Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
AluminiumTech

[Update]Amazon institutes $15 minimum wage for all US employees AND eliminates monthly bonuses and Stock Grants

Recommended Posts

I can never get my head around the American system....

55 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

No, flipping cheeseburgers isn't worth $15 an hour,

my 16yr old could get paid $10/hr working at KFC, my sister in law as a 2 IC was earning between $21-35/hr depending on shifts at macdonalds.

 

It makes me wonder when Amazon said it was going to start up in Australia, if Jeff Bezzo's nearly shit himself and decided he might be better to start paying better wages in other countries.

I also wonder how much of hard time he would get if there are too many call-outs for ambulances to his work premises. 


current main system:

motherboard : AMD FX4130 Quad-Core 3.8Ghz

ram : 8Gig

OS : Win7 Home Premium 64-bit

Video Card : Nvidea Geforce GTX 650

Monitor: 17" LCD X-black Sony

 

Desperately needs an updated system :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, cretsiah said:

I can never get my head around the American system....

my 16yr old could get paid $10/hr working at KFC, my sister in law as a 2 IC was earning between $21-35/hr depending on shifts at macdonalds.

 

It makes me wonder when Amazon said it was going to start up in Australia, if Jeff Bezzo's nearly shit himself and decided he might be better to start paying better wages in other countries.

I also wonder how much of hard time he would get if there are too many call-outs for ambulances to his work premises. 

It still blows me away that a 15 yo in mcdolands Australia can earn more than walmart employee in the US.  Based on part time rates that is.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It still blows me away that a 15 yo in mcdolands Australia can earn more than walmart employee in the US.  Based on part time rates that is.

this doesnt surprise me for 2 reasons, unfortunetly 1 of them is likely to get me into trouble, the other has to do with the exchange rates before and after Australia's near equal rate to the American Dollar. i think they said its working down towards US$0.60 in the last couple of days.


current main system:

motherboard : AMD FX4130 Quad-Core 3.8Ghz

ram : 8Gig

OS : Win7 Home Premium 64-bit

Video Card : Nvidea Geforce GTX 650

Monitor: 17" LCD X-black Sony

 

Desperately needs an updated system :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cretsiah said:

this doesnt surprise me for 2 reasons, unfortunetly 1 of them is likely to get me into trouble, the other has to do with the exchange rates before and after Australia's near equal rate to the American Dollar. i think they said its working down towards US$0.60 in the last couple of days.

On the current exchange rate, the average wage at mcdonalds is US$11.30 and hour while the current casual rate at walmart is $10.50 and they just got a pay raise to that.  

 

Also I don't mind if the dollar slips further.  Most of our market is with Asia and when the yanks can buy more stuff from us they do.  Like maybe even steel and aluminium seeing as the tariff doesn't apply to us.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 1:04 AM, cretsiah said:

I can never get my head around the American system....

my 16yr old could get paid $10/hr working at KFC, my sister in law as a 2 IC was earning between $21-35/hr depending on shifts at macdonalds.

 

It makes me wonder when Amazon said it was going to start up in Australia, if Jeff Bezzo's nearly shit himself and decided he might be better to start paying better wages in other countries.

I also wonder how much of hard time he would get if there are too many call-outs for ambulances to his work premises. 

 

On 10/11/2018 at 1:22 AM, mr moose said:

It still blows me away that a 15 yo in mcdolands Australia can earn more than walmart employee in the US.  Based on part time rates that is.

 

Easy it boils down to cost-of-living, economics 101. Wages in the State of Iowa is roughly 50-70% that of California because of the incredibly lower cost-of-living we have here. Same goes for other countries and not to mention exchange rates and taxes. Its not just an American thing btw. 

My 2cents.


Tech News Posting Guidelines - READ BEFORE POSTING | Community Standards | Forum Staff

LTT Folding Users Tips, Tricks and FAQ | F@H Contribution | My Rig | Project Steamroller

 

Spoiler

 †  

 

Character is like a Tree and Reputation like its Shadow. The Shadow is what we think of it; The Tree is the Real thing.  ~ Abraham Lincoln

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.  ~ Winston Churchill

Docendo discimus - "the best way to learn is to teach" ~ Benjamin Jantz

 

I am a StarCitizen are you? My ships: Aegis Eclipse, Aegis Sabre, Aegis Gladius, Aopoa Nox, KI P52 Merlin, KI P72 Archimedes and the RSI Constellation Aquila.

