Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-04-2021, 03:30 PM   #1
gus62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 75
Thanks: 1
Thanked 67 Times in 16 Posts
Default Living Wages vs minimum wages

There has been a lot of discussion regarding minimum wages and living wage.Obviously these are 2 different items. My question is how are the 2 connected and what is the purpose of either/or?
In my opinion when talking about living wage I think about what a working individual needs to be able to support themselves or their family, pay rent/mortgage, household expenses etc.
Minimum wages I feel are for entry level persons that do not have the considerations that a living wage recipient needs.
I am not sure why when the discussion comes up that the minimum wage needs to be universally increased for all individuals rather that a consideration of different levels of minimum wage at different stages of a persons employment. What I mean by that is I feel that a standard minimum wage for self supporting individuals or family should be raised above the living wage level however a secondary minimum wage be set for younger adults entering the workforce, ie; students or anyone under 18, excluding college students.
Any thoughts on this or different prospective`s would be welcome.
gus62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2021, 03:40 PM   #2
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 783
Thanks: 95
Thanked 191 Times in 123 Posts
Default

So who would determine if you are an individual living alone or a school kid living at home? Who determines if you are supporting yourself or a single parent or a family of 15? (per your post, any basic household need to pay rent/food etc. even as a single person)

It would be impossible to adopt a "base" minimum wage based on need for the size of the family.
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2021, 06:24 PM   #3
phoenix
Senior Member
 
phoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: phoenix and moultonboro
Posts: 1,246
Thanks: 22
Thanked 166 Times in 125 Posts
Default

Agree with you. Labor is supply and demand. A business will look at its cost and its price flexibility and determine what it can afford to pay to stay in business. Potential workers will decide if it is worth it. Few restaurants will be able to afford to pay a busser 15 per hour and stay in business but if too low no one will take the job. Many economist will tell you a minimum of ~ 70% of the averages for that skill is about right which likely is ~ $11 per hour. At $15 many of those jobs will go away. Servers will end up doing their own bussing . A tight labor market will raise wages on its own without government interference .
__________________
it's tough to make predictions specially about the future
phoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to phoenix For This Useful Post:
DotRat (05-04-2021)
Old 05-04-2021, 07:17 PM   #4
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 284
Thanks: 23
Thanked 60 Times in 45 Posts
Default

Quote:
Any thoughts on this or different prospective`s would be welcome.
Addressing minimum wage:
Relevant to what/which relevant economy?

A "minimum wage" in NY city versus a minimum wage in Laconia must be different, just utilizing common sense. It should not be difficult to surmise Laconia will have a lower minimum wage, if the wage is supposed to be utilized in a minimum living status.

Living wage is established by a person's will, to some standard of living.

How can there be a rational national minimum standard wage, when states have various economic standards of living. Is the poorest standard of living acceptable, to the highest living standard state?

A national minimum wage law makes sense ... if the wage is set by each individual state for that state, not the federal government.

State market place demands, will adjust wages to each state's economy.
longislander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2021, 07:35 PM   #5
CK5 Truck
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 14
Thanks: 8
Thanked 22 Times in 7 Posts
Default

there should never and I repeat NEVER be a mandated minimum wage by government whether it be federal or state or local government. There is no need for it and heres why. Lets use WalMart for example because people often like to claim they pay too low wages. Heres the thing, whether it be them or someone else like them, NOBODY IS FORCING ANYONE TO ACCEPT A JOB THERE! Its that simple, learn to think for yourself and say NO if you think you are worth more. But also along with thinking you are worth more make sure you actually have the skills to back it up, if you dont then learn as much as you can and make yourself MORE VALUABLE! Regardless of what some people think, unless you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, nobody starts at the top, you have to earn your way there!
CK5 Truck is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CK5 Truck For This Useful Post:
camp guy (05-04-2021), Charlie T (05-04-2021), Trail Goer (05-07-2021)
Sponsored Links
Old 05-04-2021, 08:11 PM   #6
Biggd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Waltham Ma./Meredith NH
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 1,431
Thanked 895 Times in 560 Posts
Default

I agree with longislander, I think there should be a minimum wage but it should be legislated by the state not the federal goverment. When the economy is strong and the labor market is tight then businesses will pay market rates or higher. When times are tough and there aren't many jobs available, some businesses will take advantage of that and offer as little as possible, which is where minimum wage comes in.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
Biggd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2021, 11:40 PM   #7
mswlogo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 339
Thanks: 122
Thanked 141 Times in 86 Posts
Default

Sounds great in principle but I think hard to implement.

