Poll of the Day > Newsflash: No One's Going to Work Their Butt Off for $15 Anymore

(+) Yeah! (+)

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

they just want to see poor people stay poor so they can feel better about themselves.

Overly-aggressive minimum wage creates poverty, as low-skilled and low-value workers are priced out of the labor market in favor of outsourcing and automation.

Low pay > No pay

Questionmarktarius posted...

Overly-aggressive minimum wage creates poverty, as low-skilled and low-value workers are priced out of the labor market in favor of outsourcing and automation.

Corporations do this regardless of wage increases. And instead of passing the savings back on to the remaining struggling workers it just goes to the people who own the business who are already wealthy. If you criticize this people say that's just how capitalism works. If you say well maybe capitalism is the problem then they just recycle red scare propaganda at you. Then they go shut up and stop buying avocado toast and Starbucks and we're back at square one again

willythemailboy posted...

Better than if you were trying to live in LA on the same income, though.

I get your game, though. Any place I point out that people can and do live on under $40k you're just going to call a shithole. You can't be proven wrong because you've defined the terms such that even proof that you're wrong you can take as "proof" that you're right.

A place where the life expectancy is the lowest in the country, the education is the worst, the infrastructure is the most outdated, and the likelihood of natural disaster is the highest. Don't call it a shit hole if that offends your sensibilities but it's definitely not a place most people want to live, and the fact that some select places can get by on $15 an hour doesn't mean it's a livable wage for the rest of the country.

man101 posted...

A place where the life expectancy is the lowest in the country, the education is the worst, the infrastructure is the most outdated, and the likelihood of natural disaster is the highest. Don't call it a shit hole if that offends your sensibilities but it's definitely not a place most people want to live, and the fact that some select places can get by on $15 an hour doesn't mean it's a livable wage for the rest of the country.

Also the minimum wage in Louisiana is $7.25/hr., just to be clear. And the largest employer is Walmart. So your average retail/service worker would be making way less than the amount of money that was already below the state's paltry median income.

Most people that claim 15 an hour is a livable wage are the kind of people that never had to live in poverty. But they want you to keep doing so

A flat minimum wage is just a stupid idea in the first place, given that it doesn't take regional factors into consideration and will always be playing catch-up because everyone spends so long arguing about an increase.

The numbers obviously need more tweaking than you're going to get from a random post on GameFAQs, but minimum hourly wage for a given position should be set such that a person working 40 hours/week at that wage will make an amount equal to the rent of a median 2-bedroom apartment within a 30-minute walk of their work location (or within a 30-minute drive with an extra ~$5k per year to cover car costs, or within 30 minutes by transit with whatever an annual transit pass would cost). That targets the classic "rent should be 1/3 of your gross income" (which may need tweaking with what's been happening with food and utility costs) if the person is paying half of the rent of a place that's 2/3 of the median, means businesses in low CoL areas don't have to pay more than their employees actually need, and exerts pressure to lower rents in an area because it will become less desirable if businesses can't afford to operate due to inflated minimum wages. Those working minimum wage then have the option to live further away, with more roommates, or in a lower-quality place than 2/3 of the median if they want to save more, while not needing to make those sacrifices if they're content with that standard of living while they climb the employment ladder.

With that philosophy in mind, $15/hour for 40 hours/week and 50 weeks per year is $30k, or $2500/month, 2/3 of which is $1667 for a 2-bedroom ($833 each, split two ways). Many neighbourhoods would need quite a bit higher than that because finding a 2-bedroom for $1667 is virtually impossible (and, actually, the "2/3 of median" figure is the biggest thing that needs adjusting in this idea, because I'm loosely aiming for the lower quartile/third, but that rarely means 33% less than the median rent), many neighbourhoods would be fine with quite a bit less than that because their median 2-bedroom is much cheaper than $2500.

While, obviously, the numbers need to be adjusted, this sort of algorithmic approach would avoid the endless debates over what the right flat number is (which is endlessly debated precisely because there is no right flat number), while ensuring that minimum wage is maintained as a living wage.

