Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a ‘living wage’ starts in her office

[Keridan]

That speaks to "emotional intelligence" which I was proud to learn you are trying to work on.

This post is better, but we still haven't met the sanity threshold. Feel free to keep trying!

 

[itsforthekids]

ben & jerry of ice cream fame (and recognized as small business owners of the year by ronnie reagan) had a company policy that the highest paid employee could earn no more than 7x the lowest compensated employee

i believe that provision was the first thing to go when new ownership acquired the company


and kudos to aoc for leading from the front
she is not the typical politician who holds a wet finger in the air of public opinion with the other stuck firmly in their ass

it's not her money!

 

[ttwtt78640]

Exactly. If she was mom and pop small business owner, she would be bankrupt before she knew it.

Not so. One must look at how she raised the pay of her lowest level employees - she cut the pay of her higher level employees.

Salaries in Ocasio-Cortez’s office top out at $80,000, Trent said. That’s well below the median pay for Hill chiefs of staff at $154,634, according to the Legistorm analysis. And it’s a fraction of what experienced staffers could make in other jobs in Washington.

Rather than have a range of pay from about $35K to $120K she has decided to have a range of pay from $52K to $80K. All she has done is to cut the pay of some upper level positions to raise the pay of all lower level positions. Of course, the OP linked story did not tell us what those in AOC's office who got (serious) pay cuts had to say about such salary "fairness".

 

[Keridan]

Not so. One must look at how she raised the pay of her lowest level employees - she cut the pay of her higher level employees.



Rather than have a range of pay from about $35K to $120K she has decided to have a range of pay from $52K to $80K. All she has done is to cut the pay of some upper level positions to raise the pay of all lower level positions. Of course, the OP linked story did not tell us what those in AOC's office who got (serious) pay cuts had to say about such salary "fairness".

I skimmed a bit, missing this. I would still argue it's not a good way to do business if you sacrifice those at the top who make things happen for those at the bottom who take messages.

However, you have to take into account that she is barely (age/experience, not grades) a college graduate herself and has no history of hiring a staff. Maybe she got some wildly unqualified people at half the price or maybe she got lucky and chose folks who would do the job at a little over half pay to make a statement or in hopes they'd find a congress person with business sense to really pay them once there.

I guess we can't completely analyze this without CVs and personality info on the people she convinced to work for her.

 

[Thoreau72]

It's easy to be generous with other people's money. Why not pay them at least the median wage in DC, after all, it is a very high cost of living area?

The DC Area Has the Highest Median Income in the US Again | Washingtonian (DC)

Because, pardon the pun, AOC is putting her money where her mouth is? Because she really IS concerned with the rank & file? Perhaps more than you?

 

[Master Debator]

Okay, this is a fair answer. Unfortunately, I hate the word "fair" when we are talking about income and taxes. It's too vague. I hope you don't mind if I skip over that particular statement in your reply.

Sometimes, this is absolutely what happens. That kinda sucks. But then you have a lot of companies like mine. It's not about the minimum I can pay, it's about the minimum I can make a profit from that position. Some jobs absolutely do not bring in enough money to justify a higher pay. Even if the company does well. I don't feel it's my obligation to pay someone beyond their worth just because the guys who earned it did better than expected.

If I only make $2/hr more by replacing you, I'm gonna keep you because the $2 isn't worth taking a job away that you've worked at. If it's $9/hr, I'm seriously gonna consider how much my family benefits from finding someone who gets more out of the same rate than you do. I could pay three other guys who produce more $2/hr and replace you and still do better.

Of course, when you get to larger companies, the decision is less personal, but a lot of the same formula applies.

Again that's a nice scenario but when is the last time you saw busboys, janitors, or cashiers in wage negotiations like they were NBA players? The "worth" as you describe it of their work is a mostly arbitrary determination. Of course if you make 1 mil a year in profits you can't pay all your employees a million dollars, but the determination of what you think your workers value is compared to the desire you have for the prosperity of you and your family is a selfish one, understandably so. The government needs to be an arbitrator to protect workers from having the determination of their worth be in the hands of people with their own self interest. And in the end if that means you have fewer workers so be it. If all wages are a $15 minimum wage those workers will move on to other jobs that can sustain them and we will all be better for it.

