In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Curious Jon, have you ever been in a position where you've had to
hire a lot of individuals at the entry level, but well over minumum.
It would help me to understand whether you are just blathering or
actually can comment from the experience.

I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've
hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush
g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better
workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry
level people and pay them at the minimum.

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

But, yes, I'm just blathering of course.
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On 27 Mar 2007 09:30:47 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Curious Jon, have you ever been in a position where you've had to
hire a lot of individuals at the entry level, but well over minumum.
It would help me to understand whether you are just blathering or
actually can comment from the experience.

I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've
hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush
g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better
workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry
level people and pay them at the minimum.

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

But, yes, I'm just blathering of course.


That's what I said, entry level but well over minimum wage.

And bosses don't tell you to hire at a minimum unless the job is a
minimum wage job. If it is not you wouldn't get anyone anyway.
Because the economy is good and they don't have to work for minimum.

Those individuals are not considered "poor" as your response
indicated. Yet as one who had to try to hire people, approximately
50-100 per year over a multi-year period to staff my business, I found
your comment on the post ridiculous blathering. There are people who
choose not to work. There are people who choose not to become
educated, even with basic skills. There are people who, when hired,
refuse to be trained to do a job. There are homeless people who
choose to be homeless.

Fortunately, those people are a small percentage, but they make up the
core unemployable. They will always exist. Government can do nothing
about them, unless you are of the mindset that their "choice" should
be supported by tax dollars.

You'll have a hard time talking bad economy around here. We just
bagged a Toyota plant. 2000 new direct jobs and another 2000
supporting. Those bad ole Republicans, Senator, House Representive,
and particularly, Governer had a lot to do with it. Yeah, were ready
to throw them out and change to the Dems.

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:

On 27 Mar 2007 09:30:47 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've
hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush
g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better
workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry
level people and pay them at the minimum.

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

But, yes, I'm just blathering of course.


That's what I said, entry level but well over minimum wage.

I've hired lots of people who were both entry level and who would
otherwise be paid minimum wage. We never did the latter.

And bosses don't tell you to hire at a minimum unless the job is a
minimum wage job. If it is not you wouldn't get anyone anyway.
Because the economy is good and they don't have to work for minimum.

Yes, they do. Bosses tell you the pay range. Lots of places say pay
the minimum. I've never worked nor would I work for such a company.

Those individuals are not considered "poor" as your response
indicated. Yet as one who had to try to hire people, approximately
50-100 per year over a multi-year period to staff my business, I found
your comment on the post ridiculous blathering. There are people who
choose not to work. There are people who choose not to become
educated, even with basic skills. There are people who, when hired,
refuse to be trained to do a job. There are homeless people who
choose to be homeless.

Sorry, but a lot of them are considered poor. Paying more than the
minimum required doesn't ensure they're above the poverty line.

Why should I care whether or not you like my comment. Sure, there are
people who choose not to work or refuse to be trained or whatver, but
most people want to work. That argument is as old as the hills but
continues to be simplistic and inaccurate.

Fortunately, those people are a small percentage, but they make up the
core unemployable. They will always exist. Government can do nothing
about them, unless you are of the mindset that their "choice" should
be supported by tax dollars.

Significant phrase... small percentage... and yes, it's better just to
support them as dead weight than to let them die. It's the right thing
to do... not everything is required to be beholdin to the bottom line.

You'll have a hard time talking bad economy around here. We just
bagged a Toyota plant. 2000 new direct jobs and another 2000
supporting. Those bad ole Republicans, Senator, House Representive,
and particularly, Governer had a lot to do with it. Yeah, were ready
to throw them out and change to the Dems.

Don't know where "around here" is, but in general, the US economy
isn't doing very well... certainly not as well as it could do.




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On 27 Mar 2007 10:46:56 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:

On 27 Mar 2007 09:30:47 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've
hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush
g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better
workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry
level people and pay them at the minimum.

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

How is that relavent to the discussion?

But, yes, I'm just blathering of course.


That's what I said, entry level but well over minimum wage.

I've hired lots of people who were both entry level and who would
otherwise be paid minimum wage. We never did the latter.