@adjl

Agreed, the amount needed to live in different regions varies so much that local governments should really be taking an actual honest look at data and setting it accordingly. But we know that will never happen

If nothing else, it means nobody can campaign on the basis of minimum wage moving forward. Politicians benefit quite strongly from the fact that people saying "nobody can live on $15/hour" and "$15/hour is insanely luxurious" can never agree because they're actually both right, in their own contexts.

adjl posted...

Politicians benefit quite strongly from the fact that people saying "nobody can live on $15/hour" and "$15/hour is insanely luxurious" can never agree because they're actually both right, in their own contexts.

hyper-localization is the correct answer, but nobody wants to admit that, and/or give up that power.

adjl posted...

If nothing else, it means nobody can campaign on the basis of minimum wage moving forward. Politicians benefit quite strongly from the fact that people saying "nobody can live on $15/hour" and "$15/hour is insanely luxurious" can never agree because they're actually both right, in their own contexts.

I dont think 15 an hour is luxurious anywhere. It may be manageable in some mostly abandoned Andy Griffith town but you're still gonna probably have a hard time saving significant amounts of money to better your life. I've driven all through the country and been out to the booniest of boonies. Price of goods isn't that much lower. Housing may be but good luck finding a place to rent in a town like that

Questionmarktarius posted...

hyper-localization is the correct answer, but nobody wants to admit that, and/or give up that power.

We see this with Willy's comments about New York: the cost of living in Manhattan is very, very different from the cost of living in the Bronx, and they're governed by the same mayor, let alone by the same governor setting a state-wide minimum wage that ignores that difference or the same president setting a federal one. A flat minimum wage cannot work.

OhhhJa posted...

I dont think 15 an hour is luxurious anywhere. It may be manageable in some mostly abandoned Andy Griffith town but you're still gonna probably have a hard time saving significant amounts of money to better your life. I've driven all through the country and been out to the booniest of boonies. Price of goods isn't that much lower. Housing may be but good luck finding a place to rent in a town like that

I'm definitely exaggerating with "insanely luxurious" (some people do say that, but not people that have the legitimate point to which I'm trying to allude), but it's more than a living wage in many places. As you say, though, housing isn't the only CoL issue, and places with low housing costs often have higher prices for goods because they're more remote. This is part of why I say that the minimum wage formula is inevitably going to be more complex and nuanced than I can present in a GameFAQs post.

That said, I don't think "saving significant amounts of money to better your life" needs to be considered in minimum wages. There should be some discretionary income, as much as people like to think that anyone working minimum wage should eat nothing but beans and stale rice and live in a 6*6 shack and count the hairs on their arm for fun because being poor is a crime for which they must suffer, but the idea of a "living wage" is "this covers your living expenses," not "this covers your living expenses and also will let you save up for a new house in a year." That gets more into the sort of saving potential you'd work toward by earning raises/promotions or by lowering your living standards a bit to save money (with the key distinction that that would be a choice and not something you're forced into by poverty wages).

15 American dollars is a lot here

Makes me want to quit my job and work for a foreign company

OhhhJa posted...

Most people that claim 15 an hour is a livable wage are the kind of people that never had to live in poverty. But they want you to keep doing so

On the contrary, the people saying $15 an hour is a livable wage are often the people who have or are living on that wage and question your life experience when you call it poverty, since you clearly have not experienced poverty if you think $15 an hour represents poverty.

There's an insulting term for your point of view, and it's called privilege.

man101 posted...

A place where the life expectancy is the lowest in the country, the education is the worst, the infrastructure is the most outdated, and the likelihood of natural disaster is the highest. Don't call it a shit hole if that offends your sensibilities but it's definitely not a place most people want to live, and the fact that some select places can get by on $15 an hour doesn't mean it's a livable wage for the rest of the country.

My post about the Bronx proves how bad this take is. The median family income for Mississippi and the Bronx are roughly similar.

