Metro Jacksonville

According to several groups, low- and minimum-wage workers are growing faster than any other group of earners.
24/7 Wall St. identified the 10 companies that employ the most low- and minimum wage workers.

10. Starbucks

9. TJX Companies (Marshalls, TJ Maxx, etc.)

8. Macy's

7. Darden Restaurants (Olive Garden, Red Lobster, etc.)

6. Sears Holdings

5. Yum! Brands (KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, etc.)

4. Kroger

3. Target

2. McDonald's

1. Walmart

full article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ten-companies-paying-americans-least-112523979.html

None here are surprising ... But the list doesn't make a lot of sense. Olive Garden pays the same wage (and comparable tips) you'd get working at Carmine's in Riverside. Same for most of the others. I think it should be pointed out that these are entry level jobs, with no prior experience necessary. These are supposed to jobs that one enters/re-enters the job market in. Hopefully, the excel in such positions and move up or out to higher positions with larger pay. I'll say the same I did when McDonalds employees were striking, those positions were not and should not be intended as lifelong careers. They are part time positions to be used as a gateway or subsidy to other employment.

There's only one Carmines.  Darden is a F500 company with hundreds of restaurants. They make the list because they employ more low/minimum wage workers altogether. These companies make this list based on their overall size.

I do know of someone who has worked at McDonalds for more than 20 years. (maybe 30)

After 8 years he hit the max hourly pay and could only get COLA's. So with the franchisee pushing him from behind he moved into the management program. He graduated from McDonalds University and after 6 months of managing a store he couldn't stand it and asked to go back to the cooking line.

The franchisee took him back but he lost his salary/benefits and went back to the previous hourly rate. He was still working a shift, and yes, still getting COLA's. No performance raises.

The last time I checked (~10 years ago) he was still there but ran into some problems because of a significant illness.

Quote from: thelakelander on November 17, 2013, 03:10:08 PM
There's only one Carmines.  Darden is a F500 company with hundreds of restaurants. They make the list because they employ more low/minimum wage workers altogether. These companies make this list based on their overall size.

Understandable but that's exactly my point, why are they singled out just because they are bigger? It is the one case where mon and pop places don't serve an advantage. I would look at it differently if local, single places paid more/less but they simply don't. It's like making a list about who sells more widgets. ABC widgets sells 1,000 out their 10 stores while XYZ sells 500 out of their 5 stores. Bottom line, each store sells 100 so comparison is moot.

@Spuwho, oh I know people like that as well. I don't understand it, but people who are happy there that is fine. It would be different had he wanted to keep the original job but get the management pay/benefits.

^^^I agree Jay. I'm so sick of Wal-Mart being the only one that's blamed, when there's a host of other companies making a boatload of money, that no one says anything about; Like Target, Macy's, and the ultra-liberal Starbucks, which is basically a coffee monopoly. With all of that being said, I'm sure that we all agree that the minimum wage definitely should be raised.

JayBird, I get your point.  U-10, I get your point too. There is some type of Infatuation with throwing Walmart under the bus when most of the other guys operate the same exact way.

Quote from: I-10east on November 17, 2013, 10:19:23 PM
^^^I agree Jay. I'm so sick of Wal-Mart being the only one that's blamed, when there's a host of other companies making a boatload of money, that no one says anything about; Like Target, Macy's, and the ultra-liberal Starbucks, which is basically a coffee monopoly. With all of that being said, I'm sure that we all agree that the minimum wage definitely should be raised.

I don't know the details at all, but I think Starbucks provides some level of health insurance and maybe other benefits that most of the others don't.  Walmart does get made out to be the bad guy, whereas Target does not.  On the other hand, if Walmart took the lead to offer more benefits, it would probably increase the likelyhood of the others doing the same. 

One thing that I think is long overdue, is to create a sub-minimum wage for teens.  A high school kid living with his parents does not need to make the same as a self-supporting adult, and usually does not have the experience and maturity of someone older either.  All that would be required is to provide the next increase only to the older workers.   

Holding the wage down for teens would increase the likelyhood of them forgoing a job and spending that time on the schooling.   

These companies are all "takers" as the teabag-types say.  They pay their employees low wages and the rest of us have to make up the difference via food stamps, housing subsidies, and medicaid. Corporate welfare, pure and simple.

Wal-mart is not an unfortunate punching bag. They've earned their reputation for being terrible to their employees, and otherwise.

What makes a company like Target or Starbucks any better outside of having business models that cater to a different type of customer base?

Quote from: finehoe on November 18, 2013, 11:45:44 AM
These companies are all "takers" as the teabag-types say.  They pay their employees low wages and the rest of us have to make up the difference via food stamps, housing subsidies, and medicaid. Corporate welfare, pure and simple.

and your solution would be what? 

Walmart gets more attention because they are MUCH bigger. They employ 2.2 million people vs Target at 360,000.

Revenue for Walmart is $469 Billion vs Target at $73 Billion.

Walmart also has a reputation for squeezing their suppliers so they also have to make cuts.

http://www.youtube.com/v/Ct1Moeaa-W8?version=3

Quote from: JayBird on November 17, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
None here are surprising ... But the list doesn't make a lot of sense. Olive Garden pays the same wage (and comparable tips) you'd get working at Carmine's in Riverside. Same for most of the others. I think it should be pointed out that these are entry level jobs, with no prior experience necessary. These are supposed to jobs that one enters/re-enters the job market in. Hopefully, the excel in such positions and move up or out to higher positions with larger pay. I'll say the same I did when McDonalds employees were striking, those positions were not and should not be intended as lifelong careers. They are part time positions to be used as a gateway or subsidy to other employment.

Yes, these should be entry level jobs. But more & more they're becoming just jobs for many people, with no avenue to move up or move on to something better. There's a reason why the wealth gap between young & old is the highest its ever been in history. Add some debt onto this, cost of living soaring, inflation, dollar value, etc & you can see why many young people are pissed & feel like they've been had. Opportunities are there sure, but they're fewer & far between. Its this lack of understanding between the young & old gens that tends to fuel comments such as yours.

Trust me. No one wants to make a life long career at Wal Mart, Target, etc, but what choices are the "job creators" giving them? We've killed local businesses for the most part, manufacturing, creating things, etc & let the corporate circus come right in & bend us all over. Now everyone's wondering why young people are so lazy & don't just "move up" the chain at a bunch of places that litter our cities which don't pay anything & only care about bottom lines & taking advantage of overseas slave labor? C mon.

Quote from: Lunican on November 18, 2013, 01:46:55 PM
Walmart gets more attention because they are MUCH bigger. They employ 2.2 million people vs Target at 360,000.

Revenue for Walmart is $469 Billion vs Target at $73 Billion.

Walmart also has a reputation for squeezing their suppliers so they also have to make cuts.

Not doubt they get more attention because of size, which is what JayBird pointed out about the 10 ten list in general.  However, they all are doing the same things. I'm not sure any of them are morally less corrupt.

QuoteToday, the share of the nation's income going to wages, which for decades was more than 50 percent, is at a record low of 43 percent, while the share of the nation's income going to corporate profits is at a record high. The economic lives of Americans today paint a picture of mass downward mobility. According to a National Employment Law Project study in 2012, low-wage jobs (paying less than $13.83 an hour) made up 21 percent of the jobs lost during the recession but more than half of the jobs created since the recession ended. Middle-income jobs (paying between $13.84 and $21.13 hourly) made up three-fifths of the jobs lost during the recession but just 22 percent of the jobs created since.

In 2013, America's three largest private-sector employers are all low-wage retailers: Wal-Mart, Yum! Brands (which owns Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Kentucky Fried Chicken) and McDonald's. In 1960, the three largest employers were high-wage unionized manufacturers or utilities: General Motors, AT&T, and Ford.

http://prospect.org/article/40-year-slump

Based on what I'm reading Walmart is a whole other breed of animal. The lower end wages at Wal-Mart are similar to Target's but management wages are way better at Target. Plus, there is the happiness factor. Target, apparently, has happy employees (and COSTCO has really happy employees).

I just saw the below article. It is about Walmart holding a food drive at one of their stores...for their employees, to celebrate Thanksgiving.

Talk about a welfare mentality. The audacity of wal-mart asking their customers to provide food for their employees is amazing. It's almost thrilling.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/11/is_walmarts_request_of_associa.html#incart_river_default%23incart_m-rpt-2

Quote from: finehoe on November 18, 2013, 02:55:54 PM

QuoteToday, the share of the nation's income going to wages, which for decades was more than 50 percent, is at a record low of 43 percent, while the share of the nation's income going to corporate profits is at a record high. The economic lives of Americans today paint a picture of mass downward mobility. According to a National Employment Law Project study in 2012, low-wage jobs (paying less than $13.83 an hour) made up 21 percent of the jobs lost during the recession but more than half of the jobs created since the recession ended. Middle-income jobs (paying between $13.84 and $21.13 hourly) made up three-fifths of the jobs lost during the recession but just 22 percent of the jobs created since.

In 2013, America's three largest private-sector employers are all low-wage retailers: Wal-Mart, Yum! Brands (which owns Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Kentucky Fried Chicken) and McDonald's. In 1960, the three largest employers were high-wage unionized manufacturers or utilities: General Motors, AT&T, and Ford.

http://prospect.org/article/40-year-slump

We are becoming a retail/service economy, and retail/service economies don't have the jobs to sustain a middle class. That's why our middle class is shrinking

I tend to think that this generation is lazier than the last, which was lazier than the one before it and so on and so on. It easy to point fingers at Corporate America and overall corporate greed because people in those positions make it so easy. It is America's version of royalty. As for having to be "trapped" in a job that is intended as a stepping stone, that is purely because they lack the ambition to move forward. There are options for them, but it calls for hard work. It calls for long hours, studying for a job you want, sacrificing time at the bar on weekends and missing a few date nights. The primary reason, in my opinion, that they are/feel "stuck" in those dead end jobs is because they choose to have free time with family, friends or themselves instead of going after what they want. There is absolutely nothin wrong with this, however they cannot do so and then blame the big corporations for their lack of initiative. I know my view is skewed, this year has been the first year I haven't worked two or three jobs since graduating high school in 1999. Those jobs, at the regular across the board minimum wage levels provided for my degrees, taught me how to be humble, how to deal with all sorts of people and how to take responsibility for your choices right or wrong. I think the real cause of the shift hasn't been corporations or mom and pop stores or whom is/was in the White House. I think it has more to do with our upbringing. This generation that has been entering the workforce is the first one that got participation trophies in pop warner football, that had parents who bought "things" because they didn't want their children to struggle like they had to. I grew up watching my dad work at the township road department and cutting lawns at night while my mom drove a school bus and hocked cheap jewelry at a kiosk in our mall. But all of their kids were raised and they too for multiple jobs until we achieved the level we wanted. Are the companies bad, of course. But guess what, chances are when Al runs out of money and the a/c at home breaks, he dips into the pizzeria to get it fixed. The majority of the time, small business does just as much immoral acts as the major corporations it is just the scale of such acts are different. I don't justify those actions by large or small, but is it really right to pick out the big ones just because they are bigger?