 

My Phones are a Nokia Lumia 925 with WM10 and a Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with WM10 running the Fast Ring insider updates. Broke :(

Samsung Note 9 and a Samsung S9+

 

About Myself:   https://linustechtips.com/main/profile/229093-sansvarnic/?tab=field_core_pfield_46

 

 CHRISTIAN MEMBER 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

 

 

Easy it boils down to cost-of-living, economics 101. Wages in the State of Iowa is roughly 50-70% that of California because of the incredibly lower cost-of-living we have here. Same goes for other countries and not to mention exchange rates and taxes. Its not just an American thing btw. 

My 2cents.

Even taking that into account and conversion rates etc.  It's still quite the contrast.  Obviously people in Australia are on average more wealthy than their US counterparts, but we are not that much more wealthy that natural economic forces would cause that difference alone.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Even taking that into account and conversion rates etc.  It's still quite the contrast.  Obviously people in Australia are on average more wealthy than their US counterparts, but we are not that much more wealthy that natural economic forces would cause that difference alone.

Even though the facts state exactly the opposite of what you claim... as usual.

 

https://howmuch.net/articles/household-net-financial-wealth-around-the-world

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amazonsucks said:

Even though the facts state exactly the opposite of what you claim... as usual.

 

https://howmuch.net/articles/household-net-financial-wealth-around-the-world

Don't know where you got that shit from, average net wealth of the average Australian is:

 

Quote

Australian household has a net wealth of $929,400, households in the highest quintile have an average net wealth more than three times this ($2,906,400).

https://mccrindle.com.au/insights/blog/australias-household-income-wealth-distribution/

 

and

http://abs.gov.au/household-income

Net worth in 2016 was $928K

 

10 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

as usual.

 

9_9 


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Don't know where you got that shit from, average net wealth of the average Australian is:

 

https://mccrindle.com.au/insights/blog/australias-household-income-wealth-distribution/

 

and

http://abs.gov.au/household-income

Net worth in 2016 was $928K

 

9_9 

Because of this problem.

 

Quote

This takes into account things like savings, securities, stocks and loans (but not real estate).

That's a huge issue because in Aus and NZ the majority on investment is in property so that rules out huge amounts of wealth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, leadeater said:

Because of this problem.

 

That's a huge issue because in Aus and NZ the majority on investment is in property so that rules out huge amounts of wealth.

But that property has a cost too (swings and roundabouts), it's easy to have a massive looking bank account if your house only cost $20K and you earn $1K a week (average Australian full time income).


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But that property has a cost too (swings and roundabouts), it's easy to have a massive looking bank account if your house only cost $20K and you earn $1K a week (average Australian full time income).

True, it's more that for a report that looks at wealth ignoring property is a big issue in countries where the major investment is that and not other things like stock market etc. It's really country dependent because of local laws and market factors, you don't do a lot of property investment in many European countries because it's not viable.

 

For example my house went up $40k in one year, I've done literally nothing to it in that time and have in fact only owned it for that long. This is why so many here own multiple investment property, ignored by that report.

 

Of course there are other issues pointed out in that link/article. Like most things you can take what you want from it what ever your point of view is, single source of information issue with reader bias.

 

Quote

Since we are only looking at average figures, a small number of millionaires and billionaires in the U.S. inflate average wealth figures, when in reality most people are barely getting by.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

True, it's more that for a report that looks at wealth ignoring property is a big issue in countries where the major investment is that and not other things like stock market etc. It's really country dependent because of local laws and market factors, you don't do a lot of property investment in many European countries because it's not viable.

 

For example my house went up $40k in one year, I've done literally nothing to it in that time and have in fact only owned it for that long. This is why so many here own multiple investment property, ignored by that report.

 

Of course there are other issues pointed out in that link/article. Like most things you can take what you want from it what ever your point of view is, single source of information issue with reader bias.

 

 

 

Yep, and here's a good article for those who don;t like the facts or want to talk about average being inflated due to billionaires:

 

https://www.financialsamurai.com/average-net-worth-is-huge/

 

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

For example my house went up $40k in one year, I've done literally nothing to it in that time and have in fact only owned it for that long. This is why so many here own multiple investment property, ignored by that report.

 

You don't want to know what my property is worth, the last boom we had in Victoria makes even me feel a little ashamed.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mr moose said:

You don't want to know what my property is worth, the last boom we had in Victoria makes even me feel a little ashamed.

Oh I have a good idea what it's worth 😉. I brought mine when and where I did because I know it's going to double in value rather quickly and being fairly low priced was a good option for me, I'd rather build but that's really expensive. Plus it's my first house and I wasn't actually planning on buying, only took a year of saving though but that is way not normal, waaaay. There's people/families here that have been saving for 20/30 years and realistically will never own a home, unless they move out of Auckland.

 

Inequality exists everywhere, I've yet to see it on the levels of places like the US and Middle East where you have people that go "You know what I want to fly in to space and go to Mars" then actually go do that privately. That kind of wealth, Nation State kinds, is nothing but insane to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, leadeater said:

True, it's more that for a report that looks at wealth ignoring property is a big issue in countries where the major investment is that and not other things like stock market etc.

The website states "net financial wealth" rather clearly, and it's accurate at it. It's more an issue of

 

45 minutes ago, leadeater said:

reader bias.

I mean, imagine I enter a discussion about CPU performance in a forum about economics, and quickly google some frequency-only ranking (or IPC-only, or cache-only, etc) 9_9  

 

45 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's really country dependent because of local laws and market factors, you don't do a lot of property investment in many European countries because it's not viable.

Still, real estate makes the overwhelming bulk of household wealth all around the world. In fact, some European countries are the most extreme examples of real-estate bias, but even countries at the opposite extreme in terms of homeownership rates (Germany, Austria) household wealth is still dominated by housing.

 

Anyway, this whole discussion was mixing wealth with income, hourly wages with earnings, price levels with expenditure, etc. from the get go, it's not like we're going to get all precise now 😛 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Don't know where you got that shit from, average net wealth of the average Australian is:

 

https://mccrindle.com.au/insights/blog/australias-household-income-wealth-distribution/

 

and

http://abs.gov.au/household-income

Net worth in 2016 was $928K

 

9_9 

The data came from here, as was clearly stated in the article. Maybe try reading?

 

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/

 

Not sure why you posted that mcrindle article. It basically says that Australias inequality is getting worse and the middle class is shrinking, which isnt a surprise given the way your country has been sold out. I mean you guys lost all of your automotive manufacturing capability in one year didnt you? 

 

The abs link shows that you are cherry picking and ignoring what you want. Like the fact that your selected chart shows that over 1/4 of the population in your country has >3x as much debt as income and its getting worse.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

The data came from here, as was clearly stated in the article. Maybe try reading?

 

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/

 

Not sure why you posted that mcrindle article. It basically says that Australias inequality is getting worse and the middle class is shrinking, which isnt a surprise given the way your country has been sold out. I mean you guys lost all of your automotive manufacturing capability in one year didnt you? 

 

The abs link shows that you are cherry picking and ignoring what you want. Like the fact that your selected chart shows that over 1/4 of the population in your country has >3x as much debt as income and its getting worse.

 

 

 

 

You really don't know when to give up do you,  Do you just like arguing or do you genuinely believe what say?


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

The website states "net financial wealth" rather clearly, and it's accurate at it. It's more an issue of

Well my point is it's not accurate, because in NZ the highest financial return on investment is property. So I could invest in stocks or buy 2-5 houses, one of those investments would show up in the report and the other would not hence introducing a rather significant issue with the report data based on it's parameters. Not an issue at all until you try and use the report in a way that does not align with it's parameters.

 

So the issue is the people from countries where property investment is not generally viable excludes that is unknowingly mischaracterizing the net wealth of the primary investment source of an entire country because that is how we do it and they do not. 

 

Edit:

We do not have capital gains tax so anything made on a property sale is tax free, stocks and other investments are not tax free. Which is why I said it depends on country and local market factors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mr moose said:

You really don't know when to give up do you,  Do you just like arguing or do you genuinely believe what say?

Perhaps you can actually break down why you cited the links you did instead of attempting to be condescending. Perhaps you cant actually refute what i said with anything remotely factual so you default to your usual condescension in a manner which says "haha well if you dont get it i CANT possibly explain it!"

 

Which is either a vapid way of backpedaling or you really cant back up what you say.

 

Interesting that @SpaceGhostC2C would say what he said there.

