Better capitalism?

When government have to force this issue then you're right, Ward. The point Mr. Hanauer makes is this needs to come from the top of the food chain. In essence, instead of taking the same profits (or more) to hold that and let more of the wealth of the company actually end up in the hands of those at the lower levels. What they will see is an increase in revenues.

Instead of the bottom 40% having to suck up all the sacrifices the upper 1% can do it for a change.
 
Ward- I think you are spot on with your analysis. The minimum wage has always hurt exactly those the politicians claim to want to help the most- the poorest and least skilled. If it costs a businessman more to employ someone, he will necessarily hire those with more skills and/or experience- those worth closest to what he is being forced to pay them. Who gets left out? The very segment of the population the minimum wage is supposed to help. They languish while the politicians strut about, each claiming that his vote for the minimum wage law proves he cares more about the poor than the other guy. Joke.

Also provides a great incentive for some companies to go automated. For example, I can't remember the last time I bought a movie ticket from an actual person... we just walk up to the kiosk and swipe the card or get them online. My kids' preschool has a Starbucks coffee room with a machine that grinds and prepares your coffee to order. So highly skilled people invent and design these automated machines, moderately skilled people build them, and they replace low skilled workers. Perversely, it creates a kind of rich get richer, poor get poorer scenario. But who cares about economic reality? Certainly not the pols who vote for minimum wages.
 
treehumper said:
When government have to force this issue then you're right, Ward. The point Mr. Hanauer makes is this needs to come from the top of the food chain.
Click to expand...

TH- does Hanauer have a plan for how to get the rich to voluntarily give up their cash? Obviously, it involves the government forcing them to do it.
 
The vote for minimum wage will not drive these efforts any more than it has thus far. As technology becomes better able to "learn" then it will start to replace higher skilled jobs that reflect a process that can be coded. Wages weren't going up in coffee shops for Starbucks to implement the automate barrista. Wages were stagnant in the movie theater business too. Look at wages in the service sector. This is the next big target for automation. Bucknut, you, the customer, have driven this. You step in line for the machine instead of the person or hook it up online. That's what is driving the tech industry. The other element is the cost of computing. It keeps dropping with every development in new hardware and software. Employers see that investing in computing instead of labor just makes sense regardless of wages. There's a excellent study on the future of jobs. It's forecasted that 47% of detailed occupations categorized by the SOC will be automated over the next 10-20 yrs.

We already struggle to find labor, skilled or otherwise, due to the physical demands of the job.
 
Not that I'm aware of outside of trying to influence the elite to change their perception of employees from costs to cut to customers. To understand by paying them more then they'll be in a position to purchase products and services which means more growth. Putting more money in the hands of the already stupidly wealthy doesn't do that.

http://nick-hanauer.com/
 
What I am concerned about is that when a municipality mandates a minimum wage at $15/hr, then all those jobs that were previously in the $15-$17/hr class and that really are worth more than minimum wage by 1.5-2x are now being paid the same as minimum wage workers. Although such a mandate would certainly help the least fortunate group, viz., the minimum wage worker, it paradoxically degrades the value of the jobholder who previously had been at or slightly above $15/hr. Suddenly being a groundsman--even a well paid groundsman--is on a par with all minimum wage labor. This loss of status will account for a lot of workers leaving for other less dangerous and difficult but equally remunerative work. It also puts a pressure on employers to pay workers and climbers far more than they are receiving now in order to attract and retain. This, in turn, will cost significantly more to the customer. My worry is that most customers--even advantaged customers--may find tree work to be generally too expensive to afford.

You know, there is a town not far from here called Molalla. And every time I get a call from there I just know that I'm going to be too expensive for them. I call them Molalla bids. Customers there don't have the money for proper tree work. Is Seattle the new Molalla?
 
This isn't happening overnight but for large employers over the next 3 yrs and small (less than 500 employees) over 7 yrs. You don't think that's enough time to market the business at higher costs?

As it is, we have a hard time getting people to work, good, bad or, otherwise even at higher wages. Once they've experienced it they'd rather take the easier job at any wage.
 
Treehumper, That certainly makes it a little less jarring. Nevertheless, that $15/hr 7 years from now is like about $13/hr now, a significant increase above $9.32/hr (the current minimum wage in WA).
 
It wasn't going to get any cheaper. What you might want to do is reorganize the job description so there's going to be more value in the role for you.
 
I see what you mean. Ideally, you'd have evenly trained and skilled people who can do both climbing and groundwork. Corporate models which best distribute the benefits and share in the burdens will succeed. Seattle will probably be an interesting proving ground for a new wage standard for our industry. Here comes the era of the $500 Japanese Maple prune, and the $3,200 small Douglas fir removal; 1/10th of all bids accepted. May the strong survive!

In addition, because the mandate goes into effect immediately for large businesses, it will create a labor suck into large corporations because even incredibly low skilled work at a big company will pay so well. This policy will hurt small businesses which rely on hardworking people who have been drawn to tree work because it affords a way up out of poverty. Tree workers define themselves partly by the distinction of not being paid mere minimum wage. To ask them to undertake intrinsically harder work than most minimum wage jobs and then not compensate them differently will be an affront to their dignity as working people. The policy will create a labor market for unskilled,positions (the large corporations who must hire at $15/hr) in competition with small businesses (like tree services) which have traditionally relied upon skilled labor hired at the same rates.

So, you see, in order to compete for these people, tree services will have to pay more money. And, accordingly, the next rung up--the climber positions--will have to be that much higher, and the foreman position will have to be that much higher, and so on and so forth. This will lead to price inflation, for sure, and that should cool off the market for tree work to some extent. I am curious to see how it unfolds.
 
Last edited:
It's still a 3 yr time frame for large corps.

Small business has always had the challenge of competing with large corps. They offer upward mobility that a small co can't. This isn't any different than in the past. What we need to do is better define our entry level jobs and the skill development process. Improve our hiring practices to move away from the casual approach most use. As times change so must we.
 
You make a good point which seems to be that tree services will need to offer integrated upward mobility in order to distinguish themselves from dead end labor ("the casual approach"). This trend towards professionalization is an excellent thing and one of the reasons why I am a part of the ISA. I'd like to see an even more robust training and cycling of prospective arborists than currently exists. Training groundsman to become climbers is naturally what businesses do, but professionalizing that progression from groundsman to journeyman tree climber--may be a way to attract and retain against the levelling trend that will ensue as a result of the raising of the minimum wage. Consider how union electricians are formed through apprenticeship programs. Here a prospect who qualifies is taken on board and allowed to work for several months--6 months even--at various companies who qualify and participate. Initially his wage is low but is raised in lockstep over the two or three year process. In this way the journeyman is formed through association with many facets of the trade. A system like this might not be a bad idea in terms of attracting the best talent to the work that we can. A system of staged development towards climbing could be a focus of the training. This could also serve to justify the increase of cost that will have to result and stabilize prices for consumers across the board (no free riders!). It will also encourage people to enter the industry. I have no idea what the central authority would be here...perhaps something like TCIA or ISA, probably not. Probably a regional consortium of tree companies that agree to this labor arrangement.
 
It's being done in Ontario jointly between the ISA and the Provincial Government. Currently it's still a voluntary apprenticeship. This moves the profession toward a standard that the consumer can then see as an equivalent skilled trade to those that currently exist in the construction trades. It will need to be national and then international to enable mobility. This will definitely help to better brand us to the consumer.
 
Will those in the top 10% be prepared to accept an economic model where their profit margins are reduced to allow for increased wages without inflation?
 
Twig, you talk about inflation yet ignore the fact that the minimum wage has already not risen with inflation. Goods and services get more expensive, but we pay the poor suckers at the bottom the same. The minimum wage peaked in 1968 and depending on who crunched the numbers, it was, adjusted for inflation, $8-10/hour. McDonalds released a "budget" for their employees last year during the fast food workers strike. It did not include housing and it assumed that they had another $1500/ month in income, basically it assumed that they had a second job and free housing. These companies outsource their labor costs to us, the taxpayer. I'm not personally a fan of government regulation, but unless we self regulate, it's going to happen. And yeas, that will mean paying more for some goods and services.
 
The problem is greed and corruption. So lets say you raise the minimum wage. Inflation will occur without a doubt. It will affect the smaller companies big time. The large corps dont care, they are making millions and billions. The only way would be for these super large corps to make less profit and be less greedy and give more to there workers....... not going to happen. Not sure why it is like this. Just like you said Treehumper minimum wage stagnated while executive income and investment income continue to climb astronomically. See, its not that these companies cant pay more they choose not to.... you are a number on a spread sheet. Its a lost inside the human soul for greed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom