Moody's Assessment of the Tax Overhaul

[carpedm9587]

That is exactly what you implied when you said:

As expected, raising salaries and adding jobs is not something a business seeks to do. Managers will tell you it is always the course of last resorts and is done only when a business has no additional room to squeeze efficiency enhancements, or is expecting increased demand beyond what they can meet with efficiency enhancements. When a business gets more money, they do not immediately think, "let's make more jobs."

How is "not making jobs" equivalent to "screwing people?" People are "screwed" by companies when they are not paid a living wage for their work. A company NOT hiring because it finds other ways to meet its labor requirements is not "screwing" anyone.

And there you said it again. To you most of the companies out there are evil greedy companies that do not care about their employees, but of course not YOUR company. YOU are an exception.

Most publicly traded companies do NOT prioritize providing a living wage to their employees. That is a statistically accurate statement. Indeed, the trend today is to take the rank and file positions and move them to a 3/4 time model to avoid the need to provide benefits. This is happening throughout retail, in many (most?) service organizations, as well as manufacturing and transportation. In professional services, it is not happening, AFAIK. And yes, I DO have a business ethic that balances profit with social justice. I am not unique, but my company is in the minority.

Well, maybe there are more exceptions out there than you realize? Because every company I have worked for has actually cared about their employees and does things like profit sharing, paid benefits, raises both for cost of living and performance, etc. They want to make a profit but they also want to have happy employees. You have been watching too many hollywood movies about evil corporations taking over the world. Sure there are some bad ones out there, but I think THEY are the exception.

What verticals have you worked in. The dynamic is not evenly distributed in all verticals. Also, note that eveery company has well-paid, full time, benefit positions. If you are a skilled employee, you will likely have the experience you describe. Once I was more than a dishwasher, busboy, front desk clerk, and became a restaurant manager, teacher, etc., I left the problem behind me. That may explain why you have not experienced this. There is an article about this here, with some stats.

[Sparko]

How is "not making jobs" equivalent to "screwing people?" People are "screwed" by companies when they are not paid a living wage for their work. A company NOT hiring because it finds other ways to meet its labor requirements is not "screwing" anyone.



Most publicly traded companies do NOT prioritize providing a living wage to their employees. That is a statistically accurate statement. Indeed, the trend today is to take the rank and file positions and move them to a 3/4 time model to avoid the need to provide benefits. This is happening throughout retail, in many (most?) service organizations, as well as manufacturing and transportation. In professional services, it is not happening, AFAIK. And yes, I DO have a business ethic that balances profit with social justice. I am not unique, but my company is in the minority.



What verticals have you worked in. The dynamic is not evenly distributed in all verticals. Also, note that eveery company has well-paid, full time, benefit positions. If you are a skilled employee, you will likely have the experience you describe. Once I was more than a dishwasher, busboy, front desk clerk, and became a restaurant manager, teacher, etc., I left the problem behind me. That may explain why you have not experienced this. There is an article about this here, with some stats.

I have worked in the manufacturing industry, the service industry, in sales and marketing, and currently work in the legal industry. I started out like most people, working in a fast food restaurant. That was the only place I worked where I felt like a commodity. And I was one. I was a teenager that needed some extra money. I didn't expect to make a living or a career out of it.

[carpedm9587]

I have worked in the manufacturing industry, the service industry, in sales and marketing, and currently work in the legal industry. I started out like most people, working in a fast food restaurant. That was the only place I worked where I felt like a commodity. And I was one. I was a teenager that needed some extra money. I didn't expect to make a living or a career out of it.

That dovetails with my experience. Unfortunately, there is a huge percentage of our workforce that is in jobs like dishwasher, street sweeper, housekeeper, line cook, garbage collector, secretary, bookkeeper, cleaning, front desk clerk, retail sales person (in a store), deli clerk, and on and on the list goes. These are the jobs paid less than a living wage, and increasingly cut to 3/4 time so benefits do not have to be paid, to save the company money. When it's a teenager, no problem. When it is a position held by an adult who does not have the background to get a better job, you create a situation where both parents have to work two jobs just to keep food on the table. This creates a poverty cycle because these people cannot do anything to increase their skills, they're too busy bailing the boat to try to fix it.

This is the phenomenon I am speaking about, and it is statistically widespread.

[Mountain Man]

That is exactly what you implied when you said...

Carpe seems to have this bad habit of using language that has an established meaning other than what he intends and then getting upset when we don't understand that he's putting his own unconventional spin on it.

[carpedm9587]

Carpe seems to have this bad habit of using language that has an established meaning other than what he intends and then getting upset when we don't understand that he's putting his own unconventional spin on it.

You seem to be under the impression I'm upset. I'm actually not. The experience of people insisting they know what I mean is a tad frustrating, and largely pointless. But this is a forum. It does not warrant "upset."

[Sparko]

That dovetails with my experience. Unfortunately, there is a huge percentage of our workforce that is in jobs like dishwasher, street sweeper, housekeeper, line cook, garbage collector, secretary, bookkeeper, cleaning, front desk clerk, retail sales person (in a store), deli clerk, and on and on the list goes. These are the jobs paid less than a living wage, and increasingly cut to 3/4 time so benefits do not have to be paid, to save the company money. When it's a teenager, no problem. When it is a position held by an adult who does not have the background to get a better job, you create a situation where both parents have to work two jobs just to keep food on the table. This creates a poverty cycle because these people cannot do anything to increase their skills, they're too busy bailing the boat to try to fix it.

This is the phenomenon I am speaking about, and it is statistically widespread.

Now you are trying to qualify what you said earlier. You made a sweeping statement that companies are not interested in helping employees but only in profit so the tax break is meaningless because they will just keep the money for themselves. Now after I questioned that, you are trying to minimize what you said and claim you are just talking about non-skilled jobs, etc.

All I can say is if someone doesn't want to be treated like crap in a crap job, then get some skills and move on. That's what I did. I had zero help from my parents for school. I went to trade school and applied for government grants and aid. I worked at crap jobs to pay my way through school and I did not live at home. After I got a better paying job I went back to school and got some college under my belt and paid for all that myself too. Then I got a better paying job. Got more skill on the job and got better jobs.

If I can do it, anyone can. There is no excuse to have to work at a minimum wage job if you are not a teenager or a felon.

[Sparko]

Carpe seems to have this bad habit of using language that has an established meaning other than what he intends and then getting upset when we don't understand that he's putting his own unconventional spin on it.

no I think he has a little bit of "foot in mouth" disease. He says things that he probably shouldn't then tries to walk it back when called on it.

[carpedm9587]

no I think he has a little bit of "foot in mouth" disease. He says things that he probably shouldn't then tries to walk it back when called on it.

Actually, I don't believe I have "walked back" anything I've said. I have clarified when someone misunderstood, I have acknowledged confusion when I introduce it, I been wrong and said as much, and I have expanded on concepts when the discussion calls for it. But I have not "walked back" anything I can think of. If you can think of an instance, please provide the links. I am not aware of them.

[Cow Poke]

You seem to be under the impression I'm upset. I'm actually not. The experience of people insisting they know what I mean is a tad frustrating, and largely pointless. But this is a forum. It does not warrant "upset."

I think I could cite a number of posts where you indicated you were more than a little 'frustrated', Carpe.

[carpedm9587]

I think I could cite a number of posts where you indicated you were more than a little 'frustrated', Carpe.

Yes, I have experienced frustration, and expressed it. I guess I think of "upset" as "angry." If upset means "frustrated" too, then I guess I have been "upset."

It is a tad frustrating to say X and be repeatedly told I said (and meant) Y.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, I have experienced frustration, and expressed it. I guess I think of "upset" as "angry." If upset means "frustrated" too, then I guess I have been "upset."

It is a tad frustrating to say X and be repeatedly told I said (and meant) Y.

I think it's when you expressed your "amazement" or whatever.... and I would comment "it's just a discussion".

[carpedm9587]

I think it's when you expressed your "amazement" or whatever.... and I would comment "it's just a discussion".