Also employers would probably lean towards hiring the cheaper flavor.

There are other forms that help families on low income (like tax credits per child etc.) to try and balance things if they are low earners.

But if you could pull of what you suggested it would be great, but I think it would be hard to execute.

I also think you are thinking a lot of min wage jobs are like summer temp jobs for kids.

There are tons and tons of jobs that pay min wage and they are typically not summer college kids filling them.

House Keepers, Cashier Clerks at big box stores etc.
mswlogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 05:58 AM   #8
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 996
Thanks: 181
Thanked 325 Times in 186 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by longislander View Post
Addressing minimum wage:
Relevant to what/which relevant economy?

A "minimum wage" in NY city versus a minimum wage in Laconia must be different, just utilizing common sense. It should not be difficult to surmise Laconia will have a lower minimum wage, if the wage is supposed to be utilized in a minimum living status.

Living wage is established by a person's will, to some standard of living.

How can there be a rational national minimum standard wage, when states have various economic standards of living. Is the poorest standard of living acceptable, to the highest living standard state?

A national minimum wage law makes sense ... if the wage is set by each individual state for that state, not the federal government.

State market place demands, will adjust wages to each state's economy.
Overall I agree that a national minimum wage is useless. However, I would argue that even within NH it simply doesn't work. The cost of living in southern parts of the state vs. costs in rural areas vs. costs in vacation areas are all different.

When the market sets the going rate, each area adjusts to its own circumstance. Each individual gets to choose what jobs pay them "fairly" and whether to improve their skills to earn more. Employers learn what they have to pay to get the workers they need at a price they can afford.

Further, when wages are artificially set above levels that can be justified, it triggers inflation. It gradually pushes everyone's wages up, raises the cost of living, and dilutes the benefit that was sought by paying a minimum wage in the first place.

In addition, a 5% higher wage, doesn't deliver 5% more to your pocket. Taxes are higher, medical insurance is higher, other items deducted from your pay go up; often at a rate more than the 5% increase you got. In the end, you end up worse off than you were. Then the politicians "help" by raising the minimum wage again and the cycle repeats. If the solution was to increase minimum wage, the "problem" would have been "fixed" many years ago. It isn't fixed because the minimum wage is NOT a solution that works.

Education/training/experience and a good work ethic are what bring higher wages because it delivers more value to the business owner who is then justified in paying a higher wage for the employee. And if THAT business owner doesn't recognize the employee's worth, another employer will.

Finally, as previously mentioned by others, some jobs are not MEANT to pay enough to raise a family. It simply cannot be justified to pay employees at that level. That's why both parents might work or why some people have two or even three jobs. Or, per above, they get more education that makes them more valuable.
jeffk is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jeffk For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (05-05-2021), TiltonBB (05-05-2021)
Old 05-05-2021, 08:07 AM   #9
baygo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 549
Thanks: 133
Thanked 419 Times in 170 Posts
Default Everybody’s an employer at one time or another.

You’re traveling on the road and stop for dinner. You sit down and it takes 45 minutes for the waiter to take your order, even though he looked at you six times while sending text messages on his phone. He took your order and got it all wrong. Delivered your food to the wrong table. Neglected to bath that day. Started yelling at you and called you ugly. How much will you tip?

We would all live in a better world if we focused on imposing a minimum effort policy opposed to a minimum wage.

Among one of the recent bills is the introduction of a change to unemployment policies. An employee must be fired or laid off to collect benefits today. If passed it will soon be acceptable for people to collect up to 75% of their earnings if they quit their job. A whole generation of snowflakes will quit because their feelings got hurt when criticized for not doing a good job.

