10 ms·
Google requiring contractors get health care coverage, parental leave
- samfisher83 8y agoI am not sure how far 15 dollars/hr is going to take you in SV or NYC.
- mjevans 8y agoIt's a start, but really fixing the problem would be correcting a mis-regulated market with regulations and encouragements that create many kinds of housing, retail, office, and production (Industrial zones) to regulate market price from the supply side. Regulating the demand requires making more cities worth living in; same basic ideas (create useful civil infrastructure), but harder since the money has to come from outside. Well, or we could do WWIII, an pandemic, etc, to constrain population in less pleasant ways. 15 USD/hour SHOULD be a livable wage, and the fact that it isn't reflects the insane rent-seeking, regulatory capture in all sorts of forms, and unhealthy market dynamics leading to inflation outpacing economic prosperity increases (for a majority of the population).
- dgzl 8y ago> 15 USD/hour SHOULD be a livable wage Says who? These numbers are arbitrary if we're slaves to inflation. $15 now seems like a goal, but the same amount a century ago was unthinkable. How long will it be before $15/hr isn't enough for even the most basic needs?
- rak00n 8y agoThis should be a government's job to decide. Google isn't the authority that should decide on that.
- darpa_escapee 8y agoThere are lot of things that should be the government's job, but aren't. In lieu of that, Google is responsible for its own actions, and Google is the one who is deciding to pay some contractors $15/hr.
- gwright 8y agoIt seems strange to say that Google is the "authority" here. They are making a choice on how to run their business. There is no "authority" involved in that decision. But what makes you think the government should decide either? What makes you think that the government is capable of discerning the correct number? What makes you think there must be a single number? And if you think there should be a single number, why should it be $15/hr vs $10, $20, $50, or $100? How is it possible for a federal minimum wage to magically be "correct" for all combinations of: * geographic location and local economic conditions * experience of worker (e.g. teenagers 1st job vs young-adult vs senior citizen) * part time vs full time * no training required, some training required, lots of training required? * time-of-day (1st, 2nd, 3rd shift) * time-of-week (5x8, 4x10, 6x6) * intangible benefits (think internships to gain experience/skills/networks) I'm sure there are many more variables that could be added to that list. The real minimum wage is always 0, for the workers that didn't get hired. Minimum wage laws are ultimately restrictions an individual's right to enter into a contract.
- dgzl 8y ago> Minimum wage laws are ultimately restrictions an individual's right to enter into a contract. This, 100%. If I have some menial task that doesn't justify paying minimum wage, and I have a person interested in this contract, then the government's intervention is violating our rights. We don't stand a chance bringing the homeless population back into the workforce with a high minimum wage, it's just not going to happen. People who support higher minimum wage don't seem to realize that it has negative side effects, like pushing lower-ranking employees out of the market.
- hopler 8y agoThe professional economists who've actually researched this matter disagree with you.
- maxerickson 8y agoI think they are making an argument about the efficiency of the modern economy more than they are making an argument that people should be able to live on $15 given current prices. Looking at what it costs to produce the material goods required to maintain a decent (but minimal) standard of living, $15 an hour probably should be enough. That $15 isn't sufficient can then be taken as a prompt to look at the impacts of existing policies and who they benefit and so on.
- Mirioron 8y agoIf you look at other countries then $15 an hour is a crazy high amount for a minimum wage. 6 years ago I had a full time software development job where I made $600 a month net. If you look at countries like Ukraine or Bulgaria you'll see even lower earnings. And it's not like average people in those countries are starving or dirt poor. They have cars, homes, computers, smartphones etc.
- sdenton4 8y agoComputers and smartphones don't really matter when looking at a total-cost-of-living calculation in today's economy. In the US, they are vanishingly cheap compared to housing, health care and education (aka, servicing student debt). Cars cost a bit more (last I checked, some years ago, about $6k/year - base cost + gas + insurance). Rent is >$500 just about everywhere these days... https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/mo/saint-louis/ https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/mo/sa... ). The US relies on employer-provided health insurance, but, as a result, employers keep people working multiple part time jobs to avoid footing the insurance costs. And since most people pay for education with loans, the lowest wage workers are often also left paying for years for failed attempts to get out of the lowest economic class.
- mjevans 8y agoAlso, lets say we wave a want and everyone making less than 15 USD suddenly does. What would happen in today's climate? What has happened where I live as that has come closer to reality? The cost of __everything__ but particularly rent and other less elastic items have risen to match and overtake any gains. The true effect is to decrease the wealth of the middle class and only the "nobles" who own more than their own living abodes benefit.
- JauntyHatAngle 8y agoI mean, there are ways to change that, index it based on CPI or something (economists have better methods of doing that of course). But I think the point of "says who?" is a fair one, because livable wage in major cities is always way higher than in the smaller towns or outskirts.
