The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 158
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep. 5, 2005
    Location
    Mass.
    Posts
    6,626

    Default

    Dancer, yes, you can get "decent" housing - but you're in Waltham or Wrentham or Foxboro. So if your job is in the city but you live in a town with no public transportation options, you have to drive AND park, which adds about $400/month in transportation costs. My business offers huge subsidies on Commuter Rail passes. Instead of $190/month for a pass, I pay $60, but I am incredibly fortunate. So saving the $500/month on a $1000 apartment instead of a $1500 one closer in, ends up being a wash from transportation costs.
    I realize that I'm generalizing here, but as is often the case when I generalize, I don't care. ~ Dave Barry


    1 members found this post helpful.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2001
    Location
    Trailer Trash Ammy!
    Posts
    19,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Here is a living wage calculator. Of course, it depends on your location. In some areas (obviously) you can live more cheaply than others. It was developed by MIT.

    http://livingwage.mit.edu/
    These things are never accurate. This one is better than usual but still WAY off. I'd LOFF to know where they think you're going to find housing in this county for $356/mo. Can't be done. I'm at the rock bottom end at $395. Transportation costs made me LOL as well. Car payment plus car insurance = WAY more than that and that doesn't even factor in gas and maintenance. They also fail to factor in utilities unless they're including it in their $59.00 "other" category - mine run me substantially more than that. So anyone who takes these calculators as gospel is an eejit.
    "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trakehner View Post
    I guess it depends on who's making it.

    I find the money paid to sports athletes obscene. The money musicians make is even more obscene....some criminals rhyming about raping women and shooting cops making millions of dollars, no excuse or value added to anything.
    there was a man in one of Janks Mortons movies that said if not for very white children trying to frighten their very white mothers with potty ghetto talk <paraphrased for the sensitive ears among us> they would not make a penny...

    we have chosen to make heros of the strangest people and reward them with money for it.

    tamara
    Production Acres,Pro A Welsh Cobs
    I am one of the last 210,000 remaining full time farmers in America.We feed the others.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    1,832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twotrudoc View Post
    Thanks Lex, Canaqua and Buddy for answering I hear so much about how companies/businesses need to provide a living wage. The only thing I don't hear is what does that mean? What is a living wage?

    What about minimum wage? Is it enough?
    I have always heard that your housing costs should be no more than 33% of your monthly home pay --though I don't remember if that's gross or net. I think one definition we could use of living wage is a wage that allows a couple to provide housing for themselves for the magic 33% or less.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  5. #45

    Default

    I wonder how many people would "act their wage" if we were not bombarded with people telling us we "deserved" this and that....

    an oldie but a goodie on that topic:http://www.cyberpat.com/shirlsite/ed...2/jfowles.html

    tamara
    Production Acres,Pro A Welsh Cobs
    I am one of the last 210,000 remaining full time farmers in America.We feed the others.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trakehner View Post
    I guess it depends on who's making it.

    I find the money paid to sports athletes obscene. The money musicians make is even more obscene....some criminals rhyming about raping women and shooting cops making millions of dollars, no excuse or value added to anything.
    I'm curious, if you find it obscene to pay sports athletes huge amounts of money obscene, do you also believe that wages and incentives paid CEOs who also make huge amounts of money are obscene too?

    Here's an interesting discussion that shows that actors and sports figures pay is directly tied to their worth, CEOs, not so much. Very interesting.

    http://www.siop.org/Media/News/ceos.aspx
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec. 19, 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Athletes and musicians would make nothing if people didn't go to the games/concerts, buy the music/sports paraphenalia, etc. They are paid what the market allows. It seems obscene to some of us, but society wants to be entertained, apparently.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov. 6, 2001
    Location
    Fairfax
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    I personally think the original question is phrased the wrong way. It isn't how much is enough, but I think people should focus on what are my services worth to the employer.

    Business has to pay what a skill is worth. If your stocking shelves, only the most basic skills are involved. Shouldn't be a high paying job -- the company is unlikely to meet their price point if they pay more than a skill is worth to the production or supply chain to a product. If the compensation of the job you have doesn't provide you with the standard of living you want, you should be motivated to acquire more skills and aspire to a different position.

    I guess I'm old school. Our system of government promises equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Government can mandate and legislate all they want, but people are different and the laws of economics and human nature are pretty stubborn. The war on poverty over the last 60 years has cost trillions of dollars, and in looking at the overall numbers, has had limited effect.

    Instead of focusing governmental effort on guaranteeing wages and such, i would much rather see focus on the societal and educational issues holding folks back. In the long run, I think you'll have more gains from enabling people to strive for success, than rewarding basic skills with unrealistic wages.

    Just my opinion.


    10 members found this post helpful.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec. 4, 2005
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    7,552

    Default

    I agree with you Jr, but I phrased it the way I have been hearing it. There is a definate group out there who demands a living wage regardless of skill or work ethic and also hates anyone making more than they deem necessary.

    You can see.that I'm this thread . I am curious as to what and how much.
    The Knotted Pony

    Proud and upstanding member of the Snort and Blow Clique.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec. 4, 2005
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    7,552

    Default

    I'm on my.Droid, pardon the random periods and out of place words.LOL
    The Knotted Pony

    Proud and upstanding member of the Snort and Blow Clique.



  11. #51
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2004
    Location
    City of delusion in the state of total denial
    Posts
    8,539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshfield View Post
    I have always heard that your housing costs should be no more than 33% of your monthly home pay --though I don't remember if that's gross or net. I think one definition we could use of living wage is a wage that allows a couple to provide housing for themselves for the magic 33% or less.
    By that definition, my mean monthly income isn't a living wage. I'd rather not think about that too hard.

    The point about moving farther away from the city saves money in direct housing costs but costs more in transportation is right on. I could cut my housing costs about $200 a month if I moved about 30-45 minutes away. I did the math and that would be 60 minutes to work each way in average traffic and $190 more per month in gas.
    "I'm not always sarcastic. Sometimes I'm asleep."
    - Harry Dresden

    Horse Isle 2: Legend of the Esrohs LifeCycle Breeding and competition MMORPG



  12. #52
    Join Date
    Dec. 11, 2006
    Location
    Cheesehead in Loudoun Co, VA
    Posts
    2,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Renn/aissance View Post
    The point about moving farther away from the city saves money in direct housing costs but costs more in transportation is right on. I could cut my housing costs about $200 a month if I moved about 30-45 minutes away. I did the math and that would be 60 minutes to work each way in average traffic and $190 more per month in gas.
    When I in the process of moving to NoVA, I was told by COTHers to find housing at least an hour's commute from my job because of the cheaper housing costs. It didn't take much mental math to figure out that that was a losing proposition when accounting for commuting costs and wear/tear on an aging truck (that didn't make it 2 years here).

    For the first year, I lived east of my job and commuted against traffic. That place was one of the first foreclosures of the Crash, so I ended up in my current apartment just a 6 minute walk from work. The difference in rent and commuting costs meant that I didn't need a roommate in order to keep my head above water (post-divorce rebuilding).
    I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right
    Violence doesn't end violence. It extends it. Break the cycle.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshfield View Post
    I have always heard that your housing costs should be no more than 33% of your monthly home pay --though I don't remember if that's gross or net. I think one definition we could use of living wage is a wage that allows a couple to provide housing for themselves for the magic 33% or less.
    I believe that came from a budgeting effort made in the 1950s and that the number was a bit lower.

    But *no way* should the housing cost be 33% for a couple where both people are working. At least that's true for the purposes of this discussion where we are talking about a living wage per job. If one person could work two full-time jobs and meet housing expenses, it would be more useful to think of this in terms of couples.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  14. #54
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jr View Post
    I personally think the original question is phrased the wrong way. It isn't how much is enough, but I think people should focus on what are my services worth to the employer.

    Business has to pay what a skill is worth. If your stocking shelves, only the most basic skills are involved. Shouldn't be a high paying job -- the company is unlikely to meet their price point if they pay more than a skill is worth to the production or supply chain to a product. If the compensation of the job you have doesn't provide you with the standard of living you want, you should be motivated to acquire more skills and aspire to a different position.

    I guess I'm old school. Our system of government promises equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Government can mandate and legislate all they want, but people are different and the laws of economics and human nature are pretty stubborn. The war on poverty over the last 60 years has cost trillions of dollars, and in looking at the overall numbers, has had limited effect.

    Instead of focusing governmental effort on guaranteeing wages and such, i would much rather see focus on the societal and educational issues holding folks back. In the long run, I think you'll have more gains from enabling people to strive for success, than rewarding basic skills with unrealistic wages.

    Just my opinion.
    But how can you argue that a skill has intrinsic worth?

    If you are pinned under a car, the uneducated but brawny person near by has a very, very valuable set of skills and capacities. Don't want to pay him for those skills? Then stay pinned.

    And I have a very hard time imagining that the skills added by the CEO of a business are worth, say, 1,500% more than those possessed by the rank-and-file. Yet they are paid that way.

    And one more thing: Do not forget the value of having a population that is not hungry, not pissed off, vaccinated and literate and the rest of the stuff that we all enjoy.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat


    7 members found this post helpful.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Feb. 20, 2010
    Location
    All 'round Canadia
    Posts
    4,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oldpony66 View Post
    Athletes and musicians would make nothing if people didn't go to the games/concerts, buy the music/sports paraphenalia, etc. They are paid what the market allows. It seems obscene to some of us, but society wants to be entertained, apparently.
    This I agree with. It goes right back to what someone said on the first page about a horse, "she's worth what people are willing to pay for her" - it's the same with pop stars. If their albums fail, they don't make bank. They make millions because millions of individual consumers buy their product *shrug*

    Now, a CEO who presided over the free-falling stock of their company getting a golden parachute, what's that tied to?