As an employer are you willing to gamble the training wage on a person as well as take on the responsibility of paying their unemployment if it doesn’t work out? And if that training wage goes up by mandate?
baygo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to baygo For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (05-05-2021), BroadHopper (05-05-2021), CK5 Truck (05-10-2021), SAMIAM (05-06-2021)
Old 05-05-2021, 08:39 AM   #10
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH
Posts: 5,099
Thanks: 2,657
Thanked 957 Times in 672 Posts
Default I agree with Baygo

I actually had a conversation with a man who for decades will only work long enough to collect unemployment. Because of his color, it would be difficult to fire him for his laziness, so it is more convenient to lay him off. This man will hop from state to state when the state department gets wise to his ways.

At one time you can only draw unemployment if you were laid off. If you were fired there are certain situations for unemployment. Once you are collecting you need to prove you are actively seeking work and applying applications. At times there will be classes to attend. This is the way it is supposed to work.

States vary how one can collect. Some are strict, some not. California used to be a real pansy, not sure now. States also vary on how they payout. I used to work in Nashua. It's a known fact that NH has a maximum payment well below Massachusets. Many folks choose to live in Mass and work in NH because of this.

Orientation and training is a big expense in any industry. Plus the HR expense of hiring a new employee. The new bill will create a huge headache for the employer when one knows he can easily collect unemployment.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 08:50 AM   #11
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 996
Thanks: 181
Thanked 325 Times in 186 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baygo View Post
... Among one of the recent bills is the introduction of a change to unemployment policies. An employee must be fired or laid off to collect benefits today. If passed it will soon be acceptable for people to collect up to 75% of their earnings if they quit their job. A whole generation of snowflakes will quit because their feelings got hurt when criticized for not doing a good job. ...
We got rid of welfare and since then people have been working hard to reinstate it in different ways; SSI payments for example.

The above bill would allow someone to work briefly, quit, and let the state (US) take care of them. It is a modified form of welfare and it is destructive to society since, as pointed out, some people won't work unless they HAVE to.

Some are worried that extended COVID benefits are encouraging some not to go back to work, even though they now could.

As a society, how many times do we have to do stupid stuff before we JUST SAY NO.
jeffk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 09:34 AM   #12
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 783
Thanks: 48
Thanked 263 Times in 160 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
I actually had a conversation with a man who for decades will only work long enough to collect unemployment. Because of his color, it would be difficult to fire him for his laziness, so it is more convenient to lay him off. This man will hop from state to state when the state department gets wise to his ways.

At one time you can only draw unemployment if you were laid off. If you were fired there are certain situations for unemployment. Once you are collecting you need to prove you are actively seeking work and applying applications. At times there will be classes to attend. This is the way it is supposed to work.

States vary how one can collect. Some are strict, some not. California used to be a real pansy, not sure now. States also vary on how they payout. I used to work in Nashua. It's a known fact that NH has a maximum payment well below Massachusets. Many folks choose to live in Mass and work in NH because of this.

Orientation and training is a big expense in any industry. Plus the HR expense of hiring a new employee. The new bill will create a huge headache for the employer when one knows he can easily collect unemployment.
A few comments: 1) I know/have known several people not of a “color” who have done the same thing. 2) Up until a few years ago (don’t know what it is like now) it didn’t make sense for an employer in Massachusetts to fight an unemployment claim. If you did you would lose regardless of the circumstances. 3) I don’t think you can claim unemployment in a state where you live if you didn’t work there because your employer hasn’t paid into the state where you live’s unemployment insurance fund. I lived in MA, worked in NH and had to claim in NH when laid off. About 200/wk less than MA based on my salary.

Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 10:35 AM   #13
Flylady
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: So. California & Lakes Region
Posts: 247
Thanks: 214
Thanked 104 Times in 59 Posts
Default State not Federal issue

Unemployment, rules and amounts paid are regulated at the state level. I have seen that the requirements and payments vary by state to state. I have yet to hear of a state paying benefits to an employee who resigned from their position.
Flylady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 12:31 PM   #14
baygo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 549
Thanks: 133
Thanked 419 Times in 170 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flylady View Post
Unemployment, rules and amounts paid are regulated at the state level. I have seen that the requirements and payments vary by state to state. I have yet to hear of a state paying benefits to an employee who resigned from their position.
The current administration is attempting to bring more things under the umbrella of federal control. I believe it’s the “family plan” a $1,900,000,000,000 bill that includes revisions to how unemployment benefits are handled.
baygo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 02:37 PM   #15
gus62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 75
Thanks: 1
Thanked 67 Times in 16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
So who would determine if you are an individual living alone or a school kid living at home? Who determines if you are supporting yourself or a single parent or a family of 15? (per your post, any basic household need to pay rent/food etc. even as a single person)