Willy sounds a lot like the rural poor rhetoric that's common in America where they look down on city folk who are predominantly maybe one or two class strata above them, instead of directing that disdain towards the classes at or near the very top, who are the ones actually keeping people poor

bachewychomp posted...

Willy sounds a lot like the rural poor rhetoric that's common in America where they look down on city folk who are predominantly maybe one or two class strata above them, instead of directing that disdain towards the classes at or near the very top, who are the ones actually keeping people poor

Okay, uncle Bernie. We know it can't be the millionaires you were blaming, because you're one of them, so we'll have to blame the billionaires.

willythemailboy posted...

On the contrary, the people saying $15 an hour is a livable wage are often the people who have or are living on that wage and question your life experience when you call it poverty, since you clearly have not experienced poverty if you think $15 an hour represents poverty.

There's an insulting term for your point of view, and it's called privilege.

Lol you dont know shit. Quit trying to pretend you're something you arent. Ive been in poverty and i can tell you haven't

OhhhJa posted...

Lol you dont know shit. Quit trying to pretend you're something you arent. Ive been in poverty and i can tell you haven't

OhhhJa posted...

Most people that claim 15 an hour is a livable wage are the kind of people that never had to live in poverty. But they want you to keep doing so

No one who had experience living on below $15 an hour would post that $15 an hour isn't a livable wage. Your own posts expose your lies, tough guy.

I'm guessing any experience you've had living on that level of income occurred in the 1990s.

willythemailboy posted...

Okay, uncle Bernie. We know it can't be the millionaires you were blaming, because you're one of them, so we'll have to blame the billionaires.

Do you know the difference between a million and a billion? Why would someone with a thousand times the wealth be less/only as worth blaming as millionaires as you're insinuating? Lol you're just doing exactly what I said you were doing, where you'd rather not be advocated for at all than have someone richer advocate for you. Although the whole thing about Bernie being a millionaire was so stupid and overblown anyway.

He's worth like $3 million, which doesn't sound like that much to me for someone working high-profile jobs for a lot of their life into their 80s. Him owning three houses was also overblown as none of them were particularly extravagant IIRC, and that's more of a generational issue because he comes from a generation when people actually could own property easily. People in congress having two homes is very common since they can't work out of their home state. His third house was a Vermont summer lakehouse, which is the kind of thing that older middle-class people sometimes own too

What does it have to do with what I'm saying anyway. Do you think I'm a millionaire or that without Bernie Sanders nobody could come to their own conclusions about wealth inequality lmao

A good start over there would be pushing for benefits since it varies state to state. In most western nations we get guaranteed paid sick leave and are actually encouraged (sometimes forced) to use our leave days (even months at a time). it would probably be a more palatable compromise for the red states.

bachewychomp posted...

He's worth like $3 million, which doesn't sound like that much to me for someone working high-profile jobs for a lot of their life into their 80s

it's legitimately pauper money compared to most of his peers

bachewychomp posted...

Why would someone with a thousand times the wealth be less/only as worth blaming as millionaires as you're insinuating?

It depends on whether we're blaming them individually or as a class, because there's sure as fuck more than a thousand times as many millionaires as billionaires.

bachewychomp posted...

where you'd rather not be advocated for at all than have someone richer advocate for you

I don't trust anyone with that much money to be advocating for anyone but themselves, and I've never seen an example to show that I should.

bachewychomp posted...

Although the whole thing about Bernie being a millionaire was so stupid and overblown anyway.

In other circumstances I'd have agreed, but Bernie in particular had been railing against the millionaires and billionaires exploiting everyone only to drop the millionaires part like it was radioactive the first time someone pointed out that he was part of the millionaire class. By calling you Bernie I'm saying I expect the same exact behavior from you. Your lifestyle is just as dependent on exploiting those poorer than you as anyone in a corporate boardroom.