I'm curious. Working where? I live in the poorest state in the
nation and we can't hire fast food workers at minimum. You have
positions where you work that would ordinarily be at minimum? In the
Bay area? Please expand with details.

And bosses don't tell you to hire at a minimum unless the job is a
minimum wage job. If it is not you wouldn't get anyone anyway.
Because the economy is good and they don't have to work for minimum.


Yes, they do. Bosses tell you the pay range. Lots of places say pay
the minimum. I've never worked nor would I work for such a company.




Those individuals are not considered "poor" as your response
indicated. Yet as one who had to try to hire people, approximately
50-100 per year over a multi-year period to staff my business, I found
your comment on the post ridiculous blathering. There are people who
choose not to work. There are people who choose not to become
educated, even with basic skills. There are people who, when hired,
refuse to be trained to do a job. There are homeless people who
choose to be homeless.

Sorry, but a lot of them are considered poor. Paying more than the
minimum required doesn't ensure they're above the poverty line.

The post had nothing to do with the minimum. Had to do with people
who choose not to work. They might be poor, but unlike your original
comment to Max's post, it is actually their fault.

Let's see, done this before but I'll try again. You take a job at
entry level whatever the scale is you work hard and do well and you
move up. You keep working hard and doing well and you keep moving up.
When you have a reputation of working hard and doing well, moving up
is almost automatic.

That's the concept you can't understand, right? That's why you think
it is appropriate for individuls to refuse to work, because they can't
move up?

Why should I care whether or not you like my comment. Sure, there are
people who choose not to work or refuse to be trained or whatver, but
most people want to work. That argument is as old as the hills but
continues to be simplistic and inaccurate.

You admit that there are people who won't work, then you say the
argument is simplistic and "inaccurate". How could it be both true
and inaccurate?

Fortunately, those people are a small percentage, but they make up the
core unemployable. They will always exist. Government can do nothing
about them, unless you are of the mindset that their "choice" should
be supported by tax dollars.

Significant phrase... small percentage... and yes, it's better just to
support them as dead weight than to let them die. It's the right thing
to do... not everything is required to be beholdin to the bottom line.

They called that welfare when it started. Did a great job. became
self perpetuating and grew with gusto. After slavery, the greatest
disservice that has ever been done to those at the bottom of the rung
in this country.

I live in a community of 50K population Every day there are at least
five pages of employment ads, hundreds to the page, from entry level
to high paid professional. Yet unemployment is the same as the
national average. Check your paper and then tell me what the problem
is. Or figure out how to blame Bush for people refusing to take those
jobs or to prepare themselves to take any job.

You do realize that tax dollars from that bottom line are where the so
called support you advocate comes from. Or do you?

You'll have a hard time talking bad economy around here. We just
bagged a Toyota plant. 2000 new direct jobs and another 2000
supporting. Those bad ole Republicans, Senator, House Representive,
and particularly, Governer had a lot to do with it. Yeah, were ready
to throw them out and change to the Dems.

Don't know where "around here" is, but in general, the US economy
isn't doing very well... certainly not as well as it could do.



Just came back from Nashville. Booming. Just came back from
Colorado, booming every place I went. Maybe it's just a California
thing. You should get out more.

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

How is that relavent to the discussion?

We were discussing costs to employers. Wages are just one of many
costs.

I'm curious. Working where? I live in the poorest state in the
nation and we can't hire fast food workers at minimum. You have
positions where you work that would ordinarily be at minimum? In the
Bay area? Please expand with details.

In the bay area, but not currently, as I'm not in a management
position, being self-employed... probably, I'll be staying that way,
at least for the next couple of years... pays better, lower stress,
more free time. G

Sorry, but a lot of them are considered poor. Paying more than the
minimum required doesn't ensure they're above the poverty line.

The post had nothing to do with the minimum. Had to do with people
who choose not to work. They might be poor, but unlike your original
comment to Max's post, it is actually their fault.

Most poor want to work - most poor do work. The working poor are at
fault?

Let's see, done this before but I'll try again. You take a job at
entry level whatever the scale is you work hard and do well and you
move up. You keep working hard and doing well and you keep moving up.
When you have a reputation of working hard and doing well, moving up
is almost automatic.