Quote from: JayBird on November 18, 2013, 03:40:03 PM
The primary reason, in my opinion, that they are/feel "stuck" in those dead end jobs is because they choose to have free time with family, friends or themselves instead of going after what they want.

Oh, please.  As many people have noted, a disproportionate share of the jobs being created in this upturn are in low-paying sectors like restaurants and retail trade. This means that even the people who are able to find work in the current labor market conditions are unlikely to get a job that will provide enough income to support a family.

This is clearly bad news for large segments of the workforce. The question is why are we seeing so many bad jobs?

It is people's desperation that is forcing them to take bad jobs that they would not have considered otherwise. The bad jobs were always there, but most people had better alternatives so they didn't take them. What's changed from the period when we didn't see so many bad jobs is that we have a much weaker labor market. The weakness of the labor market is the key factor in this story, not that people are "lazier".

so what's the solution?

If people are more lazy nowadays, how is it that productivity has increased strongly:

QuoteU.S. productivity growth has averaged 2 to 3 percent per year in the period 1995-2004, compared with less than 1.5 percent per year from 1973 to 1995. The strong productivity growth of the past decade is comparable with the 1948-73 period. The two peak years in the recent period have equalled the peaks of the earlier 1948-73 period. The improvement in productivity growth has survived the stock market bust of 2000, the subsequent decline in investment, a recession, rising fiscal deficits, wars, and skyrocketing oil prices.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11354

Yet those gains aren't being passed on to the workers.

Is that increase in productivity due to harder workers or better technology?

(http://www.motherjones.com/files/Screen%20Shot%202013-03-08%20at%2011.36.19%20AM.png)

Quote from: JayBird on November 18, 2013, 03:40:03 PM
I know my view is skewed, this year has been the first year I haven't worked two or three jobs since graduating high school in 1999. Those jobs, at the regular across the board minimum wage levels provided for my degrees, taught me how to be humble, how to deal with all sorts of people and how to take responsibility for your choices right or wrong.

Lol. Try doing that now. I think you'd be in for a rude awakening. I wont embarrass you by posting tuition cost stats. Like I said. Out of touch with today's reality.

BTW, I'm not a "youngin" either & was in college around the same time you were.

Quote from: peestandingup on November 18, 2013, 04:20:58 PM

Quote from: JayBird on November 18, 2013, 03:40:03 PM
I know my view is skewed, this year has been the first year I haven't worked two or three jobs since graduating high school in 1999. Those jobs, at the regular across the board minimum wage levels provided for my degrees, taught me how to be humble, how to deal with all sorts of people and how to take responsibility for your choices right or wrong.

Lol. Try doing that now. I think you'd be in for a rude awakening. I wont embarrass you by posting tuition cost stats. Like I said. Out of touch with today's reality.

BTW, I'm not a "youngin" either & was in college around the same time you were.

I agree.  The notion of working your way through school is exponentially tougher now than even 15 years ago.

You're correct that it is harder now, mostly because college is now a requirement when though it was important 15 years ago it was more of an option.

As for those looking for better jobs: a quick search of my employer, JPMorgan Chase & Co., shows 1,629 current openings in my division and just in the United States, with the lowest paid one offering $52k located in Cincinnati, OH. I think company wide we have something near 4,000 openings. So ... Where are all those people that need a good paying job? Well, for one they do not want to move (I work between two cities so the 1200mi commute can be a pain), maybe they chose to go into a trade, my mechanic friend owns a transmission shop on the southside off Philips hwy has been looking for good mechanic. His others make around $60k yet almost 6 months searching still has an opening.

Or maybe, just maybe, those jobs require you to have ambition and drive to get the job done, not skate through a shift stocking shelves or counting money. The jobs are there if they want them, but nothing worth it in life comes easy.

Quote from: stephendare on November 18, 2013, 04:43:34 PM

Quote from: CityLife on November 18, 2013, 04:19:03 PM
Is that increase in productivity due to harder workers or better technology?

more productive workers.  when you look at gdp divided by number of workers as a measure of productivity, the tech impact on profitability and worker productivity is pretty exponential.

I'm not sure you can accurately quantify how much more productive today's workers are that work with a computer vs. a typewriter/notepad, or a more smoothly automated manufacturing system vs. something done manually.

I worked at Winn Dixie in high school when the first self checkout machines opened (late 90's). They basically enabled the same level of productivity to occur with one less cashier and 1 to 2 less baggers. It would take a ridiculously thorough study to figure how much easier all jobs are today vs. in the past due to technology.

Quote from: finehoe on November 18, 2013, 04:04:03 PM

Quote from: JayBird on November 18, 2013, 03:40:03 PM
The primary reason, in my opinion, that they are/feel "stuck" in those dead end jobs is because they choose to have free time with family, friends or themselves instead of going after what they want.

Oh, please.  As many people have noted, a disproportionate share of the jobs being created in this upturn are in low-paying sectors like restaurants and retail trade. This means that even the people who are able to find work in the current labor market conditions are unlikely to get a job that will provide enough income to support a family.

This is clearly bad news for large segments of the workforce. The question is why are we seeing so many bad jobs?

It is people's desperation that is forcing them to take bad jobs that they would not have considered otherwise. The bad jobs were always there, but most people had better alternatives so they didn't take them. What's changed from the period when we didn't see so many bad jobs is that we have a much weaker labor market. The weakness of the labor market is the key factor in this story, not that people are "lazier".

You are absolutely correct!

The way I understood it the story is unclear whether the store or the associates themselves were running the collection. It appears it was not corporate running the collection. The photo taking employee didn't say she talked to anyone in management or another employee for that matter to find out what was going on.
She just got disgruntled and went to the union organizer.


Does this mean that I'm supposed to get angry that my company isn't doing more when someone makes a collection for a sick coworker, a wedding, a death, etc? 

QuoteI tend to think that this generation is lazier than the last, which was lazier than the one before it and so on and so on.

I tend to think the way you think is lazy. Please explain how this generation is lazier than the last?

QuoteIt easy to point fingers at Corporate America and overall corporate greed because people in those positions make it so easy. It is America's version of royalty.

You know what happened to royalty, right? It didn't last for very good reasons. Maybe the not so lazy generations of the past were actually being lazy when they demanded representation and a democratization of power. If only they would have looked at the generation before them and worked harder for royalty. Is this your logic?

QuoteAs for having to be "trapped" in a job that is intended as a stepping stone, that is purely because they lack the ambition to move forward.

Oh, I didn't know you were into economic planning, very communist of you. I wasn't aware that some jobs had been designated "stepping stones." Do you know where those decisions are made? I'd like to maybe participate.

Also, please tell me when ambition or a lack became the new litmus test for paying for a job. I thought it was hard work and honest living. Guess not, now the people at their "stepping stone" jobs lack ambition and their lack of pay is justified.  ::)

You know, picking on the "poor" is not new but it is way easier than thinking.  ;)

QuoteThere are options for them, but it calls for hard work. It calls for long hours, studying for a job you want, sacrificing time at the bar on weekends and missing a few date nights. The primary reason, in my opinion, that they are/feel "stuck" in those dead end jobs is because they choose to have free time with family, friends or themselves instead of going after what they want.

I mean, what idiots would choose to spend time with family and friends. At least, I'm sure, we'll end up blaming these imaginary people for the breakdown of the family unit when they follow your sage advice.

In light of the recent article about the Thanksgiving food drive you'd think these "thems" are trying to live in a utopia. Do they actually expect Walmart to pay for labor? Do they actually expect to buy food? Please, let them eat cake. There is plenty of that.

Do me a another favor? Can you please describe who "them" is to you?

QuoteThose jobs, at the regular across the board minimum wage levels provided for my degrees, taught me how to be humble, how to deal with all sorts of people and how to take responsibility for your choices right or wrong. I think the real cause of the shift hasn't been corporations or mom and pop stores or whom is/was in the White House. I think it has more to do with our upbringing.

Your minimum wage jobs paid for your degrees? Then you really have no idea what it means to work hard because that sounds like a dream.

What's wrong with the other people in minimum level jobs? Apparently, they haven't learned humility? Or, is it that they don't have ambition? Or, is it that they don't know right from wrong? Doesn't matter, "they're" "lazy!"

QuoteThis generation that has been entering the workforce is the first one that got participation trophies in pop warner football, that had parents who bought "things" because they didn't want their children to struggle like they had to. I grew up watching my dad work at the township road department and cutting lawns at night while my mom drove a school bus and hocked cheap jewelry at a kiosk in our mall. But all of their kids were raised and they too for multiple jobs until we achieved the level we wanted.

Stupid parents, telling their kids they matter and that they are important whether they fail or succeed. What kind of parent would not wrap up a child's self worth only on their accomplishments. As we know, that makes for great people.

All joking aside, I think stories of people "making it" are usually pretty amazing but I think you make a grave mistake when you project your situations in life and assume they are the same for everyone. If everyone had the same circumstances as you then you would have all of the answers and we would not have any problems.

Quotethis year has been the first year I haven't worked two or three jobs since graduating high school in 1999

Ah, the good ol' days, when the American dream could be attained by working three jobs :-)

Well it was just my opinions, which not everyone has to agree with. Interesting responses though, I have learned a little and I thank you all for that.