    2 members found this post helpful.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2001
    Location
    Trailer Trash Ammy!
    Posts
    19,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coanteen View Post
    it's the same with pop stars. If their albums fail, they don't make bank. They make millions because millions of individual consumers buy their product *shrug*
    Not to hijack the thread in a different direction, but no, they really do NOT anymore. Piracy, streaming, lack of consensus & demise of radio as a hitmaker really *have* killed the music business. A really BIG hit record nowadays sells 100,000, whereas once upon a time a record company wouldn't even *sign* you if they didn't think you could sell that much, and a really big hit record was 20 million plus. The days when you could become a multi-millionaire in music are TOTALLY over.
    "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief



  17. #57
    Join Date
    Oct. 30, 2006
    Posts
    311

    Default

    My issue with the calculator is there is no section for the monthly cost of a student loan. Some of us have them and the sure eat into the monthly total of what is brought home.
    I don't always feel up to arguing with your ignorance



  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jun. 26, 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,319

    Default

    As a small business owner I pay my employees according to the amount of experience/skill they bring to the job and also on the type of job they will be doing.

    If I have an entry level job opening then I look for someone who is willing to do the job for a set amount of money. If someone with more skills wants to apply for the job then I explain to them that this is entry level period and that they will be making entry level money. It is their choice if this is acceptable to them. However I have found that the more skilled will soon become bored or resentful due to the low wages; even though I made this clear from the beginning. Yet someone with those skills can rise up in the company quickly if there is an opening.

    I have found that the young people applying for entry level with me ask for obscene amounts of money and benefits. They have zero job skills and zero experience yet demand high wages.

    I have to train them and supervise the youngsters very closely to make sure the job is done properly. This pulls from my time making money for the company. Yet I am supposed to pay them more and more just for doing the job they were hired for. No more and no less, just doing the job.

    I had one young lady (19 years old) tell me that she deserved a 100% increase! Yes 100% because her board bills were going up and so was her car insurance bill. Not because she was doing an outstanding job or bringing business into the company but because her bills went up. I had to explain that so has my overhead and therefore there will be no raise. This was after working for me for 3 months!!! She quit and now lives at home with mom and dad and has no job.

    Should I have given her the 100% increase so she made a living wage of $25 per hour at age 19??? With zero skills after being on the job for 3 months? If I had done that I would of had to take a huge hit financially. I guess I'm just another evil business owner for wanting to keep paying my own mortgage eh?
    Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!!


    6 members found this post helpful.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    But how can you argue that a skill has intrinsic worth?

    If you are pinned under a car, the uneducated but brawny person near by has a very, very valuable set of skills and capacities. Don't want to pay him for those skills? Then stay pinned.

    And I have a very hard time imagining that the skills added by the CEO of a business are worth, say, 1,500% more than those possessed by the rank-and-file. Yet they are paid that way.

    And one more thing: Do not forget the value of having a population that is not hungry, not pissed off, vaccinated and literate and the rest of the stuff that we all enjoy.
    Exactly.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    4 members found this post helpful.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    NorthEast
    Posts
    24,490

    Default

    Student debt is indeed a big factor for many people, but it's not a factor in cost of living. Cost of living covers basic necessities and not advanced educations.

    If a company takes decent care of it's employees...are the company heads allowed to keep their profits or must they donate or hand it over to their employees to keep everyone happy? And if they have to do that, why take on the responsibility and risk of heading a company?

    Company execs should be decent, but they don't need to be Robin Hoods. I also think athletes and entertainment make ridiculous sums of money. Are they entitled to it? Well, the market bears it. When athlete wages raise ticket costs...arenas are still full. Musicians make more depending on sales amounts. Same with actors. (I notice people only denigrate the entertainment aspects they dislike and not mention what Julia Roberts of George Clooney makes. Guess they're more likeable so are allowed to keep their incomes?)

    When people whine and complain what a pro athlete, actor, rap artist make along with complaints about what execs make...it's basically the have somes complaining about the have lots and using the have nots as a way to make their points. It's the current It's Not Faaiiir reason...children whining it's not fair that others took risks, were born into affluence or had a talent and were lucky enough to be "discovered" to become famous...so why do THEY get THAT much more than meeeee? They can make *some* money...even what *I* consider a lot of money but it's not f-a-i-r that they make THAT much.

    Even on this thread many are confused as to what should be considered in a living wage. Internet and cell phones. Not in a living wage. Believe it or not...there's an ENORMOUS chunk of the country that have neither. And live just fine.

    Not every job should be designed or required to pay a living wage. Many jobs are taken as a second/supplemental income. Some are for extras a person really wants (internet, vacations, cell phones, horses, entertainment, etc) and isn't covered by their living wage job. Some are a spouse who is adding to a family's income but not the main wage earner. Some are young people starting out and still living home.

    Our styles of living have changed and people now assume that style is a right. It's not. Multiple cars are not a right. Multiple electronics aren't. Living in your fave/chosen neighborhood isn't a right. Style of apartment isn't a right...you can rent a room or a studio for a hella lot less.
    You jump in the saddle,
    Hold onto the bridle!
    Jump in the line!
    ...Belefonte


    4 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. What is a fair Wage?
    By Hey Mickey in forum Off Course
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Feb. 27, 2012, 02:45 PM
  2. Caring for a horse on minimum wage
    By maudie in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: Aug. 4, 2010, 07:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •