|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: "The Living Wage" (coming soon to a Theatre Near You)
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 01-18-2018 07:22 PM
We are somewhat challenged, in that Washington State has the highest state minimum wage (San Francisco may be higher, as is Seattle). This year, it's $11.50. 14 and 15 year-olds can be paid 85% of the minimum, but even if I thought it was an appropriate place for kids that young (I don't) then child labor laws kick in and we can't keep them clocked in as late as we'd need to (drive-in).
We have a few adults on the staff. Frequently, they're school teachers and bus drivers, who work for us during the Summer, when school's out. Those are the ones I consider for higher wages, because they "get it" and are usually productive from day one. As for the kids who come out here and experience the reality of their first job? Very, very few of them are worth $11 per hour. Not even my own kids were worth that kind of money when they started, and they grew up at the place.
When you have to overcome a youngster's pre-conceived notion of what a job really is (usually instilled into them by parents and/or peers), then start their training by introducing them to the mop and toilet brush that few of them have ever seen, it can be a while before you feel they support $11 or $12 an hour. Over here, it'll be $15 pretty soon.
Oh... and in our economy, the idea you could live on $15 an hour is crazy. Median housing in Seattle is around $700,000, and a reasonably decent apartment can run you $2,000 a month. At 40% of your pre-tax base, that represents at least a $5,000 monthly wage. That puts you at $27/hr, at minimum for a 40 hour week. Then, there's health care. You can't get near 40 hours at most part time jobs because of what that triggers, so you'd have to make your "living wage" with fewer hours and a higher rate.
This all comes back to where it started though. I'm giving a lot of young people their first job. Most of them are blank slates, at best. I'm not teaching them how to run a theatre... I'm training them for the next step in their life. Few can get there without some "basic training", which a place like this is really good for. To put up with that, however, I don't expect to be responsible for someone's "living wage".
But... beyond this point, it probably gets political. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-19-2018 01:10 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
Naturally, the higher minimum wage affects more than just movie theatre employees and the traditional people that seek out such jobs. Then again, movie theatre employees didn't used to be just a kids job...going far enough back.
That raises the point about subtle and not so subtle things employers can do to cut payroll costs. Theaters replacing adult workers with high school kids willing to work for less is one example. Having salaried managers (or the high school kids) run the projectors instead of a dedicated projectionist is another. Going farther, why not just go all-digital, "boothless" and have theater's projection run remotely along with projection from a bunch of other movie theaters at a central office?
Some work places hire more employees part time with no benefits and cut way back on employees who are full time and have benefits. They can get creative with sub-contract labor or hire people on as independent contractors. At my mothers work place (selling appliances), she has seen the floor flooded with new, inexperienced sales people for the sole purpose of watering down the sales levels of the better, more experienced reps and cutting way down on their commission. That tactic can back-fire; the store runs off a bunch of its experienced workers leaving behind a green staff that lets thing go to shit. Then there's the controversial issues of outsourcing jobs overseas and insourcing legal and illegal foreign-born migrant labor for a number of industries.
With the national unemployment level rate down very low, not to mention the government's stance on immigration, it's going to be difficult for employers to keep holding down wage levels without ending up with lots of vacant job openings they can't fill. There's still a lot of Americans not participating in the labor force, but they seem content sitting on the sidelines for now.
quote: Steve Guttag
I do think the National minimum wage is currently too low. I'm not sure such a speedy jump to $15 is right either. I also think, in addition to a Federal minimum wage that state and local governments should set their own minimums based on their actual cost of living. Since some cities, clearly, it is VASTLY more expensive to live in/near.
I'm a little surprised bigger businesses haven't been doing more to pit different regions against each other in terms of their vast living cost differences. Then again the regions with the lowest living costs aren't doing much to retain the best and brightest of their workforce.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-19-2018 09:15 PM
quote: Frank Cox
How would extra employees cut down on the commission cost for the company? If they are paying a percentage of each sale to the salesman, then it doesn't matter to the bottom line if its Tom who gets the commissions or if they are shared between Dick and Harry.
That's only if the retailer's commission rate is an even, flat rate. Some of them will increase a sales rep's commission rate or pay bonuses when surpassing certain sales barriers. On the regressive side of things many retailers require a commisioned sales rep to move a certain amount of product within a pay period to qualify for any commission at all; he has to offset the "draw" of his base pay. With too many reps on the floor it can be difficult getting a decent commission at all.
quote: Dave Bird
Of course there is a TON of news articles on the subject up here at the moment. One of them cites a rising economy being a far better eliminator of poverty than a legislated minimum wage. They claim California with a higher minimum than most has a much higher rate of poverty.