Quote from: JayBird on November 18, 2013, 06:47:58 PM
Well it was just my opinions, which not everyone has to agree with. Interesting responses though, I have learned a little and I thank you all for that.

way to diffuse.  :D

^ Just picking my battles.

Quote from: JayBird on November 18, 2013, 05:04:27 PM
a quick search of my employer, JPMorgan Chase & Co., shows 1,629 current openings in my division and just in the United States, with the lowest paid one offering $52k located in Cincinnati, OH. I think company wide we have something near 4,000 openings. So ... Where are all those people that need a good paying job?

Not everyone is comfortable working for a criminal enterprise.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/10/jpmorgan-chase-13-billion-settlement-justice-department

Quote from: JayBird on November 18, 2013, 05:04:27 PM
You're correct that it is harder now, mostly because college is now a requirement when though it was important 15 years ago it was more of an option.

As for those looking for better jobs: a quick search of my employer, JPMorgan Chase & Co., shows 1,629 current openings in my division and just in the United States, with the lowest paid one offering $52k located in Cincinnati, OH. I think company wide we have something near 4,000 openings. So ... Where are all those people that need a good paying job? Well, for one they do not want to move (I work between two cities so the 1200mi commute can be a pain), maybe they chose to go into a trade, my mechanic friend owns a transmission shop on the southside off Philips hwy has been looking for good mechanic. His others make around $60k yet almost 6 months searching still has an opening.

Or maybe, just maybe, those jobs require you to have ambition and drive to get the job done, not skate through a shift stocking shelves or counting money. The jobs are there if they want them, but nothing worth it in life comes easy.

guess I know where I'm looking tomorrow

Where I'm at now companies are desperate for workers, a few problems though.  A: have to be able to read and write, that a bigger problem than you would imagine.  B: show up, an even bigger problem.  C: pass a piss test, yet even a bigger problem.  D: LEARN, don't need a college degrees for any of these industries, steel, Oil, shipyards, aviation, but you have to work and learn and start at the bottom, all these jobs have benefits!

yeah civil... same problems where I am at.  What is the dropout rate just here in Jax?  30%?  What should those folks get paid?  Should someone get paid more because they have 3 kids at 21 than the single 21 year old?  I mean... the so called "living wage" is different for each circumstance right?  As for the Walmart food drives... every place I have EVER worked including the USN has had food drives during the holidays for less fortunate employees.  Blaming Walmart for encouraging this kindness is pretty pathetic and indeed politically oportunistic... sad.

So those that work in the corporate world need workers, yet those outside of it say there is no jobs. Interesting. If only we had some sort of technology that could link the two.

But in all seriousness, the original point was are these companies any more at fault than smaller ones for lower wages? In my opinion, no. WalMart does have labor issues, but the wage they are paid isn't one of them because many places, small and large, local and national pay the minimum  wage. I have read reports that WalMart forces workers to work extra shifts, skip over workers for favoritism in promotions and bonuses and terminate employment for silly reasons (in my opinion) and those are bad labor issues. But in terms of the article, I think that it is kind of unfair to grade companies as "top 10" that pay the least when there are literally hundreds of thousands of companies that "pay the least".

@fsquid - if you are looking for employment PM me and I'll put your resume in the right hands. Management indiscretions aside, I love my job and it is a good company to work for.

only problem I've run into working down here is the attitude of working past 5.  People look at you like you are insane if you want them to work past 5 on a weekday.  I've even had someone tell me that we don't pay them after 5, so why should they work?

Quote from: fsquid on November 19, 2013, 09:59:00 AM
People look at you like you are insane if you want them to work past 5 on a weekday.

Yes, we should all devote all of our waking hours to work.

Didn't say that, said when you ask that they do on occasion they look at you like you are crazy.  I've not had that problem in other locations.

Quote from: stephendare on November 19, 2013, 10:06:45 AM

Quote from: fsquid on November 19, 2013, 09:59:00 AM
only problem I've run into working down here is the attitude of working past 5.  People look at you like you are insane if you want them to work past 5 on a weekday.  I've even had someone tell me that we don't pay them after 5, so why should they work?

Yeah, you would get the feeling that the amount of compensation they get isnt enough to make them feel committed to the project.

Weird how that never happens at Apple.

we pay well compared to the average in this market.  Again, haven't had this problem in Charlotte, Richmond, LA, Memphis, or the DC area.

Quote from: fsquid on November 19, 2013, 10:12:07 AM

Quote from: stephendare on November 19, 2013, 10:06:45 AM

Quote from: fsquid on November 19, 2013, 09:59:00 AM
only problem I've run into working down here is the attitude of working past 5.  People look at you like you are insane if you want them to work past 5 on a weekday.  I've even had someone tell me that we don't pay them after 5, so why should they work?

Yeah, you would get the feeling that the amount of compensation they get isnt enough to make them feel committed to the project.

Weird how that never happens at Apple.

we pay well compared to the average in this market.  Again, haven't had this problem in Charlotte, Richmond, LA, Memphis, or the DC area.

I can attest to the same issue when I was with HSBC. Closed down because Jax was just bad labor pool compared to the sister offices in San Diego, New Castle and Las Vegas. However, they left in 2007 and if you remember back then people could pretty much still pick and choose jobs up until 2005/2006 so that may play a part as well.

Quote from: finehoe on November 19, 2013, 10:03:03 AM

Quote from: fsquid on November 19, 2013, 09:59:00 AM
People look at you like you are insane if you want them to work past 5 on a weekday.

Yes, we should all devote all of our waking hours to work.

That's an interesting take on fsquid's statement.

Agree with what another poster stated, Jacksonville has an awful labor pool for blue collar jobs.  Blue collar jobs that pay well.

Glad everyone is leaving Starbucks alone...

Quote from: JayBird on November 19, 2013, 10:49:55 AM

Quote from: fsquid on November 19, 2013, 10:12:07 AM

Quote from: stephendare on November 19, 2013, 10:06:45 AM

Quote from: fsquid on November 19, 2013, 09:59:00 AM
only problem I've run into working down here is the attitude of working past 5.  People look at you like you are insane if you want them to work past 5 on a weekday.  I've even had someone tell me that we don't pay them after 5, so why should they work?

Yeah, you would get the feeling that the amount of compensation they get isnt enough to make them feel committed to the project.

Weird how that never happens at Apple.

we pay well compared to the average in this market.  Again, haven't had this problem in Charlotte, Richmond, LA, Memphis, or the DC area.

I can attest to the same issue when I was with HSBC. Closed down because Jax was just bad labor pool compared to the sister offices in San Diego, New Castle and Las Vegas. However, they left in 2007 and if you remember back then people could pretty much still pick and choose jobs up until 2005/2006 so that may play a part as well.

Quote from: MEGATRON on November 19, 2013, 10:53:44 AM

Quote from: finehoe on November 19, 2013, 10:03:03 AM

Quote from: fsquid on November 19, 2013, 09:59:00 AM
People look at you like you are insane if you want them to work past 5 on a weekday.

Yes, we should all devote all of our waking hours to work.

That's an interesting take on fsquid's statement.

Agree with what another poster stated, Jacksonville has an awful labor pool for blue collar jobs.  Blue collar jobs that pay well.

I don't think FL as a whole is known for a "hard-working" labor force.  Quite a contrast when you travel up the east coast or over to the left coast to see the kind of hours people work in other cities!  I've pulled 6 all nighters in the past 2 weeks and was in the office til 2 last night, back again right now (granted I typically only work a "60 hour" week).  Though candidly I work a "white collar" job, that doesn't necessarily mean shit right now when my taxes are insane and the average rental price where I live approaches $3,000/mo.

Interesting read with pictures and commentary to see what SF apartments are renting for nowadays  :o

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/11/18/the_10_worst_apartments_currently_for_rent_in_san_francisco.php

It doesn't matter anyway.  We are closing our office here and the 4 of us who report to other cities are going to move into executive suites next month.  The work that our office here is doing will get done out of Orlando, Raleigh, and Charlotte.

So where once a sole breadwinner could work 9-5 and support a family in a middle-class lifestyle, now if you aren't willing to commute between cities, work 60-hour weeks, and work uncompensated overtime, you are a slacker and lazy.

Is that really the kind of society we want to aspire to?

Also likely the top ten list of companies with the highest number of unskilled workers on the payroll.

In the modern world No skill = No money.  Like it or not it's a supply and demand world and there is a large supply of no/low skill workers.

Quote from: finehoe on November 19, 2013, 04:45:52 PMIs that really the kind of society we want to aspire to?

It may not be the society we want to aspire to, but it's what we're competing against internationally.  The world is flat, as they say.

Quote from: Traveller on November 19, 2013, 05:04:09 PM
it's what we're competing against internationally.  The world is flat, as they say.

That's what neoclassical economic theory preaches, but the empirical record of trade liberalisation finds that "free trade" actually reduces material welfare rather than increasing it.

"Advocates of global economic integration hold out utopian visions of the prosperity that countries will reap if they open their borders to commerce and capital. This hollow promise diverts nations' attention and resources from the key domestic innovations needed to spur economic growth."

http://bss.sfsu.edu/jmoss/resources/635_pdf/No_17_Rodrik.pdf

Quote from: finehoe on November 19, 2013, 04:45:52 PM
So where once a sole breadwinner could work 9-5 and support a family in a middle-class lifestyle, now if you aren't willing to commute between cities, work 60-hour weeks, and work uncompensated overtime, you are a slacker and lazy.

Is that really the kind of society we want to aspire to?

That is not what I am saying, but you seem hellbent on making it seem that way. I am saying that jobs are there, people just need to adapt to those jobs IF they don't like their current situation. Sitting back and expecting a great paying job to come to Jacksonville is unrealistic, and blaming the 10 largest companies by employment numbers (you know, the actual point of this thread) is sort of unfair.

And yes, one thing that makes our country last is our ability to adapt and change with the times. Some people are happy living paycheck to paycheck, though they want more money they are still satisfied and that is fine. They are happy, not lazy. Waiting for the big van to pull up and bring balloons and a big check to your door while you complain about how "society" is keeping you down, that is lazy.

Quote from: JayBird on November 19, 2013, 05:45:25 PM
I am saying that jobs are there

You can say it all you want, but that doesn't make it so.

"So far this year, low-paying industries have provided 61 percent of the nation's job growth, even though these industries represent just 39 percent of overall U.S. jobs, according to Labor Department numbers analyzed by Moody's Analytics. Mid-paying industries have contributed just 22 percent of this year's job gain.

"The jobs that are being created are not generating much income," Steven Ricchiuto, chief economist at Mizuho Securities USA, wrote in a note to clients.

That's one reason Americans' pay hasn't kept up with even historically low inflation since the Great Recession ended in June 2009. Average hourly pay fell to $23.98 an hour."

LoL you can pull someone's opinion from the internet all you want. As I've stated, and others have verified, the job boards differ from those statements. Also I think many people in Jax would love to be making the "average" of $23.98/hr.

In addition, most people understand that labor statistics aren't based off of actual employed people, they are based off of those seeking unemployment benefits. So yes, I tend to believe what I can see is true at my job and what others tell me than what some statistician shows on a chart after reviewing 3month old data and comparing it to last 3-5 years.

Quote from: finehoe on November 19, 2013, 05:54:56 PM

Quote from: JayBird on November 19, 2013, 05:45:25 PM
I am saying that jobs are there

You can say it all you want, but that doesn't make it so.

"So far this year, low-paying industries have provided 61 percent of the nation's job growth, even though these industries represent just 39 percent of overall U.S. jobs, according to Labor Department numbers analyzed by Moody's Analytics. Mid-paying industries have contributed just 22 percent of this year's job gain.

"The jobs that are being created are not generating much income," Steven Ricchiuto, chief economist at Mizuho Securities USA, wrote in a note to clients.

That's one reason Americans' pay hasn't kept up with even historically low inflation since the Great Recession ended in June 2009. Average hourly pay fell to $23.98 an hour."

The jobs are there... who is going to fill them?  The overall HS graduation rate hovers at around 70%... with minorities around 50%.  The 30% overall and 50% of minorities are doomed to perpetual minimum wage jobs unless THEY do something to change things.  Apparently the ones who do graduate from both HS and University are still lacking high tech skills needed that are being taught in other countries... prompting some companies to expand job searches abroad.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34swanson.h29.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/05/08/top-10-companies-hiring-immigrants-and-what-theyre-paying/

^good point BT, that's a viewpoint I hadn't considered.

The high tech skill they often lack is the ability to feed a family on chump change. It's not that workers are unavailable in the US who can write software code, far from it. Just none willing to do a given job for what the company would like to pay for it. Basic supply and demand, although they misconstrue this as no workers being available. Unfortunately now there is the third option of outsourcing or importing workers from some other economically disadvantaged country, which has the result you'd expect, declining average wages in the US. For any given job, offer a high enough salary and I guarantee you'll fill it domestically. That isn't what's happening, it's a constant move to 'how cheap can I get away with.'

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:40:29 AM
The high tech skill they often lack is the ability to feed a family on chump change. It's not that workers are unavailable in the US who can write software code, far from it. Just none willing to do a given job for what the company would like to pay for it. Basic supply and demand, although they misconstrue this as no workers being available. Unfortunately now there is the third option of outsourcing or importing workers from some other economically disadvantaged country, which has the result you'd expect, declining average wages in the US. For any given job, offer a high enough salary and I guarantee you'll fill it domestically. That isn't what's happening, it's a constant move to 'how cheap can I get away with.'

Not sure this even makes sense Chris.  So you are telling me that since the american high tech engineer will not work for "chump change" at some company... they are opting for Walmart and Starbucks?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 09:46:38 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:40:29 AM
The high tech skill they often lack is the ability to feed a family on chump change. It's not that workers are unavailable in the US who can write software code, far from it. Just none willing to do a given job for what the company would like to pay for it. Basic supply and demand, although they misconstrue this as no workers being available. Unfortunately now there is the third option of outsourcing or importing workers from some other economically disadvantaged country, which has the result you'd expect, declining average wages in the US. For any given job, offer a high enough salary and I guarantee you'll fill it domestically. That isn't what's happening, it's a constant move to 'how cheap can I get away with.'

Not sure this even makes sense Chris.  So you are telling me that since the american high tech engineer will not work for "chump change" at some company... they are opting for Walmart and Starbucks?

More like they go do something else for somebody else somewhere else instead of work for less than what their student loans or supporting their family costs them.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:52:43 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 09:46:38 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:40:29 AM
The high tech skill they often lack is the ability to feed a family on chump change. It's not that workers are unavailable in the US who can write software code, far from it. Just none willing to do a given job for what the company would like to pay for it. Basic supply and demand, although they misconstrue this as no workers being available. Unfortunately now there is the third option of outsourcing or importing workers from some other economically disadvantaged country, which has the result you'd expect, declining average wages in the US. For any given job, offer a high enough salary and I guarantee you'll fill it domestically. That isn't what's happening, it's a constant move to 'how cheap can I get away with.'

Not sure this even makes sense Chris.  So you are telling me that since the American high tech engineer will not work for "chump change" at some company... they are opting for Walmart and Starbucks?

More like they go do something else for somebody else somewhere else instead of work for less than what their student loans or supporting their family costs them.

So... your suggesting American high tech skilled workers are opting for higher paying jobs overseas while US firms are hiring foreign high tech skilled workers and paying them less?  I cannot remember seeing anything describing this exodus of US talent.  There is plenty of evidence for American firms hiring foreign talent due to a lack of qualified American...

http://immigrationimpact.com/2012/05/24/administration-takes-step-to-keep-talented-foreign-students-in-the-u-s/

QuoteAdministration Takes Step to Keep Talented Foreign Students in the U.S.

Current U.S. immigration law provides few options for foreign graduates of U.S. universities with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math ("STEM" degrees) who want to stay here to contribute their skills and knowledge. Not enough American students are interested in these fields, even as employers regularly cannot find enough people with the high-tech and scientific knowledge and skills they need to fill available positions. Luckily for the United States, international students seek out these majors and excel in them. But increasingly, we lose these talented graduates to other competitor countries where immigration laws are friendlier. This is, of course, an enormous loss to the U.S. economy, as international students with STEM degrees often create successful businesses and jobs in the United States. Last week, DHS took a strong step forward by expanding the list of STEM fields for foreign graduates applying to training programs after graduation.
- See more at: http://immigrationimpact.com/2012/05/24/administration-takes-step-to-keep-talented-foreign-students-in-the-u-s/#sthash.IWkBZ8KE.dpuf

Quote from: Apache on November 20, 2013, 09:49:07 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:40:29 AM
The high tech skill they often lack is the ability to feed a family on chump change. It's not that workers are unavailable in the US who can write software code, far from it. Just none willing to do a given job for what the company would like to pay for it. Basic supply and demand, although they misconstrue this as no workers being available. Unfortunately now there is the third option of outsourcing or importing workers from some other economically disadvantaged country, which has the result you'd expect, declining average wages in the US. For any given job, offer a high enough salary and I guarantee you'll fill it domestically. That isn't what's happening, it's a constant move to 'how cheap can I get away with.'

Don't you cut costs as much as possible at your office to increase your profits? Doesn't anyone who runs a business?
Is the outrage people have because of the scale these companies?

Any business person that doesn't negotiate with their suppliers and contractors, hire cheap or free interns, switches suppliers for a better price, etc is considered a bad business person. And after we whittle down our costs we all try to figure out a way to charge more for our product or service.

We all do the same thing as Wal Mart. Just on a smaller scale.

On some things yes, on other things no. I don't skimp on staff, my lowest paid employee still makes double minimum wage, and both my paralegals have law degrees. It's worth it to me not having to retrain somebody every 5 minutes because of high turnover, or having to fire people who don't know what they're doing or can't learn, these types are really only competing for the job on price alone anyway. That's not worth it in the long run. Being able to come back to my office and find the MSJ I asked for sitting on my desk finished with the research and all, that is worth something. I view staff like pretty much anything else, you have to pay more for more brain cells. I'll admit that if I was in some industry where all we did was make widgets that were all exactly alike, then a lot of what holds true for me wouldn't apply.

If you look at what the fortune 500s do they spend billions on process engineering to compartmentalize tasks and break them down to an allegedly idiot proof level, then try and have whatever can't be done by machine done by minimum wage labor. It's almost obsessive compulsive, if you back out the cost of training and turnover, lower productivity caused by lower satisfaction, and whatever percentage of your own cake you're eating because these people can't afford to shop at your store or buy your product themselves (probably doesn't apply in Walmart's or McDonald's case, but would for places like Starbucks) then it's got to be a wash or even a loss over just hiring fewer people to do more work at a livable wage.

The real difference is nobody I employ is on welfare, food stamps, or medicaid. If my employees can't subsist without government assistance, or if I can't fill a job at a wage that allows an employee to take it and have it make financial sense for them, then there's a problem with the way I do business, not with the employee or with the job market. As taxpayers, I'm surprised you'd agree to subsidize that, you're paying for it, as am I, and everyone else.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 10:00:24 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:52:43 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 09:46:38 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:40:29 AM
The high tech skill they often lack is the ability to feed a family on chump change. It's not that workers are unavailable in the US who can write software code, far from it. Just none willing to do a given job for what the company would like to pay for it. Basic supply and demand, although they misconstrue this as no workers being available. Unfortunately now there is the third option of outsourcing or importing workers from some other economically disadvantaged country, which has the result you'd expect, declining average wages in the US. For any given job, offer a high enough salary and I guarantee you'll fill it domestically. That isn't what's happening, it's a constant move to 'how cheap can I get away with.'

Not sure this even makes sense Chris.  So you are telling me that since the American high tech engineer will not work for "chump change" at some company... they are opting for Walmart and Starbucks?

More like they go do something else for somebody else somewhere else instead of work for less than what their student loans or supporting their family costs them.

So... your suggesting American high tech skilled workers are opting for higher paying jobs overseas while US firms are hiring foreign high tech skilled workers and paying them less?  I cannot remember seeing anything describing this exodus of US talent.  There is plenty of evidence for American firms hiring foreign talent due to a lack of qualified American...

That happens a lot for the record, but what I meant was more in the vein of taking up something that may not be what they wanted to do but pays better. Which is a mistake in terms of efficiency from a market perspective, human capital is best applied doing what they like doing, they're more productive and better at it.

we try to cut costs on travel and non-labor materials, but on staff we also do not skim and try to be in the top 75% of pay when compared to our rivals.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 10:16:47 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 10:00:24 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:52:43 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 09:46:38 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:40:29 AM
The high tech skill they often lack is the ability to feed a family on chump change. It's not that workers are unavailable in the US who can write software code, far from it. Just none willing to do a given job for what the company would like to pay for it. Basic supply and demand, although they misconstrue this as no workers being available. Unfortunately now there is the third option of outsourcing or importing workers from some other economically disadvantaged country, which has the result you'd expect, declining average wages in the US. For any given job, offer a high enough salary and I guarantee you'll fill it domestically. That isn't what's happening, it's a constant move to 'how cheap can I get away with.'

Not sure this even makes sense Chris.  So you are telling me that since the American high tech engineer will not work for "chump change" at some company... they are opting for Walmart and Starbucks?

More like they go do something else for somebody else somewhere else instead of work for less than what their student loans or supporting their family costs them.

So... your suggesting American high tech skilled workers are opting for higher paying jobs overseas while US firms are hiring foreign high tech skilled workers and paying them less?  I cannot remember seeing anything describing this exodus of US talent.  There is plenty of evidence for American firms hiring foreign talent due to a lack of qualified American...

That happens a lot for the record, but what I meant was more in the vein of taking up something that may not be what they wanted to do but pays better. Which is a mistake in terms of efficiency from a market perspective, human capital is best applied doing what they like doing, they're more productive and better at it.

Hmmm... so... American companies DO pay well... they just don't pay well for jobs Americans LIKE to do?  Seems kind of backward to me.  So we import workers to do High paying jobs because Americans don't like those jobs and prefer to get paid more for jobs that don't pay well? 

We also apparently want to import millions of unskilled laborers to do other jobs Americans do not want to do or pay well enough.

Well... OK... I think we have just identified a big part of the problem...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 10:51:49 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 10:16:47 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 10:00:24 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:52:43 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 09:46:38 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:40:29 AM
The high tech skill they often lack is the ability to feed a family on chump change. It's not that workers are unavailable in the US who can write software code, far from it. Just none willing to do a given job for what the company would like to pay for it. Basic supply and demand, although they misconstrue this as no workers being available. Unfortunately now there is the third option of outsourcing or importing workers from some other economically disadvantaged country, which has the result you'd expect, declining average wages in the US. For any given job, offer a high enough salary and I guarantee you'll fill it domestically. That isn't what's happening, it's a constant move to 'how cheap can I get away with.'

Not sure this even makes sense Chris.  So you are telling me that since the American high tech engineer will not work for "chump change" at some company... they are opting for Walmart and Starbucks?

More like they go do something else for somebody else somewhere else instead of work for less than what their student loans or supporting their family costs them.

So... your suggesting American high tech skilled workers are opting for higher paying jobs overseas while US firms are hiring foreign high tech skilled workers and paying them less?  I cannot remember seeing anything describing this exodus of US talent.  There is plenty of evidence for American firms hiring foreign talent due to a lack of qualified American...

That happens a lot for the record, but what I meant was more in the vein of taking up something that may not be what they wanted to do but pays better. Which is a mistake in terms of efficiency from a market perspective, human capital is best applied doing what they like doing, they're more productive and better at it.

Hmmm... so... American companies DO pay well... they just don't pay well for jobs Americans LIKE to do?  Seems kind of backward to me.  So we import workers to do High paying jobs because Americans don't like those jobs and prefer to get paid more for jobs that don't pay well? 

We also apparently want to import millions of unskilled laborers to do other jobs Americans do not want to do or pay well enough.

Well... OK... I think we have just identified a big part of the problem...

Well, then it's really a question of 'high paying' to who, isn't it? An $18k/yr job probably looks pretty damn good in India or Mexico, but wouldn't allow you live beyond the subsistence level in most places here in the U.S. That's why outsourcing and importing people from other places are both increasingly popular. Many of these firms are intentionally offering a wage that makes it unaffordable for people to take the job here, and then sending the job off somewhere else where the economic conditions are comparatively depressed, or they bring people over through recruiting programs who are willing eat ramen and share a 2 bedroom apartment with 7 people to stockpile $800/mo because that's big money back wherever they're from and they're planning on going back there anyway. This is an economic drain, and has had a pretty devastating effect on our domestic economy as a whole.

Walmart does the same thing, but a little differently. Instead of using exchange rates and global wealth disparities to what one could argue is an unethical, at the very least selfish and unpatriotic, advantage, they simply use the government to subsidize wages so low that nobody could afford to accept them otherwise. If government social programs weren't subsidizing their wages, half their employees would probably not be able to take the jobs.

Besides for the harm this causes to our national economy, I personally believe there are also solid business reasons why it doesn't make nearly much sense as they think it does. Even Walmart has got to have losses from turnover and training, lower productivity due to dissatisfaction, customer losses caused by bad front-line experiences, etc. There's also an entire segment of the population who just won't shop there because because they don't feel like waiting 45 minutes in a checkout line, or having nobody around to help them if they can't find something, and mainly because they don't have to. There is a real cost to all of that, though the exact dollar amount is probably hard to quantify.

Quote from: JayBird on November 19, 2013, 08:25:32 PM
So yes, I tend to believe what I can see is true at my job and what others tell me than what some statistician shows on a chart

Yes, anecdotes are always more valid than statistical evidence.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 12:02:11 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 10:51:49 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 10:16:47 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 10:00:24 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:52:43 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 09:46:38 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:40:29 AM
The high tech skill they often lack is the ability to feed a family on chump change. It's not that workers are unavailable in the US who can write software code, far from it. Just none willing to do a given job for what the company would like to pay for it. Basic supply and demand, although they misconstrue this as no workers being available. Unfortunately now there is the third option of outsourcing or importing workers from some other economically disadvantaged country, which has the result you'd expect, declining average wages in the US. For any given job, offer a high enough salary and I guarantee you'll fill it domestically. That isn't what's happening, it's a constant move to 'how cheap can I get away with.'

Not sure this even makes sense Chris.  So you are telling me that since the American high tech engineer will not work for "chump change" at some company... they are opting for Walmart and Starbucks?

More like they go do something else for somebody else somewhere else instead of work for less than what their student loans or supporting their family costs them.

So... your suggesting American high tech skilled workers are opting for higher paying jobs overseas while US firms are hiring foreign high tech skilled workers and paying them less?  I cannot remember seeing anything describing this exodus of US talent.  There is plenty of evidence for American firms hiring foreign talent due to a lack of qualified American...

That happens a lot for the record, but what I meant was more in the vein of taking up something that may not be what they wanted to do but pays better. Which is a mistake in terms of efficiency from a market perspective, human capital is best applied doing what they like doing, they're more productive and better at it.

Hmmm... so... American companies DO pay well... they just don't pay well for jobs Americans LIKE to do?  Seems kind of backward to me.  So we import workers to do High paying jobs because Americans don't like those jobs and prefer to get paid more for jobs that don't pay well? 

We also apparently want to import millions of unskilled laborers to do other jobs Americans do not want to do or pay well enough.

Well... OK... I think we have just identified a big part of the problem...

Well, then it's really a question of 'high paying' to who, isn't it? An $18k/yr job probably looks pretty damn good in India or Mexico, but wouldn't allow you live beyond the subsistence level in most places here in the U.S. That's why outsourcing and importing people from other places are both increasingly popular. Many of these firms are intentionally offering a wage that makes it unaffordable for people to take the job here, and then sending the job off somewhere else where the economic conditions are comparatively depressed, or they bring people over through recruiting programs who are willing eat ramen and share a 2 bedroom apartment with 7 people to stockpile $800/mo because that's big money back wherever they're from and they're planning on going back there anyway. This is an economic drain, and has had a pretty devastating effect on our domestic economy as a whole.

Walmart does the same thing, but a little differently. Instead of using exchange rates and global wealth disparities to what one could argue is an unethical, at the very least selfish and unpatriotic, advantage, they simply use the government to subsidize wages so low that nobody could afford to accept them otherwise. If government social programs weren't subsidizing their wages, half their employees would probably not be able to take the jobs.

Besides for the harm this causes to our national economy, I personally believe there are also solid business reasons why it doesn't make nearly much sense as they think it does. Even Walmart has got to have losses from turnover and training, lower productivity due to dissatisfaction, customer losses caused by bad front-line experiences, etc. There's also an entire segment of the population who just won't shop there because because they don't feel like waiting 45 minutes in a checkout line, or having nobody around to help them if they can't find something, and mainly because they don't have to. There is a real cost to all of that, though the exact dollar amount is probably hard to quantify.

Shockingly... If what you are implying is true... the US government and specifically the current administration is very complicit in lowering wages for US high skilled graduates by increasing the numbers of work visa's for skilled workers and the numbers of foreign students to stay and work.  Of course the reasoning given for this is a LACK OF US HIGHLY TRAINED WORKERS in these fields.  In this particular case I tend to believe the government because it coinsides with what these companies are saying... coupled witheducation stats.

I would contend that the top ten listed here beginning with Walmart and ending with Starbucks pay what they do is because there is a HUGE surplus of undertrained, unskilled workers both within the citizenry and being imported or allowed across the border.  As long as that huge surplus exists... so will the wages.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 12:32:39 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 12:02:11 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 10:51:49 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 10:16:47 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 10:00:24 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:52:43 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 09:46:38 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:40:29 AM
The high tech skill they often lack is the ability to feed a family on chump change. It's not that workers are unavailable in the US who can write software code, far from it. Just none willing to do a given job for what the company would like to pay for it. Basic supply and demand, although they misconstrue this as no workers being available. Unfortunately now there is the third option of outsourcing or importing workers from some other economically disadvantaged country, which has the result you'd expect, declining average wages in the US. For any given job, offer a high enough salary and I guarantee you'll fill it domestically. That isn't what's happening, it's a constant move to 'how cheap can I get away with.'