 

Lets see:

 

"I mean, imagine I enter a discussion about CPU performance in a forum about economics, and quickly google some frequency-only ranking (or IPC-only, or cache-only, etc) 9_9"

 

I mean, imagine entering a discussion about WAGES and other things of a FINANCIAL nature and then bringing up REAL ESTATE 😂. I mean how clueless is that, riiiight?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Perhaps you can actually break down why you cited the links you did instead of attempting to be condescending. Perhaps you cant actually refute what i said with anything remotely factual so you default to your usual condescension in a manner which says "haha well if you dont get it i CANT possibly explain it!"

 

Which is either a vapid way of backpedaling or you really cant back up what you say.

 

Interesting that @SpaceGhostC2C would say what he said there.

 

Lets see:

 

"I mean, imagine I enter a discussion about CPU performance in a forum about economics, and quickly google some frequency-only ranking (or IPC-only, or cache-only, etc) 9_9"

 

I mean, imagine entering a discussion about WAGES and other things of a FINANCIAL nature and then bringing up REAL ESTATE 😂. I mean how clueless is that, riiiight?

 

 

I did refute, with evidence.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I did refute, with evidence.

No, you said:

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You really don't know when to give up do you,  Do you just like arguing or do you genuinely believe what say?

 

Now you say you refuted it already...

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

I mean, imagine entering a discussion about WAGES and other things of a FINANCIAL nature and then bringing up REAL ESTATE 😂. I mean how clueless is that, riiiight?

You should probably read my post above this one for why it would actually matter in some countries. House flipping here is not uncommon, many people buy and sell within 3-6 months and I know a few people who own 20+ houses. From my understanding Aus is not too much different.

 

I can understand why in the OCED report they did not include house and land values because the data simply is not available to do that, however the way you used that report would make it a problem here because it's no longer accurate for the point you are trying to portray.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well my point is it's not accurate, because in NZ the highest financial return on investment is property. So I could invest in stocks or buy 2-5 houses, one of those investments would show up in the report and the other would not hence introducing a rather significant issue with the report data based on it's parameters.

Oh but that's not a problem at all. It is accurate, because that's what financial wealth is. You can't say that a frequency ranking is inaccurate because it ignores IPC. You can say, however, that it is misused if someone tries to conclude CPU performance or predict cinebench scores, etc. based on that ranking, but the issue isn't with the ranking itself. "inaccurate" would mean that the frequencies are wrong, but if reported truthfully then the issue is not with the data.

Same here, financial wealth is financial wealth, real estate wealth is real estate wealth, and total wealth is total wealth (wow, much depth, such philosophy, wow :P). They state they report financial wealth, and they do so.

 

13 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So the issue is the people from countries where property investment is not generally viable excludes that is unknowingly mischaracterizing the net wealth of the primary investment source of an entire country because that is how we do it and they do not. 

Only if you misconstrue "financial net wealth" for "total net wealth" or "net wealth period" but again, that's not on the people reporting the data in this case, but on the people trying to make it mean something it doesn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, leadeater said:

You should probably read my post above this one for why it would actually matter in some countries. House flipping here is not uncommon, many people buy and sell within 3-6 months and I know a few people who own 20+ houses. From my understanding Aus is not too much different.

 

I can understand why in the OCED report the did not include house and land values because the data simply is not available to do that, however the way you used that report would make it a problem here because it's no longer accurate for the point you are trying to portray.

The completely off topic point about calculating real estate holdings in "wealth" when this thread was about income and financial issues? Ok then.

 

Yeah i guess some people already forgot 2008 and the house flipping real estate bubble that popped already. We area species with amnesia though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Oh but that's not a problem at all. It is accurate, because that's what financial wealth is

As defined by the parameters you are using which were created by people in market factors not here. Tbh I'm not really arguing against your point, it's just that financial wealth is not so easily defined and universally applied across every country, one size fits all is typically deeply flawed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amazonsucks said:

No, you said:

 

Now you say you refuted it already...

9_9

 

OMG, do you need it spelled out?

 

The report you linked does not include realestate assets.  These assets make up the majority of Australian wealth, they are as financially relevant to personal wealth as stocks or bonds.  You are trying to argue I was wrong by using incomplete data. Now you are trying to argue that I somehow didn't read it. Leadeater has pointed it out I have linked to it.  ABS is not cherry picking its data,  it is the best data in Australia on Australia.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×