That's not likely to happen at say McDonalds. Maybe in a factory, but
certainly unlikely in a production line. How long do you have to work
there before you have a living wage?

That's the concept you can't understand, right? That's why you think
it is appropriate for individuls to refuse to work, because they can't
move up?

Huh? I think you're blatherin now.

Why should I care whether or not you like my comment. Sure, there are
people who choose not to work or refuse to be trained or whatver, but
most people want to work. That argument is as old as the hills but
continues to be simplistic and inaccurate.

You admit that there are people who won't work, then you say the
argument is simplistic and "inaccurate". How could it be both true
and inaccurate?

Because that doesn't address the issue. There are always people who
don't act on what is best for them. But, to use that as an argument,
leaves out quite a bit.

Significant phrase... small percentage... and yes, it's better just to
support them as dead weight than to let them die. It's the right thing
to do... not everything is required to be beholdin to the bottom line.

They called that welfare when it started. Did a great job. became
self perpetuating and grew with gusto. After slavery, the greatest
disservice that has ever been done to those at the bottom of the rung
in this country.

I believe Clinton fixed a large part of the welfare problem. But,
being a moderate (now called left-wing) he must have been wrong.

is. Or figure out how to blame Bush for people refusing to take those
jobs or to prepare themselves to take any job.

I don't have to .. it's obvious.

You do realize that tax dollars from that bottom line are where the so
called support you advocate comes from. Or do you?

That "bottom line"? Which bottom line? The corporate/Halliburton/
cutting and running offshore bottom line?

Just came back from Nashville. Booming. Just came back from
Colorado, booming every place I went. Maybe it's just a California
thing. You should get out more.

Maybe you should. Did you take a poll or just look in the paper for
want ads?




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On 27 Mar 2007 12:26:29 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

How is that relavent to the discussion?

We were discussing costs to employers. Wages are just one of many
costs.

Not so. Go back to Max's post, but no matter.

I'm curious. Working where? I live in the poorest state in the
nation and we can't hire fast food workers at minimum. You have
positions where you work that would ordinarily be at minimum? In the
Bay area? Please expand with details.

In the bay area, but not currently, as I'm not in a management
position, being self-employed... probably, I'll be staying that way,
at least for the next couple of years... pays better, lower stress,
more free time. G

Sorry, but a lot of them are considered poor. Paying more than the
minimum required doesn't ensure they're above the poverty line.

The post had nothing to do with the minimum. Had to do with people
who choose not to work. They might be poor, but unlike your original
comment to Max's post, it is actually their fault.

Most poor want to work - most poor do work. The working poor are at
fault?

The discussion and your repsponse had to do with the unemployable.
Those who "choose" not to work. Go back and read Max's entry to which
you reponded. Try not to wander to much.

Let's see, done this before but I'll try again. You take a job at
entry level whatever the scale is you work hard and do well and you
move up. You keep working hard and doing well and you keep moving up.
When you have a reputation of working hard and doing well, moving up
is almost automatic.

That's not likely to happen at say McDonalds. Maybe in a factory, but
certainly unlikely in a production line. How long do you have to work
there before you have a living wage?

I started my work career at McDonald's. Worked there for over a year.
Did you ever work there? There are no chains in the floor that keep
you there. It is a job, that done well, can be part of your resume
with references when you move on and up.
Of course we have gone over this one before too. Something causing
your memory to fail?

I managed a factory. The assembly line and production workers started
at about $22,500/year and averaged about $36,000 per year with very
good benefits. Went from entry to top of classification in about
three years or so. Best of the bunch became supervisors, electronic
techs., superintendents, planners, buyers, model makers, etc. with
proportionately better salaries. My first job after McDonalds was as
an ASME code welder in a factory. I ended up running multiple
factories. But I guess in your mind that isn't possible.


That's the concept you can't understand, right? That's why you think
it is appropriate for individuls to refuse to work, because they can't
move up?

Huh? I think you're blatherin now.

You just indicated that you cannot move up from McDonalds. Must not
be able to understand the concept.

Why should I care whether or not you like my comment. Sure, there are
people who choose not to work or refuse to be trained or whatver, but
most people want to work. That argument is as old as the hills but
continues to be simplistic and inaccurate.