 

[Keridan]

Again that's a nice scenario but when is the last time you saw busboys, janitors, or cashiers in wage negotiations like they were NBA players? The "worth" as you describe it of their work is a mostly arbitrary determination. Of course if you make 1 mil a year in profits you can't pay all your employees a million dollars, but the determination of what you think your workers value is compared to the desire you have for the prosperity of you and your family is a selfish one, understandably so. The government needs to be an arbitrator to protect workers from having the determination of their worth be in the hands of people with their own self interest.

I'm using the scenarios to demonstrate a point, not as some example of real cases.

We'll go a little more personal. In my business, I handle all PR, contract negotiations, training, and also do a fair amount of the physical labor. I have two team leaders who make about $5 above the average for my area. I also have 3 guys who basically hold the ladder or climb less than 5 feet. They do nothing but show up and do some pick up. When the company does better, it has NOTHING to do with those 3 guys. It's because when I did a good job and the team leaders did a good job, we got more contracts. I shouldn't see that benefit? The team leaders should take less because the guys who could be replaced by well-placed lumber somehow deserve more for repeating the same task over and over?

On top of that, we should let the government decide what is fair?! These are the folks administering SS while it goes bankrupt and the department of education while we spend more and more to be ranked lower and lower. These are the folks who put us in all these wars whether you agree or not. These are the guys who have never shown a single business instinct in their entire existence. This is a whole different subject. The only direct relevance is that they have no incentive to consider contribution vs. pay. Instead, they are more likely to get elected by promising the majority more money.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I skimmed a bit, missing this. I would still argue it's not a good way to do business if you sacrifice those at the top who make things happen for those at the bottom who take messages.

However, you have to take into account that she is barely (age/experience, not grades) a college graduate herself and has no history of hiring a staff. Maybe she got some wildly unqualified people at half the price or maybe she got lucky and chose folks who would do the job at a little over half pay to make a statement or in hopes they'd find a congress person with business sense to really pay them once there.

I guess we can't completely analyze this without CVs and personality info on the people she convinced to work for her.

I would imagine that many on her staff who had their pay substantially cut will seek to work elsewhere. After all, if a highly productive and experienced staff leader can make more working for another congress critter (or in some other DC office) they are likely to seek to do so. Simply because AOC thought that they were overpaid does not make it so - you cannot simply change labor 'free market' demand by fiat.

The idea that you can simply cut the pay of your plumbers and electricians so that you can pay your concrete form setters and site clean-up workers more may look better on paper than it does in actual practice.

 

[Keridan]

I would imagine that many on her staff who had their pay substantially cut will seek to work elsewhere. After all, if a highly productive and experienced staff leader can make more working for another congress critter (or in some other DC office) they are likely to seek to do so. Simply because AOC thought that they were overpaid does not make it so - you cannot simply change labor 'free market' demand by fiat.

The idea that you can simply cut the pay of your plumbers and electricians so that you can pay your concrete form setters and site clean-up workers more may look better on paper than it does in actual practice.

I feel like you deserve a reply, but I just have nothing to add to this. You nailed it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because, pardon the pun, AOC is putting her money where her mouth is? Because she really IS concerned with the rank & file? Perhaps more than you?

Yet she did so by cutting the pay of her other staff members.

Salaries in Ocasio-Cortez’s office top out at $80,000, Trent said. That’s well below the median pay for Hill chiefs of staff at $154,634, according to the Legistorm analysis. And it’s a fraction of what experienced staffers could make in other jobs in Washington.

The last sentence (quoted above) may prove to be cause for others not to adopt the AOC plan to achieve better income equality within their office staff. Once you cut the pay/benefits offered for those higher level (and more skilled/experienced) positions on your staff then the ability to attract and retain qualified help in them is reduced.

 

[Master Debator]

I'm using the scenarios to demonstrate a point, not as some example of real cases.

We'll go a little more personal. In my business, I handle all PR, contract negotiations, training, and also do a fair amount of the physical labor. I have two team leaders who make about $5 above the average for my area. I also have 3 guys who basically hold the ladder or climb less than 5 feet. They do nothing but show up and do some pick up. When the company does better, it has NOTHING to do with those 3 guys. It's because when I did a good job and the team leaders did a good job, we got more contracts. I shouldn't see that benefit? The team leaders should take less because the guys who could be replaced by well-placed lumber somehow deserve more for repeating the same task over and over?

On top of that, we should let the government decide what is fair?! These are the folks administering SS while it goes bankrupt and the department of education while we spend more and more to be ranked lower and lower. These are the folks who put us in all these wars whether you agree or not. These are the guys who have never shown a single business instinct in their entire existence. This is a whole different subject. The only direct relevance is that they have no incentive to consider contribution vs. pay. Instead, they are more likely to get elected by promising the majority more money.

The government is ultimately determined by we the people and it's we the people who determine what's fair. I can understand your perspective but it ultimately boils down to you thinking you deserve more and they deserve less. No magical market has decided they only deserve that much, that's how much you want to pay them and that's evident from all your examples. That said, if a company grows I would hope that it raises the pay of its workers and it's fine if not everyone is paid the same and some a lot more than others, that's not an argument against there being a floor to how little you can pay any given worker.

 

[Eriech]

Walking the talk.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a ‘living wage’ starts in her office
New York Democrat will pay staffers no less than $52,000 a year

Claudia Pagon Marchena, like so many Hill staffers, moonlighted at a Washington, D.C., eatery to pay her rent until she took a job with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She celebrated her last day at her coffee shop job that same week.

That’s because Ocasio-Cortez, who has called on fellow lawmakers to pay their staffs a “living wage,” is making an example out of her own office. The New York Democrat has introduced an unusual policy that no one on her staff will make less than $52,000 a year — an almost unheard of amount for many of the 20-somethings whose long hours make House and Senate offices run.​

She isn't paying her staff a living wage. We are. It is easy to spend other people's money. Will she reduce the number of staffers so that she can pay more to less?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Cardinal]

She isn't paying her staff a living wage. We are. It is easy to spend other people's money. Will she reduce the number of staffers so that she can pay more to less?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Do you believe that she increased her own budget to pay those employees more?

 

[Keridan]

The government is ultimately determined by we the people and it's we the people who determine what's fair. I can understand your perspective but it ultimately boils down to you thinking you deserve more and they deserve less. No magical market has decided they only deserve that much, that's how much you want to pay them and that's evident from all your examples. That said, if a company grows I would hope that it raises the pay of its workers and it's fine if not everyone is paid the same and some a lot more than others, that's not an argument against there being a floor to how little you can pay any given worker.

With respect (and I mean that), you are wrong.

The government is a democratic republic. We elect the people we HOPE will represent the things we want. It is also a two party system, which pretty much ensures none of us ever get that.

The government can influence the market, but it does not control it (thank the gods). The market decides what is fair through a series of adjustments and negotiations. Typically, things like how much it would cost to replace someone and how much their labor adds to the value of a company are huge factors in what sets the value of that labor. It's not a magical market. It's supply and demand after negotiations simplified into one word. That employee is supplying their labor and my demand is what sets the price.

I absolutely have the option of telling them to buzz off if they want too much. That's part of the market. They have the option of doing the same to me if they don't like what I'm offering. The middle ground is our settlement and agreed rate of pay.

Now, personally, I do reward even the useless guys when we do well. I make sure to take care of people based on what they brought in, but I do try to reward the lower scale, too. It's optional, though. These guys worked no harder for us to earn what we did. They didn't lower any overhead either. They have done nothing to earn more. It's not my opinion, it's demonstrable fact.

By the way, if you raise the floor of how little you can pay a given worker, they are still on the floor. The last sentence has a little trouble being discussed. I don't pay the minimum, I pay based on value brought in. You'd be surprised how many companies do it with that formula and not "What's cheapest?".

 

[Cramer]

We really aren't going to find that common ground, but I appreciate you being analytical and debating reasonably.

Market value gives us a value for a product (in this case, labor). It will exist regardless of how much we end up paying for something, since that will just adjust market value. It gives us a baseline. It tells us when we are paying $300 for a $140 vacuum. It tells us where demand has put the value on a certain item. Want to raise the market value? Do it through negotiation and reasonable steps. Being an outlier changes nothing.

Not every job is worth a living wage. This is a whole different subject I'm afraid to get into, but some folks are there for college money, some are doing a second job to pick up a few bucks, etc etc. If your value to my company is that you bring in 10 bucks gross revenue, in all likelihood, you bring in $4 after insurance, taxes, and other expenses. If I'm even to make $1 off you, I need to pay you $3. The job is worth $3. At best. Otherwise, I will replace you with a robot or just pay someone $2 extra to take over your job. Government doesn't have to justify anything, so it's very easy to pay you $8 for that same job, which can cause other problems.

Paying too little is a problem. Paying a little too much might be a benefit. WAY overpaying just makes things a mess and it's not even the money of the person making the decision.

Regarding the bold sentence....if a person is working 40 hours a week, that person should not be able to live on those wages? Is that what you are saying? And when I say live, I am referring to the ability to provide shelter, food, and other basic necessities. (heat, water, clothes, basic TV, cell phone)

 

[Cramer]

This post is better, but we still haven't met the sanity threshold. Feel free to keep trying!

There is so much arrogance dripping from the post, I can barely read it.

 

[Cramer]

The government is ultimately determined by we the people and it's we the people who determine what's fair. I can understand your perspective but it ultimately boils down to you thinking you deserve more and they deserve less. No magical market has decided they only deserve that much, that's how much you want to pay them and that's evident from all your examples. That said, if a company grows I would hope that it raises the pay of its workers and it's fine if not everyone is paid the same and some a lot more than others, that's not an argument against there being a floor to how little you can pay any given worker.

It does seem the invisible hand tends to favor those with means, and screws those without.

 

[Cramer]

She isn't paying her staff a living wage. We are. It is easy to spend other people's money. Will she reduce the number of staffers so that she can pay more to less?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Are you clear on how government's work?

 

[Keridan]

There is so much arrogance dripping from the post, I can barely read it.

Imagine the idiocy that demanded that response from someone who has a long history of responsibly engaging those who disagree with him. It was meant to be as demeaning as it was arrogant, but I will take what I can get.

Anyway, thank you for the recognition. Always appreciated.

 

[Cramer]

Yeah, uh-huh. Her "let's get rid of high-priced housing and take care of the working people " sure DID NOT "START AT HOME".

Poor people not allowed in AOC's luxury apartment complex

The freshman congresswoman, a self-described socialist, campaigned on a platform to expand affordable housing, and her controversial Green New Deal proposal promises “Safe, affordable, adequate housing” for all.
But Ocasio-Cortez’s new building — built by leading D.C. developer WC Smith — is part of a luxury complex whose owners specifically do not offer affordable units under Washington, D.C.’s Affordable Dwelling Units program. The Washington Examiner is not naming the building or complex.

Ocasio-Cortez, commonly referred to as "AOC," repeatedly criticized luxury real estate developers during her campaign, claiming that their buildings hiked up rent prices and pushed low-income residents out of their neighborhoods.


Poor people not allowed in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's luxury apartment complex



She'll CORRUPT her way to $millions VERY SOON, wait and see....

Using a very biased source is not wise, if one wants to get the most complete story.

Using a slightly less biased source is far from perfect, but tends to give a more complete story.

The articles pointed out Ocasio-Cortez’s platform as a champion of the poor and took her to task for living in an upscale building that they claimed didn’t offer affordable housing.

The building developer told The Post that they participate in the District of Columbia’s housing voucher program and have low-income people living there.

Ocasio-Cortez rips media for reporting on her new luxury high-rise

FTR, the Post is owned by Murdoch.

 

[Keridan]

It does seem the invisible hand tends to favor those with means, and screws those without.

Reader of Adam Smith? Or have your own interpretation of the hand or both? Love when folks have actually read the works!

 

[Keridan]

Using a very biased source is not wise, if one wants to get the most complete story.

Using a slightly less biased source is far from perfect, but tends to give a more complete story.



Ocasio-Cortez rips media for reporting on her new luxury high-rise

FTR, the Post is owned by Murdoch.

That last one bothered me a lot. She literally was being threatened and those jackasses posted enough information to get to her front door. Worse than paparazzi in my opinion.

 

[Cramer]

Imagine the idiocy that demanded that response from someone who has a long history of responsibly engaging those who disagree with him. It was meant to be as demeaning as it was arrogant, but I will take what I can get.

Anyway, thank you for the recognition. Always appreciated.

Ah...double downing on arrogance, with a dash of belittling.

Seems a bit ignorant, and for lack of a better term...weak.

You're welcome.

 

[Cramer]

Reader of Adam Smith? Or have your own interpretation of the hand or both? Love when folks have actually read the works!

Both.

 

[Keridan]

Ah...double downing on arrogance, with a dash of belittling.

Seems a bit ignorant, and for lack of a better term...weak.

You're welcome.

Both.

Sadly, the first post put things below the threshold for sanity and intelligence on worthiness of engagement. To be fair, that was already a questionable point when you actually stated the invisible hand favors those who are better off, but I held out hope. That's sad, because if your second post was honest, it might have been a fun discussion. Anyway, good luck with that and all!