Not sure this even makes sense Chris.  So you are telling me that since the American high tech engineer will not work for "chump change" at some company... they are opting for Walmart and Starbucks?

More like they go do something else for somebody else somewhere else instead of work for less than what their student loans or supporting their family costs them.

So... your suggesting American high tech skilled workers are opting for higher paying jobs overseas while US firms are hiring foreign high tech skilled workers and paying them less?  I cannot remember seeing anything describing this exodus of US talent.  There is plenty of evidence for American firms hiring foreign talent due to a lack of qualified American...

That happens a lot for the record, but what I meant was more in the vein of taking up something that may not be what they wanted to do but pays better. Which is a mistake in terms of efficiency from a market perspective, human capital is best applied doing what they like doing, they're more productive and better at it.

Hmmm... so... American companies DO pay well... they just don't pay well for jobs Americans LIKE to do?  Seems kind of backward to me.  So we import workers to do High paying jobs because Americans don't like those jobs and prefer to get paid more for jobs that don't pay well? 

We also apparently want to import millions of unskilled laborers to do other jobs Americans do not want to do or pay well enough.

Well... OK... I think we have just identified a big part of the problem...

Well, then it's really a question of 'high paying' to who, isn't it? An $18k/yr job probably looks pretty damn good in India or Mexico, but wouldn't allow you live beyond the subsistence level in most places here in the U.S. That's why outsourcing and importing people from other places are both increasingly popular. Many of these firms are intentionally offering a wage that makes it unaffordable for people to take the job here, and then sending the job off somewhere else where the economic conditions are comparatively depressed, or they bring people over through recruiting programs who are willing eat ramen and share a 2 bedroom apartment with 7 people to stockpile $800/mo because that's big money back wherever they're from and they're planning on going back there anyway. This is an economic drain, and has had a pretty devastating effect on our domestic economy as a whole.

Walmart does the same thing, but a little differently. Instead of using exchange rates and global wealth disparities to what one could argue is an unethical, at the very least selfish and unpatriotic, advantage, they simply use the government to subsidize wages so low that nobody could afford to accept them otherwise. If government social programs weren't subsidizing their wages, half their employees would probably not be able to take the jobs.

Besides for the harm this causes to our national economy, I personally believe there are also solid business reasons why it doesn't make nearly much sense as they think it does. Even Walmart has got to have losses from turnover and training, lower productivity due to dissatisfaction, customer losses caused by bad front-line experiences, etc. There's also an entire segment of the population who just won't shop there because because they don't feel like waiting 45 minutes in a checkout line, or having nobody around to help them if they can't find something, and mainly because they don't have to. There is a real cost to all of that, though the exact dollar amount is probably hard to quantify.

Shockingly... If what you are implying is true... the US government and specifically the current administration is very complicit in lowering wages for US high skilled graduates by increasing the numbers of work visa's for skilled workers and the numbers of foreign students to stay and work.  Of course the reasoning given for this is a LACK OF US HIGHLY TRAINED WORKERS in these fields.  In this particular case I tend to believe the government because it coinsides with what these companies are saying... coupled witheducation stats.

I would contend that the top ten listed here beginning with Walmart and ending with Starbucks pay what they do is because there is a HUGE surplus of undertrained, unskilled workers both within the citizenry and being imported or allowed across the border.  As long as that huge surplus exists... so will the wages.

You hit the nail on the head, every administration since Reagan, and really heating up under Clinton with NAFTA, has been infatuated with globalization and listens to these whining Fortune 500 companies who bitch and moan as though they're about to go out of business despite record profits (and more importantly who make campaign contributions). These guys have managed to create a grossly underpaid shadow workforce on our own soil, and have then sent much of the rest overseas through outsourcing. The current administration is no different, absolute denialism on what 'globalization' as it's currently interpreted actually causes.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 12:45:56 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 12:32:39 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 12:02:11 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 10:51:49 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 10:16:47 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 10:00:24 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:52:43 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 09:46:38 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on November 20, 2013, 09:40:29 AM
The high tech skill they often lack is the ability to feed a family on chump change. It's not that workers are unavailable in the US who can write software code, far from it. Just none willing to do a given job for what the company would like to pay for it. Basic supply and demand, although they misconstrue this as no workers being available. Unfortunately now there is the third option of outsourcing or importing workers from some other economically disadvantaged country, which has the result you'd expect, declining average wages in the US. For any given job, offer a high enough salary and I guarantee you'll fill it domestically. That isn't what's happening, it's a constant move to 'how cheap can I get away with.'

Not sure this even makes sense Chris.  So you are telling me that since the American high tech engineer will not work for "chump change" at some company... they are opting for Walmart and Starbucks?

More like they go do something else for somebody else somewhere else instead of work for less than what their student loans or supporting their family costs them.

So... your suggesting American high tech skilled workers are opting for higher paying jobs overseas while US firms are hiring foreign high tech skilled workers and paying them less?  I cannot remember seeing anything describing this exodus of US talent.  There is plenty of evidence for American firms hiring foreign talent due to a lack of qualified American...

That happens a lot for the record, but what I meant was more in the vein of taking up something that may not be what they wanted to do but pays better. Which is a mistake in terms of efficiency from a market perspective, human capital is best applied doing what they like doing, they're more productive and better at it.

Hmmm... so... American companies DO pay well... they just don't pay well for jobs Americans LIKE to do?  Seems kind of backward to me.  So we import workers to do High paying jobs because Americans don't like those jobs and prefer to get paid more for jobs that don't pay well? 

We also apparently want to import millions of unskilled laborers to do other jobs Americans do not want to do or pay well enough.

Well... OK... I think we have just identified a big part of the problem...

Well, then it's really a question of 'high paying' to who, isn't it? An $18k/yr job probably looks pretty damn good in India or Mexico, but wouldn't allow you live beyond the subsistence level in most places here in the U.S. That's why outsourcing and importing people from other places are both increasingly popular. Many of these firms are intentionally offering a wage that makes it unaffordable for people to take the job here, and then sending the job off somewhere else where the economic conditions are comparatively depressed, or they bring people over through recruiting programs who are willing eat ramen and share a 2 bedroom apartment with 7 people to stockpile $800/mo because that's big money back wherever they're from and they're planning on going back there anyway. This is an economic drain, and has had a pretty devastating effect on our domestic economy as a whole.

Walmart does the same thing, but a little differently. Instead of using exchange rates and global wealth disparities to what one could argue is an unethical, at the very least selfish and unpatriotic, advantage, they simply use the government to subsidize wages so low that nobody could afford to accept them otherwise. If government social programs weren't subsidizing their wages, half their employees would probably not be able to take the jobs.

Besides for the harm this causes to our national economy, I personally believe there are also solid business reasons why it doesn't make nearly much sense as they think it does. Even Walmart has got to have losses from turnover and training, lower productivity due to dissatisfaction, customer losses caused by bad front-line experiences, etc. There's also an entire segment of the population who just won't shop there because because they don't feel like waiting 45 minutes in a checkout line, or having nobody around to help them if they can't find something, and mainly because they don't have to. There is a real cost to all of that, though the exact dollar amount is probably hard to quantify.

Shockingly... If what you are implying is true... the US government and specifically the current administration is very complicit in lowering wages for US high skilled graduates by increasing the numbers of work visa's for skilled workers and the numbers of foreign students to stay and work.  Of course the reasoning given for this is a LACK OF US HIGHLY TRAINED WORKERS in these fields.  In this particular case I tend to believe the government because it coinsides with what these companies are saying... coupled witheducation stats.

I would contend that the top ten listed here beginning with Walmart and ending with Starbucks pay what they do is because there is a HUGE surplus of undertrained, unskilled workers both within the citizenry and being imported or allowed across the border.  As long as that huge surplus exists... so will the wages.

You hit the nail on the head, every administration since Reagan, and really heating up under Clinton with NAFTA, has been infatuated with globalization and listens to these whining Fortune 500 companies who bitch and moan as though they're about to go out of business despite record profits (and more importantly who make campaign contributions). These guys have managed to create a grossly underpaid shadow workforce on our own soil, and have then sent much of the rest overseas through outsourcing. The current administration is no different, absolute denialism on what 'globalization' as it's currently interpreted actually causes.

It certainly may be part of the problem... but Americans themselves need to take a good look at what they are doing and not doing.  It begins with our HS graduation rate which hovers at 70% and is as low as 50% for certain groups.  This ensures that 30 -50% of our workforce is destined for minimum wage jobs.  This is a surplus our top ten is more than happy to help employ.

To excaberate the surplus of minimum wagers... we are allowing millions of new (illegal) immigrants who are willing to work for less than the minimum.  There appear to be plenty of employers willing to hire them.

Next our best students who do go to university and graduate... are getting degrees in fields they "like" rather than the fields "available".  This of course requires companies to hire people from other countries to fill the void with the aid of the US government.

11 Reasons to Love Costco -

1. The company pays a living wage. Costco's CEO and president, Craig Jelinek, has publicly endorsed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, and he takes that to heart. The company's starting pay is $11.50 per hour, and the average employee wage is $21 per hour, not including overtime. Most other big box retailers start their employees at minimum wage.

2. Workers get benefits. About 88 percent of Costco employees have company-sponsored health insurance, according to David Sherwood, Costco's Director of Financial Planning and Investor Relations. "I just think people need to make a living wage with health benefits," Jelinek told Bloomberg. "It also puts more money back into the economy and creates a healthier country. It's really that simple."

3. The CEO makes a reasonable salary. Costco's CEO makes far less than most executives, with a total compensation package of about $4.83 million in 2012. In contrast, Walmart CEO Mike Duke made roughly $19.3 million during the same year. Walmart's CEO earns as much as 796 average employees, according to CNN Money, compared to Costco's CEO making 48 times more than the company's median wage.


4. Costco helped its employees weather the recession. When the economic crisis hit and other retailers laid off workers, Costco's CEO approved a $1.50-an-hour wage increase for many hourly employees, spread out over three years.

5. Costco doesn't kill Thanksgiving. While many of its competitors are forcing employees to work on Thanksgiving Day, Costco will buck the trend and stay closed.

6. It also doesn't waste money on expensive advertising. The company doesn't advertise nor does it hire a public relations staff. Meanwhile, Walmart dropped $1.89 billion on ads in 2011.

7. Its prices aren't horrendously high. Costco never marks up products by more than 15 percent, while most retailers commonly mark products up by more than 25 percent.

8. It embraces equality. Costco scored extremely well (90/100) on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, an assessment of LGBT policies in the workplace.

9. It hires from the inside. More than 70 percent of its warehouse managers began their careers working the register or the floor.

10. Costco's employees are loyal. For employees that have worked at the company for more than one year, the annual turnover rate is below six percent, according to Sherwood. For executives, the turnover rate is less than one percent.

11. Free samples. Need we say more?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/reasons-love-costco_n_4275774.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/reasons-love-costco_n_4275774.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009)

Research shows the US is a low wage country

Recent research from John Schmitt of the Center for Economic Policy Research shows that the US leads developed countries in the share of workers earning low wages. The research also shows that increased wage polarization over the last several decades is one of the reasons for the large share of low wage-work in the US.

(http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/04/18/low-wage.gif)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57415828/research-shows-the-us-is-a-low-wage-country/

^ Completly disregarding the fact that a lot has changed between today and April 2012 I really don't see this worth commenting. If you would just like someone to say you are right, than finehoe you are right. The corporations are running the world and forcing Americans to either be upper class or mere peasant slaves. Thank you for boosting my ego and pride as I've never been considered part of the 1% before. You are awesome, much appreciated.

This quote from BT, good points I agree and couldn't say it better myself.

Quote
It certainly may be part of the problem... but Americans themselves need to take a good look at what they are doing and not doing.  It begins with our HS graduation rate which hovers at 70% and is as low as 50% for certain groups.  This ensures that 30 -50% of our workforce is destined for minimum wage jobs.  This is a surplus our top ten is more than happy to help employ.

To excaberate the surplus of minimum wagers... we are allowing millions of new (illegal) immigrants who are willing to work for less than the minimum.  There appear to be plenty of employers willing to hire them.

Next our best students who do go to university and graduate... are getting degrees in fields they "like" rather than the fields "available".  This of course requires companies to hire people from other countries to fill the void with the aid of the US government.

Quote from: finehoe on November 20, 2013, 04:38:27 PM
Research shows the US is a low wage country

Recent research from John Schmitt of the Center for Economic Policy Research shows that the US leads developed countries in the share of workers earning low wages. The research also shows that increased wage polarization over the last several decades is one of the reasons for the large share of low wage-work in the US.

(http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/04/18/low-wage.gif)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57415828/research-shows-the-us-is-a-low-wage-country/

Cool... now corelate those figures with drop out rates for for high school aged children... then compare illegal immigration pressures on wage scales and you will find your answer.

Stay in school... 30 to 50% dropout rate ensures a huge supply of low wage labor.
Get a degree companies want... reducing their need to look outside the country
Curtail illegal immigration to reduce downward pressure on wages.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 05:34:27 PM
30 to 50% dropout rate

Where are you getting this figure from?  The DoE says it is below ten percent:

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/images/figure-coj-1.gif)

Quote from: JayBird on November 20, 2013, 04:55:46 PM
^ Completly disregarding the fact that a lot has changed between today and April 2012

Really?  What has changed so much in the last 18 months?

Quote from: finehoe on November 20, 2013, 05:48:52 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 05:34:27 PM
30 to 50% dropout rate

Where are you getting this figure from?  The DoE says it is below ten percent:

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/images/figure-coj-1.gif)

Quote from: JayBird on November 20, 2013, 04:55:46 PM
^ Completly disregarding the fact that a lot has changed between today and April 2012

Really?  What has changed so much in the last 18 months?

I posted this link earlier...  where is your link?

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34swanson.h29.html

You will find differing figures... DOE likely includes GED and alternative forms of "graduation".  By most measures GED is not an equivilant.  Those that get GED's usually require intense remediation to continue to advanced college or university.

And which one of those countries invented the following: the Internet, GPS, the microprocessor, the transistor, is home to most of the world leading technology companies as well as leading most of the world in entertainment and music.

The USA.

It's so easy to forget the greatness of this country and it's accomplishments.

Quote from: finehoe on November 20, 2013, 04:38:27 PM
Research shows the US is a low wage country

Recent research from John Schmitt of the Center for Economic Policy Research shows that the US leads developed countries in the share of workers earning low wages. The research also shows that increased wage polarization over the last several decades is one of the reasons for the large share of low wage-work in the US.

(http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/04/18/low-wage.gif)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57415828/research-shows-the-us-is-a-low-wage-country/

http://wamu.org/news/morning_edition/12/02/21/graduation_rates_increase_around_the_globe_as_us_plateaus

QuoteGraduation Rates Increase Around The Globe As U.S. Plateaus

Other countries have pulled ahead, and the U.S. falls behind

By: Kavitha Cardoza
February 21, 2012

More than at any other time, getting a good job requires a strong education, especially in a global market. But in international rankings of high school graduation, the U.S. is near the bottom of the list of developed countries. It's a statistic that has not gone unnoticed by educators and policymakers at the highest levels, and many of them are now looking to other countries to see where American schools can improve.

In 2009, President Obama spoke to students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, carrying a strong message: dropping out is not patriotic.

"If you quit on school, you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country," he said.

The president has said other countries were "out-educating us." It seems they're also out-graduating us.

The United States used to be number one for high school graduation. But times have changed. In 2009, the U.S. ranked 21st out of 26 OECD countries when it came to high school graduation rate, according to Andreas Schleicher, Deputy Director for Education for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

"Basically the completion rate is pretty low, by international standards, in the United States," Schleicher says. Portugal and Slovenia were tied for first in the rankings, Japan and Finland hold the number two spot, and the Czech Republic ranks 17th.

Internationally, a greater focus on academics

Romana Dvoracek and her family moved from the Czech capital of Prague to D.C. two years ago.

"I ask them what happens in school and what did they learn. It's usually my first and last question every day," Dvoracek says, adding, with a laugh, "They say nothing happened."

Her children may be similar to American teenagers, more interested in messaging friends online than chatting with parents. But their educational experiences are very different from those of their American peers. Tomas, 19, is a senior at Bethesda Chevy Chase High School in Maryland. He found classes in his home country much more challenging.

"When I came here I had biology, physics, chemistry, all the credits for all three classes," Tomas says. "There, it was common.  Here, if you take all three you're like a hero or something!"

He loves the extracurricular activities that his American school offers, though.

"In my school, there's a club for anything and if there isn't one, you just make one," he says. "Chess, model UN, crew. In Czech Republic, there's nothing like that."

American schools: too much of a social focus?

But the reasons Tomas loves the U.S. schooling system could be why the U.S. has lost its competitive edge, says researcher Tom Loveless with the Brookings Institution. Loveless says American schools have diluted their academic mission, by emphasizing the social experience: sports, proms and clubs.

Graph showing US ranking...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/82204617/Global-Graduation-Rates-By-Country-Source-OECD

Costco is a well run company but if all businesses were run like Costco, where would the unskilled, uneducated find work?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 06:00:36 PM
where is your link?

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 06:00:36 PM
DOE likely includes GED and alternative forms of "graduation".  By most measures GED is not an equivilant.  Those that get GED's usually require intense remediation to continue to advanced college or university.

No, it doesn't include GED.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 20, 2013, 06:00:36 PM
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34swanson.h29.html

That article is from 2010...according to JayBird that is much too old.  Apparently there has been massive changes in the employment picture in the US since last year.  ::)

Quote from: Tony B on November 20, 2013, 06:41:49 PM
It's so easy to forget the greatness of this country and it's accomplishments.

It's also easy to sit on one's laurels while other countries pass you by in the mistaken belief you will always be number one.

Quote from: finehoe on November 20, 2013, 07:26:22 PM

That article is from 2010...according to JayBird that is much too old.  Apparently there has been massive changes in the employment picture in the US since last year.  ::)

A lot has not changed in the past year (technically it is 18 months, but since facts aren't your strong point we will stick with your year), but one improvement has been jobs. I think everyone, whether working at McDonalds, the Pentagon or a major corporation can say they have seen an uptick across the board in hiring. Not as quick as we would like, or for as much as we would probably like, but it is kind of hard to ignore.

Also, "a lot" and "massive" are two very different measurements. I believe your interpretation of my words are what is causing such confusion for you

Quote from: JayBird on November 20, 2013, 07:39:56 PM
...since facts aren't your strong point

This from the person who hasn't offered a single shred of evidence to any posting in this thread (and no, stating the number of job openings on your company website doesn't prove or disprove a thing).  You've told us what you think and how you feel, but that and two bucks will get you you a cup o' joe at low-wage employer Starbucks.

Since facts ARE your strong point, how about some backing up these claims of changes in the labor market that have transpired since Spring of 2012?

i guess I'll chime in from a view point (which won't be backed up with fancy graphs and charts) that there is a definite LACK of skilled workers in the SE.  From Miami to Memphis to New Orleans and everywhere in between.  Probably other places, but I haven't tried to source skilled labor in other places.

I'm  referring to trades people in specific fields of course:  Millwork, stonework, carpentry, sheet metal & framing (both shop and field specific).  All of the skilled labor is pushing 40+ on average, and in my recent experience I've noticed and it's been noticed industry wide that there seems to be a complete lack of both talent, ambition or any combination of the two in the 20-30 year old age group.  It's like it doesn't exist. 

You can toss around $$$ and wages and national averages and all of that other 'stuff', but you don't need a GED to learn a trade with the majority of those jobs starting between $9-$14 with average journeyman pay rates hovering around $20/hr. 

Since we're recounting anecdotes, let me share one of mine.  Recently I was conducting interviews for a position where I work.  The requisition that the corporate office had put out for the job wanted the candidate to have fifteen years experience (which is more than I, who would be this person's boss, have), yet the salary they were offering was about half of what I make.  The truth of the matter is, we could get a bright recent collage grad and train them for the position and everyone would be happy, but instead we got these over-qualified candidates who once they found out the pay, weren't interested.