You admit that there are people who won't work, then you say the
argument is simplistic and "inaccurate". How could it be both true
and inaccurate?

Because that doesn't address the issue. There are always people who
don't act on what is best for them. But, to use that as an argument,
leaves out quite a bit.

Significant phrase... small percentage... and yes, it's better just to
support them as dead weight than to let them die. It's the right thing
to do... not everything is required to be beholdin to the bottom line.

They called that welfare when it started. Did a great job. became
self perpetuating and grew with gusto. After slavery, the greatest
disservice that has ever been done to those at the bottom of the rung
in this country.

I believe Clinton fixed a large part of the welfare problem. But,
being a moderate (now called left-wing) he must have been wrong.

is. Or figure out how to blame Bush for people refusing to take those
jobs or to prepare themselves to take any job.

I don't have to .. it's obvious.

Not to me. Elaborate. I'd love to be educated as to why he is at
fault for lack of individual personal responsibility. And as you
explain, keep in mind these same individuals existed during Clinton's
time. And it wasn't his fault either.

You do realize that tax dollars from that bottom line are where the so
called support you advocate comes from. Or do you?

That "bottom line"? Which bottom line? The corporate/Halliburton/
cutting and running offshore bottom line?

Just came back from Nashville. Booming. Just came back from
Colorado, booming every place I went. Maybe it's just a California
thing. You should get out more.

Maybe you should. Did you take a poll or just look in the paper for
want ads?

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Not so. Go back to Max's post, but no matter.

I always try to go forward not backward. It's called a discussion, and
should evolve, unless you're a right-wingnut and don't believe in
evolution. g

Most poor want to work - most poor do work. The working poor are at
fault?

The discussion and your repsponse had to do with the unemployable.
Those who "choose" not to work. Go back and read Max's entry to which
you reponded. Try not to wander to much.

There are always going to be those sort. They are a very small
percentage of the poor. What's your point oh wanderer?

That's not likely to happen at say McDonalds. Maybe in a factory, but
certainly unlikely in a production line. How long do you have to work
there before you have a living wage?

I started my work career at McDonald's. Worked there for over a year.

Were you promoted? Did you end up as a manager in your time served (no
pun intended)?

Did you ever work there? There are no chains in the floor that keep
you there. It is a job, that done well, can be part of your resume
with references when you move on and up.

Nope. I worked for the San Diego water district at $2.15/hour (it was
below mimimum wage, due to some strange agreement they had with the
University). I never did figure out how they got away with it.

I finally quit after 4 months, since I had no car and I had to be
there at 6am... it were a long bike ride on two-lane country roads.

Of course we have gone over this one before too. Something causing
your memory to fail?

Must be your confusing attempt to rewrite logic. Sorry.

I managed a factory. The assembly line and production workers started
at about $22,500/year and averaged about $36,000 per year with very
good benefits. Went from entry to top of classification in about
three years or so. Best of the bunch became supervisors, electronic

But, you didn't start at minimum wage right? So, what point are you
trying to make? I started in a factory at minimum wage (also an entry
level position). I forget the $ number. After 6 mos, I was promoted to
a union job at $13.84/hr. Quite a nice jump and in those days a
fortune for a college student. I worked 2nd shift, got off at 11pm as
I recall.

techs., superintendents, planners, buyers, model makers, etc. with
proportionately better salaries. My first job after McDonalds was as
an ASME code welder in a factory. I ended up running multiple
factories. But I guess in your mind that isn't possible.

Boss was an ahole and we regularly sparred about his bs. He needed me
more than I needed him, eventually, so I quit. No future there.

Huh? I think you're blatherin now.

You just indicated that you cannot move up from McDonalds. Must not
be able to understand the concept.

And, you didn't give any example of you moving up there. You just said
you worked there. Did you move up in the organization in your year?

Not to me. Elaborate. I'd love to be educated as to why he is at
fault for lack of individual personal responsibility. And as you
explain, keep in mind these same individuals existed during Clinton's
time. And it wasn't his fault either.

He's certainly at fault for his lack of individual responsibility. He
doesn't care a fig about how what he does affects the lives of those
around him.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com