Idaho Employment Laws Are Really Bad! (wage, to live, safety)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's absolutely disingenuous. First he begins with "leftist labor state" as if the labor climate were really that much different. As this thread has explored it becomes a matter of preference - some people enjoy the protections that things like unions provide, whereas other people enjoy the employer freedoms that a state like Idaho might provide.
It seems to me that there is a bit of difference in the labor climate, at least from an employer's point of view. As I have mentioned in various posts: the workers comp rates in Idaho are less than half of those in California, workers in Idaho have the freedom to work 4x10 weeks or even 3x12, employers in Idaho can hire on a probationary period (which is somewhat academic since employers can fire at will anyway), there are frequently threats of imposing state-run health care on employers in California, and the minimum wage is higher in California (making it harder to compete with companies from other states). These might seem like minor things from an outsider's perspective but they can be a big deal to employers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anchorless
His last sentence is what is disingenuous - he's comparing states with much higher populations, for one, but he seems to infer that people are poor and suffering in Cali, NY, and Ohio, and living the good life in ID.
Look, there are poor people in every state, and there are wealthy people in every state. But from my experience in Idaho people are not enjoying a "pretty comfortable life," but are rather living paycheck to paycheck, just scraping by. I've spent a good portion of my life in smaller, more rural areas, and this is especially so there.
I agree that he probably went a little far here, or at least was a little simplistic.
But from my experience in Idaho people are not enjoying a "pretty comfortable life," but are rather living paycheck to paycheck, just scraping by. I've spent a good portion of my life in smaller, more rural areas, and this is especially so there.
How many of these people are living pay check to paycheck because they choose live in a large amount of debt due wanting a large house, new car, a boat, and possibly a few other toys. Most people in America are two weeks away from losing their home, no I don't have a website to prove it because I'm multi tasking right now, but I have heard from more than one source, I will try to find one later. Most people are not living paycheck to paycheck because they make too little money, but they choose to live outside of their means on credit.
I understand your points made above, and I agree to some degree with your deconstruction of his last statement above...
Yes, I do find you to "come at" people in a generally less-than-friendly way, but not so much so that I'm moderating most of it, as you need not be "friendly" to be right. While I would encourage you to be more gracious to people with views other than your own who may articulate their positions less skillfully than you feel they should, neither am I demanding that you "be nicer" as long as you're within the letter AND spirit of the Terms of Service.
As I said, we're just at an impasse. Call it a cultural or generational difference, perhaps.
I don't think I was being overly rude to him. Sarcastic perhaps - I said some of his post was laughable. I don't see that as being overly negative or less than friendly, though it certainly is antagonistic (which I admit encourages debate).
As I said, we're just at an impasse. Call it a cultural or generational difference, perhaps.
I don't think I was being overly rude to him. Sarcastic perhaps - I said some of his post was laughable. I don't see that as being overly negative or less than friendly, though it certainly is antagonistic (which I admit encourages debate).
I didn't take offense, it's no big deal. If I wanted everyone to agree with me, I would go elsewhere.
It seems to me that there is a bit of difference in the labor climate, at least from an employer's point of view. As I have mentioned in various posts: the workers comp rates in Idaho are less than half of those in California, workers in Idaho have the freedom to work 4x10 weeks or even 3x12, employers in Idaho can hire on a probationary period (which is somewhat academic since employers can fire at will anyway), there are frequently threats of imposing state-run health care on employers in California, and the minimum wage is higher in California (making it harder to compete with companies from other states). These might seem like minor things from an outsider's perspective but they can be a big deal to employers.
It is different (I didn't say it wasn't) - it's just not that different.
Would you not agree the labor climate in Cali, NY, or anywhere in the US is more like Idaho than, say, Canada, Sweden, France, or China?
I don't know much about the worker's comp rates (or the difference between the states in that regard), but I have many friends who work 4x10's or even 3x12's in California. I have friends who are union in Cali, and who aren't union.
The minimum wage debate is a entirely new can of worms (one that has been explored many times in the Politics Forum on CD), and I admit there are compelling arguments for both sides (I tend to agree with a "living wage" arrangement, perhaps at a local level, but not necessarily state enforced).
Also, I'm entirely in favor of different states having different business and labor climates, and at the same time I'm completely in favor of groups and lobbyists working to change those labor and business climates to one more in line with their views - is this not a basic idea of "states," federalism, and democracy (this is a rhetorical question - I'm sure you agree here).
How many of these people are living pay check to paycheck because they choose live in a large amount of debt due wanting a large house, new car, a boat, and possibly a few other toys. Most people in America are two weeks away from losing their home, no I don't have a website to prove it because I'm multi tasking right now, but I have heard from more than one source, I will try to find one later. Most people are not living paycheck to paycheck because they make too little money, but they choose to live outside of their means on credit.
Unfortunately this is probably something neither you nor I will ever be able to prove, at least to the quantitative degree that it becomes useful.
I will certainly concede that most people, despite their level of income, stretch themselves out and live well past their means - you need not dig up a citation for this.
Unfortunately this model has affects beyond those that decide to live and spend this way, and credit spending is here to stay. Do you not agree that because of the ease of purchasing items that credit affords, necessities like homes and automobiles are probably more expensive than they would be if everyone saved and paid cash instead?
Point being, I don't think this particular phenomenon has any more or less impact in Idaho than anywhere else (though I might argue it probably has less of an impact than states with a much higher cost of living).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinFromBoise
I didn't take offense, it's no big deal. If I wanted everyone to agree with me, I would go elsewhere.
Go to a leftist labor state, like Cali, or NY and you'll be racing back to pay Idaho taxes.
Just as reference for comparison for anyone reading, I think when I left CA, the sales tax in our area (If I'm not mistaken, sales tax is different in different areas of CA...) was 7.25%, although we didn't get taxed on food, and I believe we DO get taxed on groceries here in Boise. So, since a huge portion of what I spend my money on involves groceries (we have children), the 5% sales tax here doesn't seem that much better because I have to pay that on my groceries as well, whereas in CA I don't. So, it kind of balances out.
Plus, I've found that life in Idaho presents additional expenses that I did not have in CA...like needing tons and tons of clothing for winter...heavy coats, gloves, snowboots, scarves, thermals, etc. Whereas, where I'm from, one can pretty much wear shorts and a T shirt year round as long as they bring along a sweatshirt "just incase". We probably own 3 times more clothing here as we would back home, which of course adds to our utility bills as well because we've got so much more to launder (coats, snowpants, etc., get REALLY dirty fast).
And it is a complete hassle to store it all, not to mention the fact that it takes us half an hour just to get dressed to go somewhere, lol.
So, while I might have to pay 3x more back home for the same type of housing accommodations, I definitely make some of that back with the lack of grocery taxes and the extensive amounts of clothing (and other miscellaneous things) I won't need to own (or launder) due to the extreme weather differences.
You do realize the most state congressmen take a pay cut when they choose to meet for three months out of the year.
Besides that, raising minimum wage does nothing. It cuts out entry level positions and can force small businesses to close down. Do you expect more than $5.15 an hour to flip burgers? Because a job like that doesn't merit much more. Besides that I bet you couldn't show me one job that pays that, because people refuse to work for it. You think taxes are high here? Go to a leftist labor state, like Cali, or NY and you'll be racing back to pay Idaho taxes. And if this is a "right to be poor" state, how come states like California, New York, Michigan, and Ohio are so poverty stricken, yet many in Idaho enjoy a pretty comfortable life?
I understand what you're trying to say, as for the taxes and such, many left states actually have less taxes because they don't give as much tax breaks to large corporations. If the large companies in Idaho were paying their share of property taxes and other taxes we wouldn't be fighting for funds to pay for roads...
About the minimum wage.. there are lots of places that pay 5.15 per hour, in fact waitresses make 3.35 per hour... I totally understand the burden on small businesses, and large businesses for affordable labour. But here's the thing... a person's time away from their family is worth more than that! If you wish to start a business and employ people at poverty level wages then I'm sorry, but you have no business being in business. It has to start from the top down, anti-trust laws need to be properly enforced, to where businesses aren't getting so large that they stomp out the little guy... thus causing the little guy to have to pay crappy wages. Its a chain effect..
Companies, whether you want to admit it or not have a social responsibility just like every other person has in this society. If someone is devoting 40 hours a week to flip burgers... they ought to have healthcare and be able to live... 40 hours is 40 hours... if making you pay 15 dollars for your cheesburger drivethru is what it takes.. then maybe america needs a wake up call...
I do know that waiters working for chain restaurants.. make 3.35 per hour.. causing tips to be their wage.. and not a gift from you the customer.. and employees working for that SAME company doing the SAME job in Spokane is making 8 dollars per hour....
last time I checked Spokane had a lower cost of living than boise... and boise really isn't too much cheaper than portland... so the whole cost of living excuse is a bunch of hog wash...
this issue really is a tricky one.. and I totally understand the business mindset, but you can't properly address this issue without the whole country getting on the same page.. and addressing the chain at the top.
Business and Industry are attracted to different area's for different reasons... the "leftist" places as you call them lure businesses and industry because for the most part they have a better educated and trained workforce pool to draw from... here in conservative idaho.. we're trying to get businesses and industries by giving them tax breaks... so who's giving out the welfare? corporations here in idaho have been getting it for years... and we the low paid tax payer keep getting slapped with more bills that should be covered...
I totally understand what you're saying.. but I think you only see one aspect to the whole problem and you're running with it and concluding that is just how it is... when there is sooo much more to it... and we sit here like pumkinheads and vote in the same ole people who keep sending us down this path without understanding it entirely.. and wondering why we have crap wages.. and tax bills...
Most people are not living paycheck to paycheck because they make too little money, but they choose to live outside of their means on credit.
If you want to know why people "choose to live beyond their means" in a Capitalist economy, perhaps you actually should read a little Karl Marx.
Is it just me or when the discussion earlier in the thread centered on Idaho's "Right to Work" nature..the description centered along a lot of what my impressions of working in Communist China would be like...fwiw....you know all that stuff about no breaks, firing without cause, wage manipulation, etc.
It is different (I didn't say it wasn't) - it's just not that different.
Would you not agree the labor climate in Cali, NY, or anywhere in the US is more like Idaho than, say, Canada, Sweden, France, or China?
I would agree. I just would not expect this argument from you. We once had a debate where you refused to acknowledge that there was a difference between an illegal alien migrating to California and a US citizen moving to Idaho from California. I don't see how you can argue that the labor market is not that different across the country but that the difference in workers between Idaho and California is the same as between California and Latin America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anchorless
I don't know much about the worker's comp rates (or the difference between the states in that regard), but I have many friends who work 4x10's or even 3x12's in California. I have friends who are union in Cali, and who aren't union.
It can be done. It just takes an election by the employees and notification to the state. And you can't flip back and forth like in Idaho.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anchorless
Also, I'm entirely in favor of different states having different business and labor climates, and at the same time I'm completely in favor of groups and lobbyists working to change those labor and business climates to one more in line with their views - is this not a basic idea of "states," federalism, and democracy (this is a rhetorical question - I'm sure you agree here).
Yep!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
