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

[Integrityrespec]

I'm pretty sure each office is budgeted similarly and not just digging into the general fund coffer further than others for this. She just allocates the way she talks. Rather admirable IMO.

It is certainly easier to allocate someone elses money to pay salaries.

 

[Xelor]

Please understand I'm not looking for the good ol' gotcha moment. I'm asking a serious question and enjoy how you deliberate and outline your every response. Are you saying that she does not pay enough? She did sacrifice over 50k from the top end salaries to meet this level. In addition, does that mean she is causing her COS (making something like 82k) to suffer a living barely above livable?

Let me start by saying my remarks pertain to a single person (with or without a kid, when/as noted). I can't speak to "enough" and "livable" once there's an unknown income involved.

"Livable" is a lifestyle that's acceptable, so, IMO, "barely above livable" is "gravy" added to "livable," thus there's nothing to complain about if one's paid enough to live a "barely above livable" lifestyle.

What's livable? "Livable" is doing the "stuff" middle-income folks do after they've paid their bills. Date, workout at a gym, go to movies or a show, go out of town to visit a friend somewhere for a weekend, go to bars/clubs, host a party from time to time, buy Christmas, birthday, Valentines gifts, go to the shore two or three times a summer, go home for X-mas and T-giving, buy a garment or two, party on major holidays (New Year's, Halloween, and other non-family holidays), order take-out, have dinner out at someplace priced like Olive Garden, Outback or Red Lobster, save for retirement, save to buy a house, pay-off college loans, etc.

Red:
I'm not making a qualitative judgment about what she pays her staff. I'm saying one earning $52K/year and living and working in DC will have to define a budget and live very closely to it -- i.e., not much, if any, "oh, what the hell" spending -- in order to pay his/her bills on time and eke out a modest middle-class ("livable") lifestyle.

A single person can probably pull that off on $52K/year so long as they don't have a dependent and live in a shared-space situation. If they have a dependent, $52K/year will have that person figuring out what bill(s) to not pay "this month" and then which one not to pay next month because s/he has to "catch up" on the one(s) not paid "last month." That or one'll be using credit cards to "expand" one's purchasing power (not a good thing if one's doing so to pay for unavoidable recurring expenses). That, AFAIC, is "not livable."


Blue:
Eighty grand a year is a enough that a single person, or even a single person with a child, can make ends meet. As a single person (no kid) it's enough; it's "livable." It's not lavish, but it's enough for a typical middle-income lifestyle.

 

[Keridan]

Let me start by saying my remarks pertain to a single person (with or without a kid, when/as noted). I can't speak to "enough" and "livable" once there's an unknown income involved.

"Livable" is a lifestyle that's acceptable, so, IMO, "barely above livable" is "gravy" added to "livable," thus there's nothing to complain about if one's paid enough to live a "barely above livable" lifestyle.

What's livable? "Livable" is doing the "stuff" middle-income folks do after they've paid their bills. Date, workout at a gym, go to movies or a show, go out of town to visit a friend somewhere for a weekend, go to bars/clubs, host a party from time to time, buy Christmas, birthday, Valentines gifts, go to the shore two or three times a summer, go home for X-mas and T-giving, buy a garment or two, party on major holidays (New Year's, Halloween, and other non-family holidays), order take-out, have dinner out at someplace priced like Olive Garden, Outback or Red Lobster, save for retirement, save to buy a house, pay-off college loans, etc.

Red:
I'm not making a qualitative judgment about what she pays her staff. I'm saying one earning $52K/year and living and working in DC will have to define a budget and live very closely to it -- i.e., not much, if any, "oh, what the hell" spending -- in order to pay his/her bills on time and eke out a modest middle-class ("livable") lifestyle.

A single person can probably pull that off on $52K/year so long as they don't have a dependent and live in a shared-space situation. If they have a dependent, $52K/year will have that person figuring out what bill(s) to not pay "this month" and then which one not to pay next month because s/he has to "catch up" on the one(s) not paid "last month." That or one'll be using credit cards to "expand" one's purchasing power (not a good thing if one's doing so to pay for unavoidable recurring expenses). That, AFAIC, is "not livable."


Blue:
Eighty grand a year is a enough that a single person, or even a single person with a child, can make ends meet. As a single person (no kid) it's enough; it's "livable." It's not lavish, but it's enough for a typical middle-income lifestyle.

Thank you for yet another considered response.

A lot of the items you listed could easily be categorized as luxuries OR regular expenses. It's such a grey area that it makes it tough to have this discussion. Personally, I run a business where my family makes sacrifices in hopes that both my family and those who work for me can enjoy holidays and dates and not stress every payday (I regularly loan as much as 2k to folks who work hard for me so they can make sure a kid has a good birthday or they don't suffer somehow).

Even with that, I don't feel those who add nothing more than a well-placed piece of lumber could add deserve enough to live on for that. They are welcome to either find another job or do better at the one I offer and move up. I've had many great guys work their way up.

I get into all this because livable is relative. You've pointed that out by mentioning what it costs to get by in DC. Some could easily argue that a minimum for a job is paying the rent, cable, and electricity. Others could feel that not having the newest game system is an unfair sacrifice.

AOC is a great congress woman. She also chose to keep the budget more regulated by paying her COS far less than standard so she could pay the person answering the phones way over that standard. Is that how you feel things should work? If not, is it a small or large adjustment you would make?

 

[Xelor]

Thank you for yet another considered response.

A lot of the items you listed could easily be categorized as luxuries OR regular expenses. It's such a grey area that it makes it tough to have this discussion. Personally, I run a business where my family makes sacrifices in hopes that both my family and those who work for me can enjoy holidays and dates and not stress every payday (I regularly loan as much as 2k to folks who work hard for me so they can make sure a kid has a good birthday or they don't suffer somehow).

Even with that, I don't feel those who add nothing more than a well-placed piece of lumber could add deserve enough to live on for that. They are welcome to either find another job or do better at the one I offer and move up. I've had many great guys work their way up.

I get into all this because livable is relative. You've pointed that out by mentioning what it costs to get by in DC. Some could easily argue that a minimum for a job is paying the rent, cable, and electricity. Others could feel that not having the newest game system is an unfair sacrifice.

AOC is a great congress woman. She also chose to keep the budget more regulated by paying her COS far less than standard so she could pay the person answering the phones way over that standard. Is that how you feel things should work? If not, is it a small or large adjustment you would make?

Blue:
I believe in paying market rates for labor, recognizing that market rate, even within a given geography, is a price range, not a price point.


Pink:
Well, if one's wage is but enough to pay one's rent, cable and electricity, one doesn't earn enough. On the other hand, if one's wage is too low to afford the electric bill resulting from having so many Christmas lights that one's home makes the local, well, one's doing that falls outside of what I'd call living a "modestly livable" lifestyle. I'm reticent to be too specific about what is and isn't "livable" or "modest," but I think my various life experiences give me a pretty good sense of what's reasonable, livable, modest, etc. -- which, like "market rate," is a range -- and what's not.

You're a business owner; I was too. That experience alone, if one founded one's firm, places one face-to-face with frugality's imperatives. I went to boarding school, which, though I didn't face money woes, was an exercise in forced austerity (as it still is), thus giving me a good sense of what bare minimum housing and wardrobe entails and doesn't.

AFAIC, whatever "bare minimum" entails, if that's all the income one can command, something's amiss with either the employer or the employee. I can say on a case by case basis what specifically is amiss, and I can say on an economy level (city, county, state, region, or country) whether a given person's situation has in it something that's amiss, and I can tell who -- employer or employee -- is on the borderline of being "amiss."


Tan:
No.

I don't have a problem with her paying her CoS $80K/year. I know, however, that her doing so, and others following suit means sooner or later the Congressional CoS positions will go to folks who either lack experience (not a good thing) or who have tons of it, along with a spouse/partner who earns a lot, and who'll take/use the position for its power (also, not a good thing). That's the problem with paying below market rate for any job/labor.

An alternative, of course, is that because she pays below market for her CoS, she's going to experience high turnover in that position. That's the wrong position in which to have that happen.

How organizationally disjunctive would it be if you had to replace your corporate controller, COO, EVP for marketing, or your HR VP or some other senior executive role every one to three years?


Brown:
You tell me what kind of "adjustment" I'd, by your reckoning, make.

What I'd do is pay market rate for labor, provided the five-year aggregate market rate (including labor overhead costs that don't appear in a paycheck) for that labor is lower than the cost of exchanging labor for capital. Specifically re: phone answering, that'd mean replacing an employee with an automated phone system.

I'd say that means I'd make a large adjustment, shifting wages to market rates, perhaps operating with fewer staff (1 or 2 fewer FTEs) overall, and exchanging labor for capital where possible.

 

[itsforthekids]

yes, "triggered" might be a better description than "in a frenzy" about her

Again, not triggered...amused. Good comedy is very hard to find.

 

[Xelor]

...I...enjoy how you deliberate and outline your every response. ...

Thank you for yet another considered response.

...

Thank you and you're welcome.

 

[poweRob]

It is certainly easier to allocate someone elses money to pay salaries.

It's a budget. And she's apparently running her budget unlike your con heroes.

 

[Keridan]

Blue:
I believe in paying market rates for labor, recognizing that market rate, even within a given geography, is a price range, not a price point.


Pink:
Well, if one's wage is but enough to pay one's rent, cable and electricity, one doesn't earn enough. On the other hand, if one's wage is too low to afford the electric bill resulting from having so many Christmas lights that one's home makes the local, well, one's doing that falls outside of what I'd call living a "modestly livable" lifestyle. I'm reticent to be too specific about what is and isn't "livable" or "modest," but I think my various life experiences give me a pretty good sense of what's reasonable, livable, modest, etc. -- which, like "market rate," is a range -- and what's not.

You're a business owner; I was too. That experience alone, if one founded one's firm, places one face-to-face with frugality's imperatives. I went to boarding school, which, though I didn't face money woes, was an exercise in forced austerity (as it still is), thus giving me a good sense of what bare minimum housing and wardrobe entails and doesn't.

AFAIC, whatever "bare minimum" entails, if that's all the income one can command, something's amiss with either the employer or the employee. I can say on a case by case basis what specifically is amiss, and I can say on an economy level (city, county, state, region, or country) whether a given person's situation has in it something that's amiss, and I can tell who -- employer or employee -- is on the borderline of being "amiss."


Tan:
No.

I don't have a problem with her paying her CoS $80K/year. I know, however, that her doing so, and others following suit means sooner or later the Congressional CoS positions will go to folks who either lack experience (not a good thing) or who have tons of it, along with a spouse/partner who earns a lot, and who'll take/use the position for its power (also, not a good thing). That's the problem with paying below market rate for any job/labor.

An alternative, of course, is that because she pays below market for her CoS, she's going to experience high turnover in that position. That's the wrong position in which to have that happen.

How organizationally disjunctive would it be if you had to replace your corporate controller, COO, EVP for marketing, or your HR VP or some other senior executive role every one to three years?


Brown:
You tell me what kind of "adjustment" I'd, by your reckoning, make.

What I'd do is pay market rate for labor, provided the five-year aggregate market rate (including labor overhead costs that don't appear in a paycheck) for that labor is lower than the cost of exchanging labor for capital. Specifically re: phone answering, that'd mean replacing an employee with an automated phone system.

I'd say that means I'd make a large adjustment, shifting wages to market rates, perhaps operating with fewer staff (1 or 2 fewer FTEs) overall, and exchanging labor for capital where possible.

I kind of feel bad because you took the time to type all this up and it makes totally fair and valid points. But, since I don't strongly disagree with anything you said, I can't give an equivalent response. You answered my questions nicely and were very detailed. Thank you for that. I also largely agree with your answers.

 

[ludin]

She's gonna be asking Michael Cohen some tough questions next week too. If you think conservatives hate her now. JUST WAIT!!!!! Each week she is more and more impressive despite her dumb social media. While it may be dumb, and too trollish for my liking, it is a necessary evil that more people in Congress should do to fight the right's propaganda online. She shouldn't have to be the sole attack dog on the left.

she is not fighting anything but her own stupidity.

 

[justabubba]

she is not fighting anything but her own stupidity.

what personal stupidity is she fighting?

 

[beefheart]

Sooooo, if I'm following the Republican response to this correctly, AOC shouldn't be paying her staff anything at all.

Irony is, that if she paid her staff what other congresspeople paid their staff, they would be screaming "Hypocrite"

Because that is how easy it is to be a right wing spewer.

 

[Cardinal]

Irony is, that if she paid her staff what other congresspeople paid their staff, they would be screaming "Hypocrite"

Because that is how easy it is to be a right wing spewer.

That is absolutely true.

 

[ludin]

what personal stupidity is she fighting?

pretty much everything she says.

We are going to die in 12 years.
NY can spend 3 billion on schools and medical they now saved.

then again maybe nothing can save her from her stupidity.
but her sheep sure like to eat it.

 

[veritas1]

She says people should think twice before having kids. If only her parents had taken this advice.:lol:

 

[veritas1]

she is not fighting anything but her own stupidity.

What's really hilarious and rather pathetic is that this 29 year old who knows nothing whatsoever, has the rest of the Democrats terrified. They're all afraid to come out and say she needs to be quiet, sit down and listen to the adults. They know the MSM attack dogs would be all over them so they go along with what they know is absurd nonsense.

 

[justabubba]

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

pretty much everything she says.

We are going to die in 12 years.

she is sharing with us what the UN had to say about the urgency of measures needed for climate control:

The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN | Environment | The Guardian

tell us the stupidity found in the UN's report, the one OAC relied upon for her remarks

NY can spend 3 billion on schools and medical they now saved.

OAC:

Not sure how many pundits talking about Amazon even read the deal or where it was going.

$500+ million of the deal was *capital grants.*

$2.5 billion in tax breaks.

It’s fair to ask why we don’t invest the capital for public use, + why we don’t give working people a tax break.

If we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that money, if we wanted to

Ocasio-Cortez goes on tear defending role in Amazon’s New York exit | Fox News

her's is a valid question. if there was $3 Billion available from NYC to subsidize an amazon move, money no longer required by amazon, why not invest that same capital for the benefit of NYC citizens

then again maybe nothing can save her from her stupidity.
but her sheep sure like to eat it.

the only stupidity i found within that post was your own ignorance regarding what OAC actually expressed

 

[Xelor]

I kind of feel bad because you took the time to type all this up and it makes totally fair and valid points. But, since I don't strongly disagree with anything you said, I can't give an equivalent response. You answered my questions nicely and were very detailed. Thank you for that. I also largely agree with your answers.

That's fine. We basically agree. If you haven't any more about which you care to ask, or if you haven't any nuances you care to express, well, that is what it is. The line of discussion is done, and we both can just move on to new topics, other threads, etc. Sometimes conversations end organically. Nothing wrong with that.

Red:
You're welcome.

I appreciate that you posed neutrally phrased questions. That makes it possible and easy to answer them. (It's rare that I'll answer loaded or leading questions.)