A rising economy that rises across the board, across all demographic groups, the so-called "tide lifing all boats," will eliminate poverty. The economy in the United States is improving in an extremely uneven manner. The stock market is doing great (for now). Those in the top income brackets are doing great. Everyone else is not seeing the same kind of boom time. Improvement is happening very unevenly from one region to the next. Oklahoma didn't get hammered too bad by the housing industry collapse last decade, but it sure hasn't been adding new residents in recent years like Texas at all. The state's current budget fiasco and what it has done to many school districts is convincing some residents to leave. I know teachers and cops who have left the state for better pay elsewhere.
The implication California has a higher rate of poverty due to its higher minimum wage is just bonkers. The folks pushing that argument probably think more people would be employed if the minimum wage was lower. I guess they never heard of the "working poor." California's unemployment rate has fallen from 12.2% in 2010 to 4.9% in October of 2017 (the US rate was 4.1% and Texas was 3.9%). The primary reason why California has a higher rate of poverty is because it costs too much money for most people to live there. But California is a cool state and people are still moving there in droves and then, I guess, figuring out a plan to survive once they get there. Even at $15 per hour a worker would be living in poverty in many areas of California.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-20-2018 01:45 AM
Oh yeah exactly. Basic employment/unemployment figures really don't tell the whole story on the economy. The numbers indeed say nothing about under-employment -the worker has a "job" but it's actually a shit-pay job, and he probably needs 2 more shit-pay jobs plus a few roommates to share living costs in order to survive. Still he's not "unemployed."
This is why I roll my eyes with disgust whenever I hear anyone running for elected office talking about "jobs." They always talk about jobs in a generic, vague, all jobs are the same quality when giving their sales pitch for votes. It's a bunch of lame crap. And it makes me think of Marines' joke about the Navy's old catch phrase: Navy: it's not just a job, it's an adventure. The Marines would say, "Navy: it's not just a job, it's a blow job."
American-born people may be leaving California, but I'm not sure where they're going. If they're moving from one really popular place to another really popular place the move may end up being a sideways one. For instance Texas has been gaining a lot of population. But rapidly growing areas in the Lone Star State, such as Austin and all the cities around it, are seeing living costs rising very rapidly. NW Arkansas (Walmart HQ country) is doing the same thing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-20-2018 10:11 PM
A lot of people from California move to Montana, specifically western Montana (which is where the mountains are). The cost of living is high on that side of the state, but not near as high as in California. You could sell your modest California home, move to Montana and use the money to pay cash for a way better house than you had, and then invest the rest.
In fact, almost any homeowner from California can afford to move to Montana, but most people from here could never afford to move to California. At least, not to the cities.
The big problem with Californians is, they tend to be "tree huggers" or "animal lovers" who move in (sometimes for only half the year) and then try to change the "way of life" that has existed in this state for generations.
The cost of living in southeastern Montana is probably about half what it is in the western part of the state, and 1/4 of what it is in California cities. We don't have mountains around here....but we have other types of scenery that's just as pretty. Wages aren't exactly sky-high here though...it's all relative.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-21-2018 08:21 PM
The thing that concerns me here in "flyover country" is extreme living costs in coastal cities and other rapid growing urban areas is causing all sorts of stealth-inflation for smaller towns and rural areas where the cost of living is low, but wages are low and the tax base is really low.
I still have some family in Temple, OK but most have died off. My dad's parents are gone, two of his siblings are gone. A bunch of other relatives have passed. The town's population is shrinking, shedding young adults much faster than newborns can replace them. The town can no longer afford a police department. Its infrastructure is aging and the cost of maintaining it is rapidly increasing -thanks in part to the orgy of price gouging taking place in the big cities. The douchebags there are making things more expensive for everyone. These small towns don't have the population or customer base to make modern comforts like really fast broadband Internet service feasible. Many of the elderly people trying to keep Temple, OK alive are having a hard time staying. There's very little health care service in that town. Anyone needing a lot of care and supervision, like hospice care, can be forced to move to some type of assisted living facility in a bigger city. There's a lot of homes in these dying rural towns that can't even be sold.
There are plenty of things I dislike about big cities, with the outrageous cost of living being right there at the top of the list. Unfortunately the long term trend points to more people being forced to relocate in or near urban areas whether they like city living or not.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic