rather, the most important factor in whether people returned to work was the availability of jobs.
“We think the reason for the lack of difference is that scarce job opportunities rather than labor supply has been the main factor in determining employment during the pandemic,” the report co-authors told CNBC Make It. “While some people may have chosen not to look for work because of the generosity of [unemployment] benefits, the dominating factor in employment levels has been low labor demand...”
An analysis from Ernie Tedeschi, an economist at Evercore ISI and former Treasury Department official, found that roughly 70% of people who returned to work in June were previously making more on unemployment benefits. This could be due, in part, to the rule that workers cannot turn down suitable work, including a callback to a previous job, or quit in order to continue receiving benefits.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/04/research...-work.html
|
|