They're still in the bottom of the barrel even now. They're just receiving a living wage. Which is how it should be. And things will swing one way or another. But I think that we hit dead bottom right before the pandemic, and anything that happens will be an improvement.
I have done NO research concerning a "living wage". Because that' s not the topic of this thread. Actually, I have... but that's still not the topic of this thread. For the purposes of this thread all we need to know is WHAT it is (what the term means). And, maybe more importantly, what it isn't.
Southwest Airlines can't complete around 1,000 flights daily. It has nothing to do with the wage and everything to do with the ridiculous anti-Science vaccine mandate.
This has almost, almost become entertaining. Not once have I said anything about people who could not maintain minimal standards as being part of the discussion until you made it part of the discussion. That doesn't change a single thing I have said. People get paid the value of what their production is. Period. It doesn't matter what you think they should get paid, or what they want to get paid, or if you call it minimum wage, a 'living wage'. They get paid for the value of their production. If they increase the value of their production, then they get paid more. Being unable to understand a very basic concept as I stated above is your issue, not mine. If you are a business owner, you obviously don't deal with entry level employees, nor understand what possibilities exist for them when they actually apply themselves. Providing an encouraging environment (do more you get paid more) is about as basic understanding as it gets. Those who don't meet minimum standards, don't keep their job. Those are basic facts of employment. You need to brush up on your employment basics before you start a thread like this.
Ok... then how long do you imagine that this 'Great Resignation' would last if it weren't for 'Socialism-lite' radical Democrats shoveling out subsidies and other welfare...?
You were the only one making it part of this discussion. I have been trying to keep it out. And you kept bringing it up again. But now that we know that's not what we're talking about.... let me know if you have anything to say about the point made by the OP. People get paid what allows them to get somebody to apply for the job (or stay in a job). And, thanks to The Great Resignation, today more and more this means a living wage (or thereabouts).
Quote where I said anything about dismissing people for not keeping standards. I have repeatedly addressed the OP, you are unable to actually defend your OP. Your attempts at dodging, deflecting and ignoring are unfortunate, especially if you run a business. It means you have no concept of how people function at the entry level, and blindly claiming that people are benefitting from the 'Great Resignation' means you have a limited understanding of the economic impact of paying more than what someone's production is actually worth.
Probably until the next Republican recession. In the last few decades, Republican Presidents have tended to get us into a recession about every 10 years on average. I don't actually know how long it will last. I'm sure they'll take it while they can. A few months or a few years is better than never. I don't think it will ever be back any time soon to where it was before the pandemic, though. It will be less likely for businesses to get people to work 2 or 3 jobs again (for example) when they have experienced the benefits of working just one while earning a proper living wage. And I mean benefits, not just for the workers, but for the businesses. I do foresee a lot of sweat-shops not ever opening up again, though. And that's also a good thing.
Here's an article regarding 'The Great Resignation'. @Golem Who Is Driving the Great Resignation? (hbr.org)
Quote where I said anything about you saying anything about dismissing people. Other than that, I have tried no less than 3 times, today alone (even more in previous days), to bring you back to the TOPIC on the OP (today's quotes follow). And you keep talking about completely unrelated nonsense: minimum wage, people who can't perform minimum activities, dismissing people, what people get paid for... anything but the TOPIC of this thread. These are quotes from just today. And it's not even mid afternoon. So, for the fourth time today, this thread is about how The Great Resignation is allowing workers today to choose to work just ONE job (not 2 or 3, like before). And one job that offers them a living wage. NOT about minimum wage, NOT about whether their salary increases if they are more productive, NOT about "what a person is actually worth" ... none of that nonsense your are trying to interject. Only about how The Great Resignation has put employees in the driver's seat and allowed them to demand a living wage (fifth time)
You keep discussing a 'living wage'. The only people clamoring for a 'living wage' is people who make minimum wage. The article I provided said that 'The Great Resignation' is applicable to a much older group, which has nothing to do with the 'living wage.' I don't know how much you actually researched your subject, but obviously not enough. Most workers involved in the 'Great Resignation' don't hold two or three jobs. Facts matter. You need to figure out which group you want to promote: MW workers, or those who are actually involved in the 'Great Resignation'. Pick one, then get back to me.
You must be considerably younger than I had thought... with no memory of how the "Dynamic Duo" of President Ronald Reagan and Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker, worked together to get us out of the horrible recession/inflation episode known as "Stagflation" brought on primarily during Democrat Jimmuh Cawduh's single term in office. What worked was called "Reaganomics", and, yes, it did take a couple of years to fully engage, but it did bring the greatest prosperity, the lowest inflation, and the best creation of good (GOOD) careers I've ever seen in my long life. But, I digress.... Back rigidly on-thread-topic -- which you declare to be: "...this thread is about how The Great Resignation is allowing workers today to choose to work just ONE job (not 2 or 3, like before). And one job that offers them a living wage." Uh, truthfully, with your own words, it does seem that you are the one who is entangling the notion of "living wage" with "The Great Resignation". Enigmatically, in your Post #302, you wrote, "I have done NO research concerning a "living wage". Because that' s not the topic of this thread." But you see, Golem, whether it's done because of working one job, or a dozen jobs, the thing is, it's the MONEY! And, not to put too fine a point on it, as I have said two or three hundred times, in a free-market capitalistic country like the United States, you are paid what you are WORTH in that country's economy! A brain surgeon may make more money in six hours than I did in two years -- precisely because his skill-set could demand that kind of compensation in a free-market economy. When I was working, I probably made a great deal more money than someone who was simply 'moving boxes from Point A to Point B' -- no matter whether that person was doing that in one job or in two, three, or more. I hope I'm with you on-topic, but please tell me if I'm not. This is an engaging topic, such as I understand it to be....
Really? You mean Bernie Sanders makes minimum wage? And why should I give a crap about WHO clamors for a living wage? You insist on changing the subject. Other than that, if you are going to quote an article QUOTE the article.
I said "last few decades"! Carter was responsible for a recession, and also got us out of it. Reagan got us back into a recession only a few months later, and then got us out of HIS recession, only to create a new one. Then Bush Sr got us into another one 10 years later, which Clinton got us out of and Bush Jr got us back into one 10 years after his dad, and then another one before the end of his second term. Which Obama got us out of and Trump got us back in... The cycle is clear. Your attempt to derail the thread having also failed, I think you should at least stay on topic. So? That doesn't mean this thread is about details of how economists calculate a "living wage" anymore than it is about the details of what a worker should include in their resignation letter. A living wage is whatever somebody needs to earn to fulfill their basic needs (clothing, food, shelter, ....) I couldn't give a rat's ass how that is calculated. I know that it's more than $7.25, and maybe right now close to a bit less than $15 here in Florida. But even that is more detail that we need to understand the point of this thread. More attempts to change the subject. You're even trying to change it to "brain surgeons". If you don't have anything to say about the topic, what is the reason for trying to change the subject? Looks to me like a sign that you understand that the OP is correct, but you desperately need to find ... something... anything... to disagree with. I'm not interested, though....
Your dodge and dance has gone past amusing. Since you are unable to actually discuss what you promote, edit the posts you are quoting and rearranges facts presented, you have a grand time deluding yourself, by yourself. What a shame you choose deception as your route.
Read your own signature. I came across an interesting article, and thought you may find it interesting also. You can do your own reading, or not, since it pretty much debunks a great deal of what you have been promoting.
You still haven't explained 'living wage'. Explain how it works IN PRACTICE, please. How can a fixed amount be the right amount when every individual has a different standard of living?
And that distillation you've mashed down, reveals their purpose. Remember their mantra "you will own nothing, and you will be happy"
I'm not looking for numbers, I'm looking for you to explain how it's a LIVING wage, when some people will be able to live on it, and others won't.