And this may be personal bias, but of the abusive employment situations I've been in none of them were caused by billionaires. The only small business I've worked for was operated by an asshole millionaire who in the end skipped town and left dozens of illegal immigrants protesting about not being paid for weeks (thankfully months after I quit); in corporate jobs it's not generally the CEO that's exploiting you, it's the largely millionaire middle management squeezing workers to increase their own "performance" based bonuses.

xGhostchantx posted...

A good start over there would be pushing for benefits since it varies state to state. In most western nations we get guaranteed paid sick leave and are actually encouraged (sometimes forced) to use our leave days (even months at a time). it would probably be a more palatable compromise for the red states.

One big difference between European and American employers is that by American standards you're massively overstaffed. An American company generally doesn't have the staff to have people gone a month or two out of the year, and hiring more people (or paying massive overtime) is actually more expensive than raising wages (within limits, of course).

adjl posted...

We see this with Willy's comments about New York: the cost of living in Manhattan is very, very different from the cost of living in the Bronx, and they're governed by the same mayor, let alone by the same governor setting a state-wide minimum wage that ignores that difference or the same president setting a federal one. A flat minimum wage cannot work.

I'm definitely exaggerating with "insanely luxurious" (some people do say that, but not people that have the legitimate point to which I'm trying to allude), but it's more than a living wage in many places. As you say, though, housing isn't the only CoL issue, and places with low housing costs often have higher prices for goods because they're more remote. This is part of why I say that the minimum wage formula is inevitably going to be more complex and nuanced than I can present in a GameFAQs post.

That said, I don't think "saving significant amounts of money to better your life" needs to be considered in minimum wages. There should be some discretionary income, as much as people like to think that anyone working minimum wage should eat nothing but beans and stale rice and live in a 6*6 shack and count the hairs on their arm for fun because being poor is a crime for which they must suffer, but the idea of a "living wage" is "this covers your living expenses," not "this covers your living expenses and also will let you save up for a new house in a year." That gets more into the sort of saving potential you'd work toward by earning raises/promotions or by lowering your living standards a bit to save money (with the key distinction that that would be a choice and not something you're forced into by poverty wages).

The best you will get is maybe a city limits minimum wage and a country minimum wage, if you think we will get some massive complicated minimum wage system that just won't happen.

I live in a state with a higher minimum wage than most and they tier it based on where you live somewhat. In the city it's $16 an hour right now, and as you move further it out it decreases slightly.

This is perhaps the best that you will ever get, but as a federal thing there is no way they take the time to figure that shit out. It would likely be just some random number they determine. It's also way too much work if you go by every like city and town, at that point the headache becomes annoying. You might also have some companies try to exploit by opening up their HQ in some random small town and save money that way.

willythemailboy posted...

One big difference between European and American employers is that by American standards you're massively overstaffed. An American company generally doesn't have the staff to have people gone a month or two out of the year, and hiring more people (or paying massive overtime) is actually more expensive than raising wages (within limits, of course).

you have been gaslit so, so badly. we absolutely are not "over staffed". Not even remotely close. We wish so, so bad that were true. You probably don't even realise that leave can be blocked if it's busy.

Monopoman posted...

The best you will get is maybe a city limits minimum wage and a country minimum wage, if you think we will get some massive complicated minimum wage system that just won't happen.

All that's really needed to pull this off is a registry of rental properties, which already kind of exists and isn't a bad idea in general because it helps to regulate the rental market and expose fraud from landlords. Fine-tuning the algorithm would take some front-end work and plenty of arguments about what an appropriate target is (like me spitballing 2/3 of the median rent as a target would have to be replaced with more in-depth analyses of what the rental market looks like), but once that's done it'd just be a matter of maintaining the database well enough that businesses could get semi-annual updates on how much they need to be paying (not a small ask in terms of server power, but not at all unachievable).

Monopoman posted...

You might also have some companies try to exploit by opening up their HQ in some random small town and save money that way.

