Jump to content

The Off-Topic Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 942
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Got it. Well this situation is a lot different than what Blue is describing. I think your pay is good for what you are looking for. 

I think it's a great package.  The problem is, with the kind of confidential information we deal with for clients, I have a pretty high threshold for honest/ethical behavior.  I think that's where I've struggling the most...getting comfortable with candidates I really don't know.  A background check only tells you so much.  Most of the interest I've weeded out recently is simply not qualified though...can barely turn on a computer, much less use Word & Excel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I'm not saying it gets better than that, what I'm saying is if you're an employer expecting great work for those type of wages the problem is the expectations of the employer. 

Want people to do good work? Pay good wages. 

The problem is finding people who can do good work. I would imagine pay would be higher if employers had any expectation of finding good workers who will stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Retirees in SW Indiana can easily live on three grand a month if they have no debt and no dependents.  Cost of living here is way different than Chicago or even Indy.

No doubt, I was just think those starting out wanting a family would need to make more than $12 or have 2 wage earners.

I lived in Evansville while going to school and cost of living there was higher enough that I didn't feel I could rent off campus. Fraternity house was real cheap though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

No doubt, I was just think those starting out wanting a family would need to make more than $12 or have 2 wage earners.

I lived in Evansville while going to school and cost of living there was higher enough that I didn't feel I could rent off campus. Fraternity house was real cheap though.

Yeah, I probably should have been more precise saying small town or rural SW Indiana.  Even Evansville is a fair amount more expensive.  Bloomington even more so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

The problem is finding people who can do good work. I would imagine pay would be higher if employers had any expectation of finding good workers who will stay.

Then why have employers stagnated wages, stripped retirements, etc., over the years? That is what has lead to the current job climate where people aren't loyal. 

And when I say stagnated wages, that of course is only for the employees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Then why have employers stagnated wages, stripped retirements, etc., over the years? That is what has lead to the current job climate where people aren't loyal. 

And when I say stagnated wages, that of course is only for the employees. 

Outsourcing, immigration, globalization of our economy.  We have sent alot of manufacturing overseas, immigrants drive down wages, and if you look at tech or engineering alot of places try to get H1B visa workers because they will do the same job for less.  There is little incentive to pay more.

Have you ever worked in a factory?  I had spent several summers through college working a night shift. The day shift workers were those who stuck around.  The other shifts were revolving doors.  2nd and 3rd shifts even got a wage premain.  Most people who quit after 2-4 weeks quit because they didnt like the hours, the work is too hard, its boring, my boss sucks, ect.  Why pay more when you have a 70% turnover rate and can fill those positions the next day through temp agencies.

If you are talking about stripping away pensions then I think that is more a result of the advent of 401k.  Personally, I would rather manage my own money anyway as I think pensions aren't sustainable today and it really shouldnt be a companies responsibility to cover you after you retire and no longer produce for them.

That said, I think the one thing we would agree on is, the primary motive behind all of this is PROFITS.  Gotta pump those numbers up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I don't know that. You're expecting professional level work for pay that's beneath the job. 

You are making assumptions. What is the going rate for a entry level sales or collection employee? If you have not researched or are not familiar with the business, you are assuming.

I have been in the industry for over 15 years. I know what we typically pay, what our competitors pay etc. I assure you we are at the upper end of the pay scale for the work.

My point is, those wages are increasing due to the reduced number of candidates.

Sure, I can offer $20 per hour for a job that is very much entry level. But then we can do run a 30% personnel number and wonder why we are not making a profit.

Some of my upper managers make 6 figures. But I am not going to double their pay with the assuption they are suddenly going to work harder or better  

Wages need to be competitive for the industy you are in. I am not trying to compete with the guys hiring college grads etc. for these particular positions.

The "pay more solves everything" approach has put many  companies out of business. As does not paying enough. You have to be smart about it and not be too simplistic in either direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bluegrassIU said:

You are making assumptions. What is the going rate for a entry level sales or collection employee? If you have not researched or are not familiar with the business, you are assuming.

I have been in the industry for over 15 years. I know what we typically pay, what our competitors pay etc. I assure you we are at the upper end of the pay scale for the work.

My point is, those wages are increasing due to the reduced number of candidates.

Sure, I can offer $20 per hour for a job that is very much entry level. But then we can do run a 30% personal number and wonder why we are not making a profit.

Some of my upper managers make 6 figures. But I am not going to double their pay with the assuption they are suddenly going to work harder or better  

Wages need to be competitive for the industy you are in. I am not trying to compete with the guys hiring college grads etc. for these particular positions.

The pay more solves everything approach has put many  companies out of business. As does not paying enough. You have to be smart about it and not be to simplistic in either direction.

I worked in debt collections for a semester in college made $9.50 an hour I believe. Sat in a chair in a cubicle making phone calls. There was a bonus for selling consolidation loans and if you were good at that you could make quite a bit of money.  I thought the pay was appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion...at a macro level I think the biggest issue ahead of us in the workforce is dealing with the distribution of excess corporate profits that have been enhanced by AI (i.e. headcount reduction) and cheaper overseas labor. Seems like a lot of these new advantages are sticking more and more with a few people instead of consistent wage growth at the lower to mid-level. 

I think the only counter an employee has (and should use) is to lower it's loyalty if the loyalty isn't reciprocated by the employer (i.e. stagnant salaries, etc.). Two way street is my philosophy. Hat offs to those managers who treat their employees fairly/reasonably...they should increase their loyalty to you...in a perfect world lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bluegrassIU said:

Wages need to be competitive for the industry you are in. I am not trying to compete with the guys hiring college grads etc. for these particular positions.

The pay more solves everything approach has put many  companies out of business. As does not paying enough. You have to be smart about it and not be to simplistic in either direction.