It would be impossible to adopt a "base" minimum wage based on need for the size of the family.
The determination would be done basically with the hiring process. My idea shows that the entry level minimum wage would strictly be for students up to 17 years old. Current hiring requirements need parent permission documents for 16 and 17 year old`s and working papers from the state for 14 and 15 year old`s. I believe my statement was the college age individuals would not fall in that same category however I probably wasn`t clear at all on non college 18 year old`s or over. The living wage standard should be done by each state not federally set. I include college students on the higher pay level as most of them have living, school and other expenses they are responsible for. The ones that have parents who pay everything for them are very fortunate. My whole point was to get other people thoughts regarding why every plan that gets proposed at the federal level or any government level is not given consideration to the reason for different levels of minimum wages for the reasons above.
gus62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2021, 03:40 PM   #16
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 783
Thanks: 95
Thanked 191 Times in 123 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffk View Post
In addition, a 5% higher wage, doesn't deliver 5% more to your pocket. Taxes are higher, medical insurance is higher, other items deducted from your pay go up; often at a rate more than the 5% increase you got. In the end, you end up worse off than you were.Then the politicians "help" by raising the minimum wage again and the cycle repeats. If the solution was to increase minimum wage, the "problem" would have been "fixed" many years ago. It isn't fixed because the minimum wage is NOT a solution that works.
I would question this part of your post...

Granted you will pay more in taxes (roughly 33% for the group of earners we are talking about and more so if you move to a higher tax bracket). So that is all relative. You still "take home" more money.

Medical Insurance is a fixed rate. It does not fluctuate based on pay.

Other items go up:
Child support type items could go up (rightfully so).
401K's will go up (as they should and good for you for a bigger contribution) but not enough to say it is a 5% hike if it is PRE-tax. This will only put you in a better position in life/
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2021, 11:24 PM   #17
Juiced06GTO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 129
Thanks: 6
Thanked 58 Times in 29 Posts
Default

Everyone pays for things based on their perceived quality and value, whether it is food, furniture, cars, boats or clothes, why is labor any different? When an employer hires someone, you take into account their education, skills, and what you know of their work ethic. This perceived value of the employee, market conditions, and what you expect in return (ROI) all factor in to what you offer to pay them. Unfortunately, everyone is not worth $15/hr and every job does not require a person with the skills and abilities that do warrant $15/hr.

People also need to decide whether they are just working a job or if they are building a career and better life for themselves.

People need to realize it isn't always about the money. It needs to be about acquiring knowledge, skills, working to make you and the people around you better, and working hard at what you do.

I recently hired a diesel tech for my shop who had worked nothing but dead end jobs, he was working at a truck parts supplier making $14/hour at 42 years old turning brake drums and doing whatever crap job they threw at him. I came to know him because we purchase a lot of our maintenance parts there. He is what most would consider an odd duck, a little socially awkward, but was always the first person to greet me when I went into the store. He applied to our tech position and I had him in for an interview. Come to find out he had been studying diesel mechanics on his own, learning how to tune chevy LS engines, and doing hydraulic troubleshooting, and has somehow kept an 87 Monte Carlo on the road as his daily driver in New England without it rusting away and falling apart!

His drive to learn new skills on his own and excitement at actually having an opportunity at a company that could provide him some stability and a career sold me. I hired him as a tech at $29/hr plus his union benefits. He has been nothing short of a stellar employee and is working now to buy his first house with his wife and two kids.

I had plenty of other interviews for the position, some probably on paper more qualified, but none that matched his drive to better their situation. That's why he got the opportunity and why he is earning more than a "living wage" now.
Juiced06GTO is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Juiced06GTO For This Useful Post:
ApS (05-13-2021), Charlie T (05-13-2021), farechofisherman (05-13-2021), garysanfran (05-13-2021), ghfromaltonbay (05-12-2021), gravy boat (05-13-2021), jeffk (05-13-2021), Pricestavern (05-13-2021), rander7823 (05-13-2021), SAMIAM (05-13-2021)
Old 05-13-2021, 05:12 AM   #18
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 5,244
Thanks: 1,568
Thanked 622 Times in 445 Posts
Exclamation Eek!

Quote:
Originally Posted by baygo View Post
The current administration is attempting to bring more things under the umbrella of federal control. I believe it’s the “family plan” a $1,900,000,000,000 bill that includes revisions to how unemployment benefits are handled.


Please don't tell them what comes after Trillions!
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2021, 05:26 AM   #19
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 996
Thanks: 181
Thanked 325 Times in 186 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
I would question this part of your post...

Granted you will pay more in taxes (roughly 33% for the group of earners we are talking about and more so if you move to a higher tax bracket). So that is all relative. You still "take home" more money.

Medical Insurance is a fixed rate. It does not fluctuate based on pay.

Other items go up:
Child support type items could go up (rightfully so).
401K's will go up (as they should and good for you for a bigger contribution) but not enough to say it is a 5% hike if it is PRE-tax. This will only put you in a better position in life/
You may "take home more money" but over time it will buy less because other people have the same idea that you do, wanting more pay without providing more value. Their increase in wages makes the products they are associated with more expensive to you, diluting your "more money". Even any money you save has less value because of inflationary effects. Some of the earnings on that money is due to inflation so you need to seek higher rates of return to actually make more.

As to medical insurance, the rate is fixed FOR THAT YEAR but next year it will go UP even more than usual because of inflation. You think the people that provide medical services are going to ignore rising wages of others and the associated rising costs? They will want higher wages as well. Medical products will increase in costs.

When I say "in the end" I mean over a period of several years. It becomes a rat race. The inflationary "unearned" wage increase is diluted over time and you are forced to seek even higher "unearned" wages just to keep up; triggering another cycle of inflation.

Only wages increased by increased productivity through higher skill levels and more diligence are REAL gains and are non inflationary. If you want a living wage you have to EARN it by providing the skills and the work attitude required to make you productive enough that your boss will be ABLE to pay you for it through the increased VALUE you provide to him and his customers.

And the reality is, many jobs are simply NOT "living wage" jobs and they can't be. The value such jobs provide to customers is insufficient to justify such a wage. I worked many such jobs when I was younger and there was no way I could have "lived" on the income. Nor did I expect to. That's why I went to college, to increase my VALUE to employers by developing a much higher awareness and skill level. College is not required, and is not a good fit for everyone, but LEARNING is essential along with a good work ethic.
jeffk is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jeffk For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (05-13-2021)
Old 05-13-2021, 05:32 AM   #20
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 996
Thanks: 181
Thanked 325 Times in 186 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juiced06GTO View Post
... I had plenty of other interviews for the position, some probably on paper more qualified, but none that matched his drive to better their situation. That's why he got the opportunity and why he is earning more than a "living wage" now.
YES! Drive to improve and doing the work required to do so can be MORE important than educational level.
jeffk is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jeffk For This Useful Post:
gravy boat (05-13-2021)
Old 05-13-2021, 07:42 AM   #21
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,627
Thanks: 244
Thanked 1,376 Times in 471 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juiced06GTO View Post
Everyone pays for things based on their perceived quality and value, whether it is food, furniture, cars, boats or clothes, why is labor any different? When an employer hires someone, you take into account their education, skills, and what you know of their work ethic. This perceived value of the employee, market conditions, and what you expect in return (ROI) all factor in to what you offer to pay them. Unfortunately, everyone is not worth $15/hr and every job does not require a person with the skills and abilities that do warrant $15/hr.

People also need to decide whether they are just working a job or if they are building a career and better life for themselves.

People need to realize it isn't always about the money. It needs to be about acquiring knowledge, skills, working to make you and the people around you better, and working hard at what you do.

