People talking politics and macroeconomics in this forum must be Band.
SoldierGriz said:
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Staff Shortages at stadium
- Thread starter RayWill
- Start date
:lol: :lol: :lol:SACCAT66 said:
AZGrizFan said:
I played the race card? I think you have me mixed up with someone else.
AZGrizFan said:
Thank You, sir! :thumb:
horribilisfan8184
Well-known member
Ursa Major said:
Hey now, I didn't start the dichotomy here, I just stayed in my lane. Young people are succeeding all around if you look past the entitled whiners--I don't believe for a second the American Dream is dead or that our grandkids can't have it better than our kids. If that make me a dud, guilty. And actually, I can kill a party by 6:30 making fun of folks stuck on penis and fart jokes. Pretty easy to find people who don't want to stay for your alphabet burp contest at 9:30.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
The Majority of U.S. Consumers Live Paycheck-to-Paycheck
According to the research, 54 percent of consumers in the U.S. (125 million U.S. adults) are living paycheck-to-paycheck, with 21 percent of this population struggling to pay their bills, meaning they have little or no money left over after spending their income.
While it's true that those who earn less are more likely to struggle financially, the results across all income brackets are staggering:
Nearly 40 percent of those with annual incomes over $100,000 live paycheck-to-paycheck, including 12 percent struggling to pay their bills.
Fifty-three percent of those who make between $50,000 and $100,000 annually live paycheck-to-paycheck, with 18 percent struggling to pay their bills.
Seventy-two percent of those who make less than $50,000 per year live paycheck-to-paycheck, with 33 percent struggling to pay their bills.
When it comes to demographics, the largest group living paycheck-to-paycheck is millennials (77 percent), especially bridge millennials (those 33 to 42 years old) -- with 33 percent struggling to pay their bills. This demographic has been bookended by two recessions and riddled with student debt unlike baby boomers and seniors who are least likely to be living paycheck-to-paycheck. Additionally, the research shows that having children corresponds with a greater likelihood of living paycheck-to-paycheck.
"The perception that only low-income individuals are living paycheck-to-paycheck simply is not the case today," said Anuj Nayar, Financial Health Officer at LendingClub. "Half of Americans in this country are not building a reserve or saving for retirement. They are on a treadmill daily deciding whether every dollar they make will help them live or weather a financial storm. On top of that, they are financially vulnerable, and, like we've seen for so many over the last year, if there is any disruption to their income-level, they won't have sufficient savings to absorb the hardship."
According to the research, 54 percent of consumers in the U.S. (125 million U.S. adults) are living paycheck-to-paycheck, with 21 percent of this population struggling to pay their bills, meaning they have little or no money left over after spending their income.
While it's true that those who earn less are more likely to struggle financially, the results across all income brackets are staggering:
Nearly 40 percent of those with annual incomes over $100,000 live paycheck-to-paycheck, including 12 percent struggling to pay their bills.
Fifty-three percent of those who make between $50,000 and $100,000 annually live paycheck-to-paycheck, with 18 percent struggling to pay their bills.
Seventy-two percent of those who make less than $50,000 per year live paycheck-to-paycheck, with 33 percent struggling to pay their bills.
When it comes to demographics, the largest group living paycheck-to-paycheck is millennials (77 percent), especially bridge millennials (those 33 to 42 years old) -- with 33 percent struggling to pay their bills. This demographic has been bookended by two recessions and riddled with student debt unlike baby boomers and seniors who are least likely to be living paycheck-to-paycheck. Additionally, the research shows that having children corresponds with a greater likelihood of living paycheck-to-paycheck.
"The perception that only low-income individuals are living paycheck-to-paycheck simply is not the case today," said Anuj Nayar, Financial Health Officer at LendingClub. "Half of Americans in this country are not building a reserve or saving for retirement. They are on a treadmill daily deciding whether every dollar they make will help them live or weather a financial storm. On top of that, they are financially vulnerable, and, like we've seen for so many over the last year, if there is any disruption to their income-level, they won't have sufficient savings to absorb the hardship."
horribilisfan8184
Well-known member
HelenaHandBasket said:
You've obviously never seen multiple physicians' financial statements. It would scare you. The tendency in Americans to spend beyond one's means transcends income level. What this means, for the most part, is living paycheck to pay check is a spending problem, not an income problem. Notwithstanding, the percentage of Americans who own their own homes increased during this pandemic, but you wouldn't know that listening to the Bernie Brigade on here:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/08/amid-a-pandemic-and-a-recession-americans-go-on-a-near-record-homebuying-spree/
Proud Griz Man said:
Probably so. :lol:
Getting back to the original point: No, not everybody is entitled to live in Orange County. No, it's not a right. Yes, it would be smarter to move east if you're having trouble finding housing. But, the 2021 lower income threshold for a family of four is $107,550/yr. I'm not trying to say that's a ton of money or that people earning $107,549/yr. are "entitled" to homes on the sand and private jets to the Caribbean, I just think it's wild to realize that income is considered lower income. That's in a county with three times the population of the entire state of Montana. A lot of people. I have to think the reason that number has increased so much in the last ~20 years is more driven by housing prices rather than income growth. That's all I've been trying to say in all this.
sdk.catfish
Well-known member
In an attempt to bring this back to the original topic we have this:
"With the nationwide labor shortage making it harder for restaurants to hire and retain staff, one iconic Seattle fast food chain is upping its hourly wages to entice more workers.
Dick's Drive-In President Jasmine Donovan announced Wednesday that the fast food company will bump up starting wages to $19 per hour beginning on Sept. 27. Workers will automatically move up to $20 per hour once they pass their first skills test, which usually occurs within the first 12 weeks of employment. Raises and bonuses also come with more skills training, and the top hourly pay rate for crew now stands at $21.75.
You can look this up yourself by searching for Dicks Drive in Seattle wages. And their prices are no more than we pay at any hamburger joint in Montana. So this isn't about a lost work ethic in the younger generation. This is about a lost human ethic with "entreprenueurs" wanting to take all the money for themselves and not considering the benifits to society of paying a livable wage. UM should start vetting their vendors.
"With the nationwide labor shortage making it harder for restaurants to hire and retain staff, one iconic Seattle fast food chain is upping its hourly wages to entice more workers.
Dick's Drive-In President Jasmine Donovan announced Wednesday that the fast food company will bump up starting wages to $19 per hour beginning on Sept. 27. Workers will automatically move up to $20 per hour once they pass their first skills test, which usually occurs within the first 12 weeks of employment. Raises and bonuses also come with more skills training, and the top hourly pay rate for crew now stands at $21.75.
You can look this up yourself by searching for Dicks Drive in Seattle wages. And their prices are no more than we pay at any hamburger joint in Montana. So this isn't about a lost work ethic in the younger generation. This is about a lost human ethic with "entreprenueurs" wanting to take all the money for themselves and not considering the benifits to society of paying a livable wage. UM should start vetting their vendors.
sdk.catfish said:
A damn fine hamburger when your smashed.
Sorry, wrong thread.
sdk.catfish
Well-known member
So I guess you know how to run the company better than the president of the company - may I remind you a company that has been in business many years. Wow, smart guy. Better start buying up hamburger chains so you can keep underpaying your help and not have anybody to service your customers like the vendors at Washington Griz.
sdk.catfish said:
Well, I HAVE run several companies, so I feel somewhat qualified to opine. But thanks for your input. My wife also feels that my CEO experience doesn’t qualify me to make any decisions in the household either, so on that point you and she agree…
My point wasn’t that the salary increases were bad business. He’s obviously free to do whatever he pleases and pay however he wishes. My point was that it WILL flow to the pricing on the menu board at some point….just like higher salary costs have at McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, Jack In the Box, etc., etc., etc. About the only one that seems impervious at this point is In N Out, so I SUPPOSE there’s a chance he doesn’t raise prices, but if I were a betting man, I’d say he does…and in the not too distant future.
sdk.catfish
Well-known member
My guess is that Jasmine Donovan, president of the company, is a woman. Such a tell from people like you who live in the past. Wan't to play poker?
