InsideFlyer.com [English] United States InsideFlyer.uk [English] United Kingdom InsideFlyer.de [German] Germany InsideFlyer.no [Norwegian] Norway InsideFlyer.se [Swedish] Sweden InsideFlyer.dk [Danish] Denmark InsideFlyer.nl [Dutch] Benelux
Discussion in 'General Discussion | Travel' started by uggboy, Jun 13, 2014.
| Print Topic
LA Officials Approve Plan to Hike Hotel Workers’ Wages to $15.37
Some people only learn from experience, see, e.g., Seattle.
If the LA City Council does adopt this scheme, I would hope the hotels add a specific “living-wage surcharge” on their bills to cover this additional cost as was done in SeaTac, so people learn that these "redistribution gifts" have to be paid for by the consumer.
Overall, I find a higher wage is a great thing, no doubt about this, everyone wants to earn more and wants to earn a living wage, that's important as the cost of living goes up rather consistently in many individual ways. Hotel workers aren't slaves, and they should earn a decent wage while serving the guest. I'm sure you wouldn't want to live on the $US 8 minimum wage right now, so $US 15.37 sounds right, especially when it's a real living wage. This will contribute in the future that people have a spending power, which means they pay higher taxes, consume more and this leads to more jobs and less jobless. It's a win / win.
Here's another article of note regarding this very important theme:
Support for wage hikes gains momentum
As the workers' wages rise, you know the prices for the customers are going to rise, too, right? Which may then lead to customers patronizing businesses that charge less for their services because they're not covered by the living wage law (for whatever reason). Or do you think the business are just going to say,"Oh, we don't care that our profits are being cut. No, we're not going to pass the increase in cost on to the customers, since we're such nice guys."
(Edited to correct typo)
As the story notes, it also results in fewer jobs, because some workers simply aren't worth the additional wage -- the employer doesn't recoup value for what he pays, so he cuts the worker (or the job). In any event, in the end all wages are paid by the consumer anyway.
And there are reports of companies that were planning to relocate in SeaTac, and bring jobs, going elsewhere (and taking the jobs with them) because of the higher minimum wage. Then again anyone who took even an introductory economics course could have foreseen that.
Indeed, the article that uggboy links to specifically says:
Hardly a "win/win".
But the redistributionists (who always think they're giving away free money) never seem to learn.
Then why stop at $15.37 an hour? Let's mandate $100 per hour, then everyone will be happy, right?
A gradual, less intense jump in wages might have made it more palatable to everyone, but the way these increases are coming about isn't going to help anyone in the long run as that survey implicates, and if costs and hotel's rates go up sharply to cover those new wages, which they no doubt would have to, both the hotels and the consumers, in the long run, will be the biggest losers. Small firms may be forced to lay off some employees thus increasing the unemployment roles for each state, but in the rush to impliment all those increases have all the possible unpleasant results really been considered?
One other possible result for the employees is not layoffs but instead getting the new higher pay scale but many less hours to ease the strain on some firm's finances. Net result for the workers: not much of an improvement in overall takehome pay.
I remember 3 cent candy bars. And 12 cent a gallon gas.
1960 wages were $3.00 an hour, milk was 3 1/2 gallon for a dollar.
1 1/2 gallon of milk today is $5.00, maybe $15.00 an hour is not out of line.
1965 I made $21,000 on my taxes, paid $6500 for a new corvette, my 72 cost $9700, my 99 was $47,000,
Money is more about what you save, than what you make, at 72 they still tell me I am in the top %, It was done through saving and investing, not working by the hour.
Their is only so much one can make with his 2 hands, and there will always be people who spend every dime they make on their back, and someone ready to take it.
I have not been paid an hourly wage in over 50 years, back then I just wanted more hours,
Most people today do not know what work is, you have to hire 3 to get an hours worth of work done.
Walk in any store and you will be disturbing the clerk behind the counter,, and many will just ignore you.
Too many with their hands out not down, And we wonder why so many businesses fail, when their owners work so hard, and invest so much to succeed.
