Individual perceptions

PrintSmith wrote: Wholly lost, at least thus far, is this part of the article homeagain provided:

The higher wages and the higher menu prices help explain why there are 16 McDonald’s per million inhabitants in Denmark, but 45 McDonald’s per million in the United States, Mr. Jurajda said.

So much for the meme that a higher minimum wage will have no noticeable effect on the number of people employed, eh?

A non-main stream take on that. WHY is it necessary to have HUNDREDS of shampoo products on
the shelf,or a Starbuck's on almost every corner OR a McDonald's with THAT much exposure? We are over-loaded, MAXXED out on choices/options in this society (America)....more does NOT equate to better.JMO

homeagain wrote: Think I related this story previously, but it IS worth telling again. We lived in Conyers, Ga. for awhile
(couple of years)....had a fav restaurant that we continued to frequent BECAUSE of the wait person they
employed and they had a LIGHTER and healthier menu available.

The wait person was the ULTIMATE in a server. Knew us by name (along with many others) and knew
what and how we liked our dinner/lunch. Would continually make "rounds" of her stations and stop for a
moment to chat with each of her patrons...this was NOT a high end dining establishment,but just a comfortable atmosphere to dine at.

She was such an adroit employee, I asked her about her "chosen career" and this is what she said...I can make OVER $50,000 a year in tips just pretending to be "on stage" as a actor portraying a waitress. I"m GOOD at what I do and it makes me content.

That is not fair. Why should she make more just because she is better at her job than someone else. If I were a lousy waiter I would demand that the government pass a law that I get equal pay.


"By law, restaurant industry employers may estimate that each waiter or waitress receives at least 8 percent of their total sales receipts as tips and gratuities.

Read more : www.ehow.com/info_12021486_tip-claiming-waitresses-taxes.html

Wicked wrote: Why is it that fast-food, and even waitressing, jobs are regarded as "temporary" or "stepping stones" and not ones that people could aspire to for a longer career? Someone always has to work them, why should it always be "someone who should be moving on to something better?" I know people at my first job working in a popular, inexpensive sit-down restaurant who planned on being there the rest of their working career - they didn't want to do anything else.

What a paradigm shift if those jobs could actually sustain folks who aren't suited to go to college, or even vocational school, to actually earn a living. I mean, if they are gainfully employed, and happy working there, why shouldn't they be able to make enough to support a family rather than forcing themselves to go become an electrician or hairdresser because that's supposedly "better"? It's still good, honest work, not welfare. Stop being so judgmental about the type of work and pay them decent wages where they don't have to also get food stamp assistance, or live paycheck to paycheck. Maybe then businesses wouldn't have to deal with so much turnover and could be more stable? I don't disagree that more of that burden should fall on the business owners themselves to reward long-term employees and pay them more for the benefit they get in return of having experienced employees, rather than constantly hiring cheap temporary labor, but I see this as a societal attitude shift that needs to take place as well.

This, to me, is a classic case of trying to conflate the value of the person with the value of their labor. There is only so much value to an employer that any given job has. Sure, it would be nice if we would pay someone $50K a year to fry potatoes so that they could do that job for the rest of their lives and raise a family doing it, but the reality of the situation is that the value of that labor is far less than $50K a year. The other reality is that if you force the employer to pay someone $50K a year to fry potatoes, because it's good honest work that they enjoy doing, there aren't going to be a lot of places for that person to work. Think of how many more people would be unemployed, and receiving far more in benefits than they do now, if there were only a third the number of business employing people to fry potatoes than there are right now.

A fast food restaurant can be automated to the point of requiring a fraction of the staff necessary at the moment, and that is precisely what will happen when the cost of labor exceeds the cost of the technology necessary to do the same job.

20 years ago a pressman operating a two-color, 2-up press commanded in excess of $20/hr. That was when there were quick prints in every strip mall in the city. Today, thanks to advances in technology, we don't have quick prints in every strip mall and there are a fraction of the number of presses running that there used to be. Today that pressman commands a wage that is around $15/hr, not $20/hr. Not because they are less skilled than they used to be, not because they are less valuable as a person than they used to be, but because the value of their labor is significantly less than it was 20 years ago.

You simply can't assign the value of a person to the value of the labor they are performing. It doesn't work that way. Never has, never will.

PrintSmith wrote:

Wicked wrote: Why is it that fast-food, and even waitressing, jobs are regarded as "temporary" or "stepping stones" and not ones that people could aspire to for a longer career? Someone always has to work them, why should it always be "someone who should be moving on to something better?" I know people at my first job working in a popular, inexpensive sit-down restaurant who planned on being there the rest of their working career - they didn't want to do anything else.