As long as that's where the work actually happens, that's not an issue. It promotes business growth in small towns with low costs of living, gentrifying them slowly and sustainably because that gentrification inherently comes with a growth in employment potential that keeps up with CoL increases.

Remote work does throw a wrench into this, though. Opening the HQ for a remote office in the middle of nowhere so they have next to no minimum wage would give them the option to pay employees living in cities far less than those employees need to get by. There would likely need to be some special rules for remote jobs, like stipulating that they aren't allowed to reduce anyone's pay for a couple years following any move of their office, or possibly even just defining a flat minimum wage for remote work (which seems like a cop-out after spending so long insisting that a flat minimum wage can't work, but when it is actually a matter of "we can employ anyone from anywhere," you don't need to take regional variations into account to nearly the same extent). In practice, though, most remote positions aren't going to be paying minimum wage anyway, so I don't know that this question would actually come up often enough to be a serious problem.

xGhostchantx posted...

you have been gaslit so, so badly. we absolutely are not "over staffed". Not even remotely close. We wish so, so bad that were true. You probably don't even realise that leave can be blocked if it's busy.

There's something so very American about saying "if you have any surge capacity at all then you're overstaffed." The idea that everybody should be working at maximum capacity at all times is just so fundamentally at odds with the labour standards of every developed nation.

The problem is, literally everything is out of whack. Minimum wage is way too low, cost of living is way too high. Housing is completely unaffordable. And that's not just talking about buying a house, rent is completely ridiculous as well.

On top of this, working conditions suck at a lot of places, so on top of being paid poorly and not able to live, you also have to put up with a far more hectic and hostile work environment, one person doing the work of multiple people and simultaneously needing to do so many things that sometimes it's literally impossible for a single person to do. Plus lack of benefits and vacation, unaffordable healthcare, etc. not to mention that so many people are getting classified as gig workers that you're not even able to fight for any kind of fair or ethical treatment as an employee. Add in the absolute destruction of unions and workers rights to top it off.

The average worker's situation in the US is dire, and it's systemic.

Yeah, an algorithmic minimum wage is just one part of the broader solutions needed. Also required is killing the concept of residential real estate speculation so you don't have companies like Blackrock engineering housing crises for fun and profit.

adjl posted...

Also required is killing the concept of residential real estate speculation so you don't have companies like Blackrock engineering housing crises for fun and profit.

That's only part of the problem.

The other is that your options are going to be a crumbling "grandfathered in!" building built a hundred years ago, a new (expensive) 5-over-1 with pretentious coffee at the ground level, or mcmansions.
Cut the bureaucratic crap that's bloating up costs, and bring back cheap rowhouses.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/b6763078.jpg

Questionmarktarius posted...

The other is that your options are going to be a crumbling "grandfathered in!" building built a hundred years ago, a new (expensive) 5-over-1 with pretentious coffee at the ground level, or mcmansions.
Cut the bureaucratic crap that's bloating up costs, and bring back cheap rowhouses.

Most of the red tape that causes issues is single-family zoning, and lots of cities are ditching that in favour of mixed-use and other medium-density residential zoning options. That the new builds are all expensive is reflective of the fact that nobody wants to develop anywhere that they can't charge $2500 a month for a "luxury" (read: painted white) studio, not anything related to regulations. Fundamentally, that 5-over-1 you like talking about so much is reflective of the sort of townhouse complex the developer would build in the same neighbourhood, in terms of cost, and if a 5-over-1 is allowed, a townhouse also would be.

You also see red tape holding developers back from making builds as large as they want, which could be partially addressed by efforts to kill speculation. A big part of the issue associated with that is that you'll get large developers buying up existing single-family homes and leaving them vacant or renting them out short-term while they gradually buy up the rest of the block over several years to knock it down and build a big building that takes another decade to offer housing. Kill speculation by mandating that residential properties must be occupied (with appropriate flexibilities to reflect that that isn't entirely possible), and you'll get less of that in favour of smaller developers buying one or two lots and replacing the single-family homes with medium-density options like du-/tri-/fourplexes, townhouses, or row houses, which go up faster and don't disrupt the existing local housing market nearly as much as knocking down a whole block does.

adjl posted...