Satman40 thanks for bringing back all those memories. I got my first full time job in 1960, on Wall St., and spent many wonderful, stressful yet exciting and satisfying, years in that job. Prior to that I worked summers and some weekends at different jobs while in high school and college, and I can appreciate your comments completely, although I can't quite remember 3 cent candy bars, more like a nickel. We're the same age, yet your memory for some of those things may be better then mine.
Where we differ though is that I feel that the immediate jump from about $8.00 an hour minimum wage to over $15 an hour is too much too quickly and will be a massive strain on most businesses because of the suddenness of it's implimentation when put into law. What happened to Pres. Obama's suggestion of $10.10 an hour instead, which I think is more reasonable for now.
And you're right in saying that just because people may get higher wages, that doesn't mean that they'll all spend the additional money wisely, as with the changing times, and what I've come to call the "Gimme Generation", where they don't always feel they have to put in the same efforts to really earn their pay and appreciate the efforts it took to earn it, as many of us had to do some years ago, the large increases in the minimum wage may not really do more then eventually damage a still very fragile economy.
I'm envious of your '65 Corvette, very sharp car. My very first car was a 1966 Mustang that I ordered brand new from the nearest Ford dealer, with a four speed stick, small V-8, and was midnight blue with a white pinstripe along the inset of the doors which deleted those three small chrome darts on the doors that I didn't want. Cost of that beauty was a bit less then your Corvette though, at $2,600 all in, paid in full by me upon delivery. Now in my later years and many cars later, my wife wants me to get another new Mustang, and if I do, it will probably turn out to be my last car purchase because of my advancing age, but we'll see. (And I'd prefer a Lexus RX350 anyway!)
Slightly off topic, but talking about cars (and costs) from about that time.
I was in the service in 1965, stationed in Germany, shortly after the first Porsche 911 came out. Zuffenhausen had a deal for US military personnel (we were exempt from many of the taxes a German purchaser would have to pay) for $5,000, all in.
Sadly, I had to pass. A second lieutenant made the princely amount of about $315 per month, before taxes, whether he needed it or not, and a Private pulled down something like $70 per month. So, for the 2LT, it would take nearly 16 months' pay to get the car, and a PV2 would be waiting 6 years.
And I'm of an age with you two, but my memory also only goes back to nickel candy bars (and nickel Cokes in the wasp-waist bottle); it cost 3 cents to mail a letter, and "penny postcards" were still a penny.
And my wages in 1960 working during the summer to help pay for college started at $1.45 per hour.
My milk price example in comparison puts $15.00 an hour in line with a low paid worker, so it is not out of live, however the performance and production is lacking today.
The PP factor is built into the wages, most lower paid worker are not busy, and they need to be told what to do, or they just set there and talk to each other or make a cell call/text.
This is not to say higher paid workers also perform the same way,
I remember the 60's Syntex was my stock, everyone bought birth control pills..
$1.00 to $197.09 ....2 months and 2 weeks..,day trading was born, before computers..then it was off to Chrysler, the workers took a cut, instead of asking for a bail out....like today....skin in the game, instead of you owe me,
The candy bar was for pumping gas up into the glass globes, no electric pumps back then, when you put gas in the vehicles....
It has been an unbelievable life for he.
Counsellor said "..... and a Private pulled down something like $70 per month".
Slight correction: In 1964 as a Private, my pay was $74 per month.
I'm still a bit puzzled by your milk price analysis, satman.
You mention that milk was three half-gallons for a dollar in 1960. That comports with my recollection of milk going for 60 cents a gallon where I was.
However, you say you now pay $5.00 for a half-gallon. In South Florida, depending on where you shop and what the price is doing, we pay between $3.29 for a full gallon at Sam's Club (and sometimes groceries and Walgreens may have it cheaper as a loss-leader) to about $4.19 per gallon at Publix. You seem to be paying twice to three times as much.