What a paradigm shift if those jobs could actually sustain folks who aren't suited to go to college, or even vocational school, to actually earn a living. I mean, if they are gainfully employed, and happy working there, why shouldn't they be able to make enough to support a family rather than forcing themselves to go become an electrician or hairdresser because that's supposedly "better"? It's still good, honest work, not welfare. Stop being so judgmental about the type of work and pay them decent wages where they don't have to also get food stamp assistance, or live paycheck to paycheck. Maybe then businesses wouldn't have to deal with so much turnover and could be more stable? I don't disagree that more of that burden should fall on the business owners themselves to reward long-term employees and pay them more for the benefit they get in return of having experienced employees, rather than constantly hiring cheap temporary labor, but I see this as a societal attitude shift that needs to take place as well.

This, to me, is a classic case of trying to conflate the value of the person with the value of their labor. There is only so much value to an employer that any given job has. Sure, it would be nice if we would pay someone $50K a year to fry potatoes so that they could do that job for the rest of their lives and raise a family doing it, but the reality of the situation is that the value of that labor is far less than $50K a year. The other reality is that if you force the employer to pay someone $50K a year to fry potatoes, because it's good honest work that they enjoy doing, there aren't going to be a lot of places for that person to work. Think of how many more people would be unemployed, and receiving far more in benefits than they do now, if there were only a third the number of business employing people to fry potatoes than there are right now.

A fast food restaurant can be automated to the point of requiring a fraction of the staff necessary at the moment, and that is precisely what will happen when the cost of labor exceeds the cost of the technology necessary to do the same job.

20 years ago a pressman operating a two-color, 2-up press commanded in excess of $20/hr. That was when there were quick prints in every strip mall in the city. Today, thanks to advances in technology, we don't have quick prints in every strip mall and there are a fraction of the number of presses running that there used to be. Today that pressman commands a wage that is around $15/hr, not $20/hr. Not because they are less skilled than they used to be, not because they are less valuable as a person than they used to be, but because the value of their labor is significantly less than it was 20 years ago.

You simply can't assign the value of a person to the value of the labor they are performing. It doesn't work that way. Never has, never will.

[/b]

REALLY,guess you have CONVENIENTLY FORGOTTEN about the obscene salaries in sports and other hi profile occupations,huh?

homeagain wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:
You simply can't assign the value of a person to the value of the labor they are performing. It doesn't work that way. Never has, never will.

[/b]

REALLY,guess you have CONVENIENTLY FORGOTTEN about the obscene salaries in sports and other hi profile occupations,huh?

The reason these people make obscene (in your opinion) $$ is because they have obscene skills. The vast majority of people can't do what they can do. Actors-same thing. While I believe many make way more than their worth, their employers make a lot of money having them there. I guarantee if they could find someone who could do the same job for less $$, they would.

As evidenced recently when the Denver Broncos cut loose one of the best kickers in the game, a kicker who held the record for the longest field goal in NFL history, in favor for someone who, arguably at this point, isn't as good, but cost the team far less in salary.

homeagain wrote:

"PrintSmith wrote: You simply can't assign the value of a person to the value of the labor they are performing. It doesn't work that way. Never has, never will.

[/b]

REALLY,guess you have CONVENIENTLY FORGOTTEN about the obscene salaries in sports and other hi profile occupations,huh?

Not at all. The value of the labor they are performing is what matters, even in the NFL and Hollywood. Those that draw top dollar in salary also draw top performance numbers on the field or at the box office. Thus their compensation is still derived from the value of their labor and not their value as a person. If value as a person were the controlling factor, then Tim Tebow would still be a starting quaterback . . .

AGAIN, another NON-main stream thought....the "obscene" salaries the sports figures command does NOT equate to the service provided. NURSES, the lifeline of YOUR healthcare in a hospital,TEACHERS that educate YOUR children to think for themselves and hopefully become innovative adults....THOSE individuals provide services that SHOULD be highly rewarded but are NOT. The Inequity within the paradigm is glaring, it is just one of the reasons America is fubared. JMO

And, really, how often is one dependent upon that lifeline in the hospital over the course of their entire life home? I say without fear of contradiction that I have spent far more days enjoying a football game than I have spent recovering from illness in a hospital. Now, the nurse may be more vital if/when I do land in the hospital than a football player ever will be, but for the average person the nurse is far less of a factor in their everyday life.

And really, compared to what I have learned on my own, my teachers taught me very little while I was in school and nothing that I couldn't have learned on my own at the library if I desired to learn it. Abraham Lincoln taught himself to read and write. He taught himself the law, he taught himself surveying. We no longer ask whether or not a person wishes to be educated, we have decided for them that they will be, at least to a certain extent, with what we wish them to be educated in.