I recently hired a diesel tech for my shop who had worked nothing but dead end jobs, he was working at a truck parts supplier making $14/hour at 42 years old turning brake drums and doing whatever crap job they threw at him. I came to know him because we purchase a lot of our maintenance parts there. He is what most would consider an odd duck, a little socially awkward, but was always the first person to greet me when I went into the store. He applied to our tech position and I had him in for an interview. Come to find out he had been studying diesel mechanics on his own, learning how to tune chevy LS engines, and doing hydraulic troubleshooting, and has somehow kept an 87 Monte Carlo on the road as his daily driver in New England without it rusting away and falling apart!

His drive to learn new skills on his own and excitement at actually having an opportunity at a company that could provide him some stability and a career sold me. I hired him as a tech at $29/hr plus his union benefits. He has been nothing short of a stellar employee and is working now to buy his first house with his wife and two kids.

I had plenty of other interviews for the position, some probably on paper more qualified, but none that matched his drive to better their situation. That's why he got the opportunity and why he is earning more than a "living wage" now.
Love this story. It's the way things should be.
Have a kid that was washing dishes a few years ago for $9 .......started showing interest in learning to cook. Helped out others line cooking, learned to do prep and went on to get his SafeServ certification and is now making $20
SAMIAM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SAMIAM For This Useful Post:
gravy boat (05-13-2021)
Old 05-13-2021, 08:47 AM   #22
Biggd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Waltham Ma./Meredith NH
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 1,431
Thanked 895 Times in 560 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
Love this story. It's the way things should be.
Have a kid that was washing dishes a few years ago for $9 .......started showing interest in learning to cook. Helped out others line cooking, learned to do prep and went on to get his SafeServ certification and is now making $20
Yes, it is the way it should be but those employees are few and far between.
Over the past 20 years parents put a high priority on going to college. Many vocational schools closed or consolidated because kids weren't interested in the trades any longer, those jobs were taken by foreigners that couldn't go to college.
We need to offer kids other options and not put a stigma on the trades. They are a great option for many kids and should be expanded and promoted.
Biggd is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Biggd For This Useful Post:
MRD (05-13-2021)
Old 05-13-2021, 10:28 AM   #23
WinnisquamZ
Senior Member
 
WinnisquamZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,025
Thanks: 129
Thanked 351 Times in 228 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggd View Post
Yes, it is the way it should be but those employees are few and far between.

Over the past 20 years parents put a high priority on going to college. Many vocational schools closed or consolidated because kids weren't interested in the trades any longer, those jobs were taken by foreigners that couldn't go to college.

We need to offer kids other options and not put a stigma on the trades. They are a great option for many kids and should be expanded and promoted.
Agree. But I must add many currently in the trades refuse to “deal with” a apprentice. Years past, you would see an individual doing what was asked of him or her along side a tradesman. Somehow that was dropped. When asked, I was told “why would I want to train someone then just have them leave for a dollar more”? Sounds to be me it’s a lack of people skills, not work skills.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
WinnisquamZ is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to WinnisquamZ For This Useful Post:
Biggd (05-13-2021)
Old 05-13-2021, 02:26 PM   #24
Biggd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Waltham Ma./Meredith NH
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 1,431
Thanked 895 Times in 560 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ View Post
Agree. But I must add many currently in the trades refuse to “deal with” a apprentice. Years past, you would see an individual doing what was asked of him or her along side a tradesman. Somehow that was dropped. When asked, I was told “why would I want to train someone then just have them leave for a dollar more”? Sounds to be me it’s a lack of people skills, not work skills.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
It's "every man for himself" and "I'm going to do what's good for me and **** everyone else".
Sad but true!
Biggd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2021, 03:02 PM   #25
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 759
Thanked 586 Times in 353 Posts
Default

Better would be training a couple of guys, then paying the better one an extra dollar or two to stay
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post:
TheRoBoat (05-13-2021)
Old 05-13-2021, 03:48 PM   #26
WinnisquamZ
Senior Member
 
WinnisquamZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,025
Thanks: 129
Thanked 351 Times in 228 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot View Post
Better would be training a couple of guys, then paying the better one an extra dollar or two to stay
So true. In my previous life I would hire 6 HS kids for 10 to 12 hours a week then pick two for full time summer help


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
WinnisquamZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 1.15177 seconds