It is just a discussion - and I can be amazed by what other people say in such a discussion. Trust me, I don't walk away from my computer and give the discussion a further thought. It does not impact my day, keep me awake at night, or factor into my life beyond the enjoyment I find in flipping to this site between items of work and seeing what's going on.

[Sparko]

Actually, I don't believe I have "walked back" anything I've said. I have clarified when someone misunderstood, I have acknowledged confusion when I introduce it, I been wrong and said as much, and I have expanded on concepts when the discussion calls for it. But I have not "walked back" anything I can think of. If you can think of an instance, please provide the links. I am not aware of them.

I did just above where you made a pretty sweeping statement about how companies don't care about employees and made it sound like that's just the way it is everywhere. When I called you on it, you walked it back and made it only about unskilled labor type businesses.

[carpedm9587]

I did just above where you made a pretty sweeping statement about how companies don't care about employees and made it sound like that's just the way it is everywhere. When I called you on it, you walked it back and made it only about unskilled labor type businesses.

Umm... no. My statement was "most public companies do not prioritize paying a living wage to their employees." That does not mean most public companies do not pay a living wage or provide benefits to any of its employees. It means most companies, in prioritizing profits, adopt the position that they will pay the least they can get away with for any given position. For high-skill positions, that typically is still a living wage and typically includes benefits, because if they don't, those positions will look elsewhere. The more rare a skill, the more it is paid for: supply and demand.

It is for the rank-and-file (an expression I believe I used several times) that this philosophy can and does lead to injustices. That IS the posture of most public companies, and many private ones. The policies (like the ones in my company) that require all employees to be compensated with a living wage and benefits, whatever their position, is a rare one because it does NOT prioritize profits. I am not "rich" by most measures. I am comfortable and have a decent retirement investment. I could easily be a multi-millionaire if I chose the more common approach. I contrast that with my sister, who owns a cleaning company. The vast majority of their staff is paid close to minimum wage because they feel those cleaners are fairly easy to find. They pay slightly above the competition and provide some benefits to reduce their churn, but when they have the churn rate down where they want it, that's it. I have met and talked to some of their staff. Most have both parents working, and single parents are working multiple jobs to make ends meet. Meanwhile, my sister and her husband are multimillionaires with a house that is a borderline mansion, boats, multiple cars, and a fairly expensive lifestyle.

The explanation I offered is perfectly consistent with what I originally said. It is not a "walk back." It is what I meant when I posted.

Where I have "walked back," are places where I have said things like, "you're right, my statement was too broad." In this case, my statement was NOT too broad. You just interpreted it as such. I stand by the original statement.

[Sparko]

Umm... no. My statement was "most public companies do not prioritize paying a living wage to their employees." That does not mean most public companies do not pay a living wage or provide benefits to any of its employees. It means most companies, in prioritizing profits, adopt the position that they will pay the least they can get away with for any given position. For high-skill positions, that typically is still a living wage and typically includes benefits, because if they don't, those positions will look elsewhere. The more rare a skill, the more it is paid for: supply and demand.

It is for the rank-and-file (an expression I believe I used several times) that this philosophy can and does lead to injustices. That IS the posture of most public companies, and many private ones. The policies (like the ones in my company) that require all employees to be compensated with a living wage and benefits, whatever their position, is a rare one because it does NOT prioritize profits. I am not "rich" by most measures. I am comfortable and have a decent retirement investment. I could easily be a multi-millionaire if I chose the more common approach.

The latter is perfectly consistent with what I said. It is not a "walk back." It is what I meant when I posted.

Where I have "walked back," are places where I have said things like, "you're right, my statement was too broad." In this case, my statement was NOT too broad. You just interpreted it as such. I stand by the original statement.

I told you earlier: When you said, "As expected, raising salaries and adding jobs is not something a business seeks to do. Managers will tell you it is always the course of last resorts and is done only when a business has no additional room to squeeze efficiency enhancements, or is expecting increased demand beyond what they can meet with efficiency enhancements. When a business gets more money, they do not immediately think, "let's make more jobs." " in the opening post.