According to the Fed, inflation from 1960 to 2014 was 798%, call it a factor of 8. The milk you and I bought in 1960 would cost about $5.00 per gallon in today's dollars using that figure, not twice as much. Why is milk so much higher in Indianapolis? Any idea? Would you like to move to Florida, where the price of milk hasn't kept up with inflation, and actually costs less per gallon than gas?
Nice reminder of how prices have gone up much more than wages. Back when people earned $3.50/hour they could support a family on it, and the companies they worked for thrived. Business claims to be much more efficient now, and yet they claim that if they pay proportionally equivalent to what they did 50 years ago they'd be in a crisis. Bull.
One difference could be that, 50 years ago, top management might have earned 5 or 10 times minimum wage, now they earn 5,000 or 10,000 times minimum wage. That money has to be sucked out of the system somewhere.
If they earned 10 time the 3.00 an hour then which is what a GM worker made in 65, would put management at $30.00 an hour.
Today $300.00 and hour will get you a medical specialist salary, not really a lot of money, $15,000 a month payroll after deductions.
What is a GM line Hourly rate ?
Wages are about performance, and production,not about minium hourly rate.
You must have qualified people, not a minium worker with a GED.
70% performance and attendance will get you a C in school, but In the real world it will get you a $7.00 hour job, unless you belong to a Union to protect you and get you $50.00 an hour
We seem to reward the Welfare worker with their hand out, while taxing the real workers paying for most of the Government hand outs,
It is no wonder this country is in decline, many of it's real workers, take home 50 cents on the dollar.
You can not make and keep a man rich, unless he has skin in the game.
Most people will take the easy way out, and really who can blame them,,give the $25.00 an hour, and they will still be broke having kids and drinking up the new found wealth, blaming other for their problems,
The biggest handouts go to the people who make the most for the least work, while sitting at desks or clipping coupons, not the people who are standing on their feet all day working.
I agree, and in reality the coupon clipper are planning for tomorrow,
Their is only so much money to be made with your 2 hands, and it is easier the make it above your shoulders than below your shoulders.
Man should always let big head do the thinking, not the little head,,,so they say...
one of two things will happen from this - or both
1. Prices will go up
2. People will lose their jobs
You forgot to add #3.
3. People will continue in their part time jobs at the new higher minimum wage, but find that their employer will then have to cut all their hours in order to afford to keep them all employed, and these hours being cut back will result in each part timer now bringing home about the same or less then when they were making their original pay rate regardless of their new higher hourly rate. If not, the employer will have to lay some of them off, resulting in them turning to EI to keep their families fed with a roof over their heads, which then brings us back to #2, otherwise known as, colloquilly speaking, #2y.
3 things will happen from this.
A possible #4:
4. Smaller firms may be unable to pay the increased pay scale for very long, as their profits no longer can support the change. They will either have to shut down, or face the bankruptcy courts in the long run.
(Okay, that may be part of your "things will happen from this", so we'll call it #3 1/2).
Today's world you hire 3 to get the work of one.
Tomorrow you will find one good worker, at twice the pay, and you can send the 3 old employees home.
Business is about performance and production,
Look around too much WAIST
Slight correction: Too much WASTE, although you may have meant that too large WAISTS mean workers can't work or move as well as we/they did years ago, and that largerness creates slower production and more WASTE from those larger WAISTS.
I was referring to weight, smokers are usually less productive workers also.
I have seen exceptions, but not often.
Help is a large expense, and risk with any business, we do our best to hold them, and reward them.
It really bothers me to have anyone leave after they have been with us a while, and it is hard to pass additional expenses on to the client,
The market will determine wages, not Governments.
Or the businesses survive but ripple effect of prices go up negates the increased salary but the government gets to congratulate themselves on a job "well done" on creating a socially responsible job market...
Separately, for the sake of a discussion, while (usually) poorly executed, sometimes, I do wonder if done well, does a community that redistribute wealth equally aka the ideal communism can be a better society than a capitalism based one where the wealth divide is ridiculous.