Fundamentally, that 5-over-1 you like talking about so much is reflective of the sort of townhouse complex the developer would build in the same neighbourhood, in terms of cost, and if a 5-over-1 is allowed, a townhouse also would be.

5-over-1 and rowhouses involve different local economic realities, and that's okay.

xGhostchantx posted...

you have been gaslit so, so badly. we absolutely are not "over staffed". Not even remotely close.

Nailed it. There's a lot of places where they are severely under staffed. Higher ups and managements that think they can do much with so little until others quit, get fired, or move on to something else. Sometimes, it takes one person to leave before it all crumbles.

We wish so, so bad that were true. You probably don't even realise that leave can be blocked if it's busy.

Is that possible?

The millionaire vs. billionaire debate isn't just about how much money you have, although I still don't get why you think they're comparable. Having $800 million is close to having a billion, but having $3 million is not. I don't recall if/when Bernie stopped using the word millionaires but he was obviously talking about the mega millionaires. If you were like 30 years old and got a single million dollars it's not like that's even enough money to retire off of by itself, and certainly not enough to live extravagantly like a $100+ millionaire.

In capitalism you basically have a labor class and an ownership class. The thing is that almost all billionaires are part of the ownership class, but there are many millionaires who are technically part of the labor class. This is why I generally side with athletes in labor disputes, as even if many of them are super rich, they are fighting against even richer ownership. If people with a lot of money and sway like that can't check labor abuses then what hope do we middle class and lower folks have? Ownership is all about profiting off of the labor of others, and we see that when that power goes unchecked, they basically end up with free rein to stifle wages, lay off employees, outsource work to countries where they can do even more labor exploitation, and then with the wealth they gained, buy the government so they can keep it this way.

xGhostchantx posted...

you have been gaslit so, so badly. we absolutely are not "over staffed". Not even remotely close. We wish so, so bad that were true. You probably don't even realise that leave can be blocked if it's busy.

You're staffed such that at minimum 10% of your employees are on leave at any given time. You don't "feel" overstaffed because the excess staff isn't on-hand at any given time, but to maintain that leave policy means that you have to keep at minimum 11% more people on payroll to maintain the same level of staffing an equivalent American company would. The math isn't perfect, as an American company would generally offer 2 weeks paid leave per year vs 6 weeks in most European countries but close enough.

And of course leave can be blocked. It can in the US as well. If your business has a predictable surge period, leave is generally blacked out for that time period, such as December for retail workers or March-April for tax accountants.

bachewychomp posted...

In capitalism you basically have a labor class and an ownership class. The thing is that almost all billionaires are part of the ownership class, but there are many millionaires who are technically part of the labor class.

Yeah, that sums it up pretty well. There's a distinct difference between "rich enough to leverage the power your wealth offers to get indefinitely richer" and "rich enough to retire comfortably." People who are rich enough to retire comfortably do hold a large chunk of the available resources, relative to those that are struggling to get by, but they aren't the ones deliberately engineering housing crises to drive up the value of the real estate they've hoarded, or successfully lobbying to have worker protection laws relaxed so they can save a few bucks at the expense of a few lives. That requires a kind of wealth they'll likely never see, because of just how minute a million is compared to a billion.

Sanders certainly is not currently part of the struggling working class, but his wealth is about what you'd expect from a dude in his 80's who's been working in a decent-paying job for most of his life (especially considering how relatively easy it was to buy a house 50-60 years ago). He does not have enough wealth to abuse it for his own enrichment at the expense of everyone else.

If I understand Willy logic correctly, you aren't allowed to complain if there are people poorer than you, unless you are so rich that all but ~3000 people in the world are poorer than you. Makes sense!

Seriously, the only people you've defended in this topic are either ones living in abject poverty, or billionaires

sull56ivan2010 posted...

Is that possible?