In a free market economy, competition sets wages.  Simplistic but true.  That's made me not a fan of minimum wages.  I've never hired a person I though was only worthy of the stated minimum wage.  Instead, I'm very much a fan of incentive-based pay.  I tell my employees "the biggest factor that will limit your pay here is YOU."  About 25% of employee pay is incentive-based.  I'd love it if that was 100% but prospects are skeptics and too prone to not believe in themselves.  My personal pay is 100% incentive based...a pure percentage of the revenue I generate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y’all think you have problems.  Try finding electricians in Denver, Colorado who are passably qualified AND can pass a drug test.  We do lighting projects in hospitals and medical office buildings and cannot have people working who have any kind of drug history.  Half the time we get people in, they don’t bother showing up for the drug test and we never hear from them again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SteveS said:

Y’all think you have problems.  Try finding electricians in Denver, Colorado who are passably qualified AND can pass a drug test.  We do lighting projects in hospitals and medical office buildings and cannot have people working who have any kind of drug history.  Half the time we get people in, they don’t bother showing up for the drug test and we never hear from them again.

Not just electricians but most if not all the skilled trades are struggling finding qualified people. According to Mike Rowe anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ArchieBall13 said:

Interesting discussion...at a macro level I think the biggest issue ahead of us in the workforce is dealing with the distribution of excess corporate profits that have been enhanced by AI (i.e. headcount reduction) and cheaper overseas labor. Seems like a lot of these new advantages are sticking more and more with a few people instead of consistent wage growth at the lower to mid-level. 

The other interesting phenomenon is the return of manufacturing to this country.  You're going to think I'm going political here, but here me out.  The largest driver of that phenomenon is the rising standard of living elsewhere in the world.  Cheap Chinese labor isn't so cheap anymore.  in 2014, a Kiplinger article I was reading said that by 2020, 65% of good consumed in the U.S. would be produced here, reversing a trend of manufacturing going overseas.  No, the primary driving force is not political decisions, tariffs etc.  The primary driver is rising wages and rising shipping costs are  making Chinese goods less competitive and the Chinese are shifting away from low-margin or larger bulkier products for export and the gap is being filled by home-grown manufacturing.  It's an interesting trend, but globalization is a great equalizer over time.  I suspect raising the middle class will be the next frontier for corporate America.  Government force is the wrong lever to push as it tends to drive business away (ask Illinois).  Seeing happy employees with rising wages reward your company with much greater productivity is the right lever to push and I suspect that this trend will continue and even accelerate given the tight labor market we see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

Not just electricians but most if not all the skilled trades are struggling finding qualified people. According to Mike Rowe anyway.

Mike Rowe is right...we've shoved too many kids into college (and college debt) when the vo-tech path would have served many of them better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Mike Rowe is right...we've shoved too many kids into college (and college debt) when the vo-tech path would have served many of them better.

Agree, and most of the degrees have little to no market value.  And the money/time invested in them is obscene compared to the pay they will secure.  STEM is about the only way to go anymore.

I also dont understand why people cant figure out why college costs so much when to me its obvious.  Colleges are all but guaranteed customers who are willing to pay whatever the price is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Parakeet Jones said:

As a teacher, I whole heartedly agree with this. I get frustrated seeing kids get pushed to be college ready when another path would be better for them. 

Especially in the current climate with advancements of technology (internet, ecommerce, digital advertising, social media, etc.) you really no longer need a college degree in many lines of work. If you have a passion and a talent for it, you can find niche communities online, connect and build relationships with those communities and sell your product, service, passion, etc. 

Even in a trade field, if you can figure out the internet you can dominate your market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

Agree, and most of the degrees have little to no market value.  And the money/time invested in them is obscene compared to the pay they will secure.  STEM is about the only way to go anymore.

I also dont understand why people cant figure out why college costs so much when to me its obvious.  Colleges are all but guaranteed customers who are willing to pay whatever the price is.

If I could give young people some advice it would be this.  Don't worry about getting a 4 year or graduate degree.  It's fine for some but a complete waste for many.  What you need to do is learn a skill and one that people are willing to pay for and most importantly one that isn't oversupplied. 

People need lawyers for example.  However, they are vastly oversupplied.  Most can't find work or at least work that pays. Learn to do something that people need and is in demand and you will be just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

Outsourcing, immigration, globalization of our economy.  We have sent alot of manufacturing overseas, immigrants drive down wages, and if you look at tech or engineering alot of places try to get H1B visa workers because they will do the same job for less.  There is little incentive to pay more.

Have you ever worked in a factory?  I had spent several summers through college working a night shift. The day shift workers were those who stuck around.  The other shifts were revolving doors.  2nd and 3rd shifts even got a wage premain.  Most people who quit after 2-4 weeks quit because they didnt like the hours, the work is too hard, its boring, my boss sucks, ect.  Why pay more when you have a 70% turnover rate and can fill those positions the next day through temp agencies.

If you are talking about stripping away pensions then I think that is more a result of the advent of 401k.  Personally, I would rather manage my own money anyway as I think pensions aren't sustainable today and it really shouldnt be a companies responsibility to cover you after you retire and no longer produce for them.

That said, I think the one thing we would agree on is, the primary motive behind all of this is PROFITS.  Gotta pump those numbers up!

People would be less likely to quit jobs if the pay and benefits made it worth staying. We can go in circles on this all day, but ultimately the company has an undue amount of power in business dealings with employees and deserves the bulk of responsibility. 

As far as retirement, companies saved a ton moving away from pensions. They did it under the guide of personal freedom because that sells but between the fees, lack of education about how to manage money and the less responsibility for employers it is clear who came out on top of that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...