So when I hear this line about "we can't find any qualified applicants" I think about what is going on in my own line of work and I can't help but wonder how many of these employers are doing the same thing:  Setting the qualification bar way too high, low-balling the salary, and then crying because they can't find anyone.

IMO it would be impossible for the US to catch up to these smaller countries, in terms of having minimal low wages. For many reasons, the US's significantly greater population, diversity etc. Notice the top two diverse superpowers (US and UK) have higher rates in low wage work; Not to mention the obvious China which is a superpower. IMO the US's greater low wage has nothing to do with it being complacent. It would be a virtually impossible tall order for the US to compete with significantly smaller countries like France or Belgium. 

Quote from: finehoe on November 21, 2013, 12:05:09 AM
Since we're recounting anecdotes, let me share one of mine.  Recently I was conducting interviews for a position where I work.  The requisition that the corporate office had put out for the job wanted the candidate to have fifteen years experience (which is more than I, who would be this person's boss, have), yet the salary they were offering was about half of what I make.  The truth of the matter is, we could get a bright recent collage grad and train them for the position and everyone would be happy, but instead we got these over-qualified candidates who once they found out the pay, weren't interested.

So when I hear this line about "we can't find any qualified applicants" I think about what is going on in my own line of work and I can't help but wonder how many of these employers are doing the same thing:  Setting the qualification bar way too high, low-balling the salary, and then crying because they can't find anyone.

Sounds like you need to push back on the requirements to corporate.

Quote from: finehoe on November 21, 2013, 12:05:09 AM
Since we're recounting anecdotes, let me share one of mine.  Recently I was conducting interviews for a position where I work.  The requisition that the corporate office had put out for the job wanted the candidate to have fifteen years experience (which is more than I, who would be this person's boss, have), yet the salary they were offering was about half of what I make.  The truth of the matter is, we could get a bright recent collage grad and train them for the position and everyone would be happy, but instead we got these over-qualified candidates who once they found out the pay, weren't interested.

So when I hear this line about "we can't find any qualified applicants" I think about what is going on in my own line of work and I can't help but wonder how many of these employers are doing the same thing:  Setting the qualification bar way too high, low-balling the salary, and then crying because they can't find anyone.

Interesting on many levels...

So where are the "bright college grads"?
Over qualified people who would rather be unemployed than work.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 21, 2013, 07:14:27 AM
So where are the "bright college grads"?

Not applying to jobs asking for 15 years of experience.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 21, 2013, 07:14:27 AM
Over qualified people who would rather be unemployed than work.

One needn't be unemployed to look for a new job.

Quote from: finehoe on November 21, 2013, 07:35:34 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 21, 2013, 07:14:27 AM
So where are the "bright college grads"?

Not applying to jobs asking for 15 years of experience.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 21, 2013, 07:14:27 AM
Over qualified people who would rather be unemployed than work.

One needn't be unemployed to look for a new job.

QuoteThe truth of the matter is, we could get a bright recent collage grad and train them for the position and everyone would be happy

Clearly your management or HR team is out of touch with the job requirements.  15 years experience?  Check for a typo... probably is supposed to be... 1-5 years.  Your welcome!  8)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 21, 2013, 07:53:46 AM
Clearly your management or HR team is out of touch with the job requirements. 

My point exactly.  Often the whines of CEOs that they "can't find qualified people" are actually cases of management and/or human resources being out of touch with the realities of the job.

that's why I can't stand HR

Are any of you familiar with the proposal in Switzerland to create a minimum monthly income for all Swiss citizens?  I understand that this would get rid of many social programs, and in the process get rid of a lot of bureaucracy.  But I wonder what effects this would have on inflation in Switzerland.  Interesting proposal. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/switzerlands-proposal-to-pay-people-for-being-alive.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/switzerlands-proposal-to-pay-people-for-being-alive.html)

Switzerland's Proposal to Pay People for Being Alive
By ANNIE LOWREY
This fall, a truck dumped eight million coins outside the Parliament building in Bern, one for every Swiss citizen. It was a publicity stunt for advocates of an audacious social policy that just might become reality in the tiny, rich country. Along with the coins, activists delivered 125,000 signatures — enough to trigger a Swiss public referendum, this time on providing a monthly income to every citizen, no strings attached. Every month, every Swiss person would receive a check from the government, no matter how rich or poor, how hardworking or lazy, how old or young. Poverty would disappear. Economists, needless to say, are sharply divided on what would reappear in its place — and whether such a basic-income scheme might have some appeal for other, less socialist countries too.

The proposal is, in part, the brainchild of a German-born artist named Enno Schmidt, a leader in the basic-income movement. He knows it sounds a bit crazy. He thought the same when someone first described the policy to him, too. "I tell people not to think about it for others, but think about it for themselves," Schmidt told me. "What would you do if you had that income? What if you were taking care of a child or an elderly person?" Schmidt said that the basic income would provide some dignity and security to the poor, especially Europe's underemployed and unemployed. It would also, he said, help unleash creativity and entrepreneurialism: Switzerland's workers would feel empowered to work the way they wanted to, rather than the way they had to just to get by. He even went so far as to compare it to a civil rights movement, like women's suffrage or ending slavery.

When we spoke, Schmidt repeatedly described the policy as "stimmig." Like many German words, it has no English equivalent, but it means something like "coherent and harmonious," with a dash of "beauty" thrown in. It is an idea whose time has come, he was saying. And basic-income schemes are having something of a moment, even if they are hardly new. (Thomas Paine was an advocate.) But their renewed popularity says something troubling about the state of rich-world economies.

Go to a cocktail party in Berlin, and there is always someone spouting off about the benefits of a basic income, just as you might hear someone talking up Robin Hood taxes in New York or single-payer health care in Washington. And it's not only in vogue in wealthy Switzerland. Beleaguered and debt-wracked Cyprus is weighing the implementation of basic incomes, too. They even are whispered about in the United States, where certain wonks on the libertarian right and liberal left have come to a strange convergence around the idea — some prefer an unconditional "basic" income that would go out to everyone, no strings attached; others a means-tested "minimum" income to supplement the earnings of the poor up to a given level.

The case from the right is one of expediency and efficacy. Let's say that Congress decided to provide a basic income through the tax code or by expanding the Social Security program. Such a system might work better and be fairer than the current patchwork of programs, including welfare, food stamps and housing vouchers. A single father with two jobs and two children would no longer have to worry about the hassle of visiting a bunch of offices to receive benefits. And giving him a single lump sum might help him use his federal dollars better. Housing vouchers have to be spent on housing, food stamps on food. Those dollars would be more valuable — both to the recipient and the economy at large — if they were fungible.

Even better, conservatives think, such a program could significantly reduce the size of our federal bureaucracy. It could take the place of welfare, food stamps, housing vouchers and hundreds of other programs, all at once: Hello, basic income; goodbye, H.U.D. Charles Murray of the conservative American Enterprise Institute has proposed a minimum income for just that reason — feed the poor, and starve the beast. "Give the money to the people," Murray wrote in his book "In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State." He suggested guaranteeing $10,000 a year to anyone meeting the following conditions: be American, be over 21, stay out of jail and — as he once quipped — "have a pulse."

The left is more concerned with the power of a minimum or basic income as an anti-poverty and pro-mobility tool. There happens to be some hard evidence to bolster the policy's case. In the mid-1970s, the tiny Canadian town of Dauphin ( the "garden capital of Manitoba" ) acted as guinea pig for a grand experiment in social policy called "Mincome." For a short period of time, all the residents of the town received a guaranteed minimum income. About 1,000 poor families got monthly checks to supplement their earnings.

Evelyn Forget, a health economist at the University of Manitoba, has done some of the best research on the results. Some of her findings were obvious: Poverty disappeared. But others were more surprising: High-school completion rates went up; hospitalization rates went down. "If you have a social program like this, community values themselves start to change," Forget said.

There are strong arguments against minimum or basic incomes, too. Cost is one. Creating a massive disincentive to work is another. But some experts said the effect might be smaller than you would think. A basic income might be enough to live on, but not enough to live very well on. Such a program would be designed to end poverty without creating a nation of layabouts. The Mincome experiment offers some backup for that argument, too."For a lot of economists, the issue was that you would disincentivize work," said Wayne Simpson, a Canadian economist who has studied Mincome. "The evidence showed that it was not nearly as bad as some of the literature had suggested."

There's a deeper, scarier reason that arguments for guaranteed incomes have resurfaced of late. Wages are stagnant, unemployment is high and tens of millions of families are struggling in Europe and here at home. Despite record corporate earnings and skyrocketing fortunes for the college-educated and already well-off, the job market is simply not rewarding many fully employed workers with a decent way of life. Millions of households have had no real increase in earnings since the late 1980s. Consider the current debate over fast-food workers' wages.

The advocacy group Low Pay Is Not OK posted a phone call, recorded by a 10-year McDonald's veteran, Nancy Salgado, when she contacted the company's "McResource" help line. The operator told Salgado that she could qualify for food stamps and home heating assistance, while also suggesting some area food banks — impressively, she knew to recommend these services without even asking about Salgado's wage ($8.25 an hour), though she was aware Salgado worked full time. The company earned $5.5 billion in net profits last year, and appears to take for granted that many of its employees will be on the dole.

Absurd as a minimum income might seem to bootstrapping Americans, one already exists in a way — McDonald's knows it. If our economy is no longer able to improve the lives of the working poor and low-income families, why not tweak our policies to do what we're already doing, but better — more harmoniously? It's hardly uplifting news, but minimum incomes just might be stimmig for the United States too.

There's a video here regarding the minimum income: http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2013/11/16/a-fox-news-anchor-just-endorsed-something-youd-never-expect/ (http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2013/11/16/a-fox-news-anchor-just-endorsed-something-youd-never-expect/)

Unfortunately I don't know how to embed videos. 

Ajax with the libertarian idea and I like it.

http://www.youtube.com/v/M4IjTUxZORE

http://www.youtube.com/v/C1a6M3dBNwc