- tdurden 8y agominimum wage was never intended to be a livable wage
- fires10 8y agoCite a source please. I have heard this but have never seen a source. I believe Roosevelt said something along the lines of business that depend on paying less than a living wage do not have the right to exist or something. A simple search brought that up. Can you cite a source that is contemporary to when minimum wage was established?
- scarface74 8y agoSo how much should my 16 year old and his friends get paid for making pizza?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sundaeofshock 8y agoAt least the prevailing minimum wage in your community.
- spinach 8y agoIs there not a different minimum wage for students/young people where you live? Or different brackets of minimum wage?
- scarface74 8y agoNo. If there were, wouldn’t that cause discrimination against older workers who actually needed the money to support their family?
- ecshafer 8y agoThis is not a good argument, since most people in restaurants are not 16 year olds and their friends making extra cash. Most restaurant and fast food workers are not teenagers, they are open during the day afterall. The average age is in the 30s.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y ago15 USD per hour is 30k per year. A room in NYC can be found for about $1000 per month which leaves around $1.5k per month for other expenses. It's perfectly possible to survive in NYC on $1.5k a month.
- mistersquid 8y agoYou forgot about taxes. 33% tax on 30K leaves about 20.1K leftover which, after 1K rent, comes to $675 per month, less health insurance, utilities, transportation costs, etc. $15 per hour is barely livable in NYC with 1K rent per month.
- jefftk 8y agoWhy are you figuring 33% on $30? Standard deduction is $12k, then it's 10-12% federal tax on the rest. A bit for state tax, sure, but it's going to be well less than 33%. (Still hard to make ends meet on $30k, not disagreeing there.)
- GoatOfAplomb 8y agoI don't expect someone with a 30k salary to pay anywhere near 33% tax. Federal: 12k standard deduction for an individual, looks like $1969 in taxes on the remaining. New York State: 8k standard deduction, roughly $1100 tax on the rest (eyeballing it). FICA: 7.65% tax on 30k is 2295. $1050 per month after rent instead of $675. Not saying it's comfortable... in fact I think I'd still agree with your "barely livable" description.
- yardie 8y agoThe only way anyone is seeing a total tax rate of 33% is if they are making over $90k. And with typical deductions I would triple that.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> 33% tax on 30K Federal payroll and income tax on that is about 15% total; state and local shouldn't more than double that.
- 8y ago
- munificent 8y agoFarther than any number less than $15 will, certainly.
- Mirioron 8y agoNot necessarily. If the company can't afford as many people at $15 an hour then some of them are going to be let go.
- true_religion 8y agoThat’s a big if. They are a Google contractors so they may just charge Google more.
- RaceWon 8y agoI'm too stupid to understand how raising the minimum wage to $15.00 won't increases prices to the point that someone who is earning $30.00 an hour (a pretty good mid-income wage)will no longer be able to afford to pay her bills. Can someone explain to me how that will Not come to pass. I implore you to please use single syllable words and simple sentence structures, because as stated formerly; I must be a half-wit to not comprehend the incandescent brilliance of this economic revolution.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- moreira 8y agoA few things that I can think of, off the top of my head (other posters: feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake): 1. Wages are a small portion of the total cost of everything. For example, for a place like Walmart, the bulk of their costs is the products themselves (a lot of which are not even manufactured in the US, and thus not affected by minimum wage changes). The costs of running the stores can't be all that low, either. Increasing wages to $15 wouldn't make a huge difference to prices. They might go up a slight bit, but... it's simply not going to be that much. 2. Only 2.3% of hourly workers are paid the minimum wage. [0] (Although obviously, if increased to $15, then everyone below $15 becomes a "minimum wage" worker, meaning the percentage will be a bit higher) When you talk about increasing the minimum wage, you have to realise you're not actually increasing wages for everyone, only a small portion of people. Increasing them will not increase prices all that much, since it doesn't affect that many people to begin with. Some prices would go up a bit, yes. But a lot of companies wouldn't be affected in the slightest, and so their prices wouldn't change, meaning the overall effect wouldn't be all that pronounced. [0]: https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm
- puzzle 8y agoIt's already the minimum in NYC starting this year.
- gwright 8y agoIt is almost as if there isn't a single hourly wage that balances supply and demand for all types of jobs in all locations for all types of workers. Hmm.
- yardie 8y agoFurther than $7.25, $10, $11, $12, or $14/hr. Progress is still progress.
- gwright 8y agoWhat is the limiting principle? Why stop at the now magical $15/hour? If $15 is better than $14 then why wouldn't $16 be better yet? Once upon a time I was having an in person discussion with someone deeply involved in these sorts of policy discussions and I jokingly said that the law should just be $50/hour since that would obviously be better than $10/$12/$15. To my astonishment this person proceeded to explain that it would indeed be a good idea because everyone would have more money to spend and so this change would be a boost to the economy. Absolutely no acknowledgment that there might be unintended consequences to a $50/hour minimum wage.
- moosey 8y agoI wish we could test it. I wish there was a way to build an economic area, and a very large one, to test such ideas. What if life is seriously better on the other side? I certainly wish that there was a floor to poverty that is more than what our minimum wage offers today, even if you weren't working, and I believe it possible. Fortunately, in Scandinavia and Europe you are starting to see such ideas tested. Living in WA, I'm excited with the increases in the minimum wage, and if they work out well, I hope that society is brave enough to test higher ones until the positive effects are lost.
- StudentStuff 8y agoThe increase in minimum wage has definitely culled many under-performing restaurants and businesses in Seattle (essentially the death of middling Teriyaki shops). I appreciate the change, its refreshing to see room in the market that has allowed new & interesting businesses to fill the spaces said under-performing businesses used to fill, providing much needed variety.
- gwright 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jkha0 8y agoI know it's token stuff but if they keep giving them what they want they'll just keep demanding more, and it's not the ideal way to run a company I don't think. Also companies shouldn't be on the hook to provide employees with healthcare, this silliness should stop, if you want to be an activist maybe take that up as your cause.
- anoncontractor0 8y agoWhat about all of the contractors that they hire that are basically sole proprietorships? I know a lot of former Googlers that do project based work for them. This will often include a former Googler that gets hired for a project, who then will hire a few freelancers that they know to work on the project with them. Are these small shops going to have to pay health benefits for their friends that come together to work on a short project?
- jpatokal 8y agoFrom the friendly article: The benefits will not extend to independent contractors, who are self-employed, but they will extend to "vendors," employees that work for companies that are under contract with Google. "Vendors" include those who work in Google's cafes, transportation services and more."
- StudentStuff 8y agoOoof, so all the research assistants and other people who work beside Googlers as Independent Contractors (most of the half of the company that is purposefully misclassified as 1099's) will continue to lack access to critical meetings about the project their working on, healthcare, retirement and IRS deduction split. Sounds like Google doing the bare minimum to get some good PR, while avoiding fixing the real issues at hand. FYI they did the same thing wrt Independent Contractors that get harassed by Googlers. The contractor is still screwed, Google has ensured they can fire or suppress the contractor's claim, forcing them to work with their harrasser. Considering most of these contractors are the bulk of the diversity on campus (women and/or non-white/non-asian) compared to Google's W-2 workforce, its likely they are experiencing the bulk of the harassment that occurs at Googleplexes. Facebook does the same purposeful misclassification scheme to duck out on Benefits & ensure their abusive employees are protected.
- joshuamorton 8y agoI'm a bit confused here. The (vast) majority of the people who you are calling "Independent Contractors" are actually "Vendors", ie. employees of 3rd party contracting firms.
- scarface74 8y agoOr Google could, you know, just hire the people directly...
- mobilio 8y agoYes, they could. But... rising hired humans in company isn't good sign for investors. But when they're hired using subcontractor company it's OK.
- techntoke 8y agoWhy do they need investors?
- imgabe 8y agoThey're a publicly traded company.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoCould they not go private? Their capital intensive days are behind them, and they have the resources to do so.
- imgabe 8y agoGoogle? I'm sure there's some way they could, but I don't think it would be easy. A large part of their employees' compensation is stock, which if they can't sell it on the public market is not very useful.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- p1necone 8y agoWhy is it okay when they're hired using a subcontractor company? Is it investors being stupid (unlikely?) Is subcontractor headcount/cost not public information? Are contractors actually good? Are contractors instead of employees good for google, but detrimental to society as whole? (something investors aren't known to care about, so it makes sense). Some other possibility I haven't considered?
- gundmc 8y agoHacker News is impossible to please when it comes to Google recently. This is something that is virtually impossible to spin as a bad thing and somehow almost every comment is negative.
- honr 8y agoNot really surprising to some of us. Definers Public Affairs and a couple of other firms have been working hard for it. At some point the hacker news community might become more immune to paid-for opinion shaping, but that time is not now.
- netwanderer3 8y agoThere's no denying that Google of today is no longer the same as Google of the past, however the values their services provide to society are still enormous and far greater than most other corporations out there. We have learned that Facebook were indeed running various online campaigns to smear Google's reputation, just to take the public heat and focus off themselves. Many people fell for those traps during that time. I personally feel that those effects are still lasting, or at least still lingering around the community even until this day.
- forgottenpass 8y agoGoogle has spent through all their goodwill and then some. Don't expect positive responses until they get those numbers back in the black.