Indeed it is. If it's too busy or too many staff are off already for whatever reason, you're working boyo.

willythemailboy posted...

You're staffed such that at minimum 10% of your employees are on leave at any given time. You don't "feel" overstaffed because the excess staff isn't on-hand at any given time, but to maintain that leave policy means that you have to keep at minimum 11% more people on payroll to maintain the same level of staffing an equivalent American company would. The math isn't perfect, as an American company would generally offer 2 weeks paid leave per year vs 6 weeks in most European countries but close enough.

Literally no, lol. Who is feeding you this bullshit? I genuinely feel really, really bad for you dude. Even a company with 10 employees still has to comply and still manages to.

xGhostchantx posted...

Literally no, lol. Who is feeding you this bullshit? I genuinely feel really, really bad for you dude. Even a company with 10 employees still has to comply and still manages to.

An equivalent American company would only have 8 or 9 employees because they don't have to comply with that. How are you failing at basic math?

willythemailboy posted...

An equivalent American company would only have 8 or 9 employees because they don't have to comply with that. How are you failing at basic math?

I think you've completely missed the point dude. You've been gaslit so brutally that it's sad. Even a company with two employees has to comply it. Even a company with only one.

No one here is overstaffed. We do not "overstaff" with "10%" more "just in case" someone goes on leave. That is just not at all how it works. Like, at all.

You are the only developed western nation like this. And it's not because it's better. It's because they don't want better for you.

xGhostchantx posted...

Even a company with two employees has to comply it. Even a company with only one.

So three months out of the year it's a one employee company, or simply shuts down for six weeks a year. How else could they possibly comply?

xGhostchantx posted...

No one here is overstaffed. We do not "overstaff" with "10%" more "just in case" someone goes on leave.

At this point you're actively choosing to ignore the point, as you can't have possibly misunderstood me. Yes, you are overstaffed not because someone might go on leave but because people will be on leave more than 10% of the year. You have to cover that leave somehow, either by overstaffing or by operating below capacity - which is just another way of saying you're overstaffed for the workload you're actually handling.

The only "gaslighting" going on is you trying to convince me that you're not overstaffed by American standards.

xGhostchantx posted...

No one here is overstaffed. We do not "overstaff" with "10%" more "just in case" someone goes on leave. That is just not at all how it works. Like, at all.

What he's trying to say is that a given European company will need 10% more staff than an equivalent American company to cover the extra leave requirements. That's not entirely inaccurate, if a bit oversimplified (looking at the average like that ignores that most businesses do have periods where they can operate just fine with a skeleton crew, in which case you can allow that extra leave without needing any extra staff to cover it).

The difference boils down to frame of reference: By American standards, a business where employees aren't working at 100% at all times is "overstaffed," because they've deep-throated capitalism so far they have to worry about chafing their jejunum. By European standards, a business that can't survive if employees take more than a week or two of total vacation a year is "understaffed," because they put a bit more emphasis on employee welfare than on billionaire dick-waving contests.

willythemailboy posted...

So three months out of the year it's a one employee company, or simply shuts down for six weeks a year. How else could they possibly comply?

On that scale, I'd assume the owner(s) (who doesn't count as an employee) would step in and pick up the slack of the employees on vacation, or they'd bring in some temporary help to cover it. If you're running a business with only one employee, you kind of have to be adaptable, regardless of how much vacation time labour laws mandate.

We're in late-stage capitalism, this is it, this is the end. They're not paying us enough money to buy things, so all the businesses and corporations are going to go under, and with it, the economy. What we have right now is the rich assholes trying to get their last bit before the collapse (the current US government has fast-tracked this by taking massive bribes).

Now the fun part is once it all collapses... MONEY WILL HAVE NO VALUE. Fuckerburg, Elon Fuck, Jeff Bitchos? Their money won't be able to pay for the protection they'll need. They'll need food, supplies, medication, to pay for protection.

Just sit back and wait for the collapse. Try to go out fighting.