No. of Recommendations: 34
An acquaintance, a 30-something single mother of two who works as a receptionist in a doctor's office, told me last week that she is hanging on till tax time.

I asked her why (since from my perspective tax time means paying money to the government).

She answered that the government sends her money at tax time. The earned income tax credit is a major part of her annual income.

If the Republicans (such as Paul Ryan) are incensed that 47% of Americans don't pay taxes, they must go ballistic over the earned income tax credit.

Will the Republicans try to repeal the earned income tax credit if they win the election?

That would withdraw a crucial support from the working poor. The widening income gap between rich and poor would increase even more.

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/inequality/index...

Importantly, the poor spend this money on necessities, increasing the velocity of money in the economy. Repeal of the earned income tax credit would slow the economy, which is just above stall speed.
Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Strange that there was broad Republican support for the increased EITC during the Bush years.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Strange that there was broad Republican support for the increased EITC during the Bush years."

No stranger than their general obstructionism for "party first" political purposes.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hey Wendy,

Logic has nothing to do with Mitt's stump speeches. Mitt needs to appeal to the most stupid, ignorant, and viscous among us to win the election. He has nothing else to offer.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Importantly, the poor spend this money on necessities, increasing the velocity of money in the economy. Repeal of the earned income tax credit would slow the economy, which is just above stall speed.

Same goes for the mortgage interest deduction.

Repeal of that would be a financial calamity for numerous middle class taxpayers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Same goes for the mortgage interest deduction.

Repeal of that would be a financial calamity for numerous middle class taxpayers.


If one can't afford to buy a home without the mortgage interest deduction, than one cannot afford that home.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Importantly, the poor spend this money on necessities, increasing the velocity of money in the economy. Repeal of the earned income tax credit would slow the economy, which is just above stall speed.


Who's talking about getting rid of the EITC? You're making an accusation here. Please back it up with specifics and avoid hand waving about "47%".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<You're making an accusation here. >

Wrong. No accusations. Just trying to be consistent.
Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<Same goes for the mortgage interest deduction.

Repeal of that would be a financial calamity for numerous middle class taxpayers.

If one can't afford to buy a home without the mortgage interest deduction, than one cannot afford that home. >

I completely agree with you.

However, numerous middle class taxpayers currently take the mortgage interest deduction, which increases their disposable personal income that can be spent on consumer goods, stimulating the economy.

The Macroeconomic effect of repeal of the mortgage interest deduction would be diversion of spending from consumer goods to taxes, slowing the economy.

Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Wrong. No accusations. Just trying to be consistent.

Sorry, but what you said was:

If the Republicans (such as Paul Ryan) are incensed that 47% of Americans don't pay taxes, they must go ballistic over the earned income tax credit.

Will the Republicans try to repeal the earned income tax credit if they win the election?

That would withdraw a crucial support from the working poor. The widening income gap between rich and poor would increase even more.

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/inequality/index......

Importantly, the poor spend this money on necessities, increasing the velocity of money in the economy. Repeal of the earned income tax credit would slow the economy, which is just above stall speed.


You've clearly created an argumentative link between Paul Ryan, the 47% of people who don't pay taxes, your anecdotal story, and the economy crashing if people like her don't get the EITC. And you did it with your rhetorical question, which, in debate, circles, is making an argument.

So I'll ask you again. Who's talking about repealing the EITC? I don't believe it's anywhere to be found in Romney's plans. It also wasn't part of the Simpson-Bowles commission.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
An acquaintance, a 30-something single mother of two who works as a receptionist in a doctor's office, told me last week that she is hanging on till tax time.

==============================

Why doesn't the doctor's office pay her enough to not qualify for EITC?

Jean
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
< Mitt needs to appeal to the most stupid, ignorant, and viscous among us to win the election.>

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/viscous

You probably meant "vicious."

:-)

Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Why doesn't the doctor's office pay her enough to not qualify for EITC?

Jean
__________________________

Didn't Obama address this?

I seem to remember he spoke of how greedy doctors were in general. Underpaying and performing non-required surgeries to make a buck

Obama really does have SOME issues he has been pretty specific about.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You probably meant "vicious."


I was referring to slippery. But vicious would fit just as well.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
However, numerous middle class taxpayers currently take the mortgage interest deduction, which increases their disposable personal income that can be spent on consumer goods, stimulating the economy.

From a macro POV this isn't correct. The mortgage interest deduction has been in place for decades. Therefore, it's a baked in part of the tax code and personal spending decisions, which means it's baked into the equilibrium of the economy. In other words, spending decisions related to it are already part of the status quo.

So the correct way to phrase your statement is "However, numerous middle class taxpayers currently take the mortgage interest deduction, which increases their disposable personal income that can be spent on consumer goods, maintaining the economy." This is a common mistake, especially around infrastructure spending and unemployment benefits.


The Macroeconomic effect of repeal of the mortgage interest deduction would be diversion of spending from consumer goods to taxes, slowing the economy.

You can't say this for sure. For starters, plans that have called for the MID to be eliminated come with lower rates to make them revenue neutral. Meaning that most families won't see a change to their tax bill.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<Why doesn't the doctor's office pay her enough to not qualify for EITC?>

My friend is probably earning minimum wage, less than $10 per hour.

To make the multiplication easy, let's say she is earning $10/hour for a 40 hour work week, or $400 per week. Let's say she is working 50 weeks a year (many minimum wage workers don't get paid for time off). That's $20,000 per year for a mother and 2 children. The federal poverty limit is $22,000 for a family of 4.

It's likely that my friend is actually working less than 40 hours per week.

Why doesn't the doctor's office pay her enough to not qualify for EITC? All profit-making businesses (including doctor's offices) pay the minimum necessary to hire qualified workers.

Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If one can't afford to buy a home without the mortgage interest deduction, than one cannot afford that home.

At what point do you fail to get the distinction between "not being able to afford" a home without the MID, and making good use of the disposable income that comes as a result of it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I completely agree with you.

However, numerous middle class taxpayers currently take the mortgage interest deduction, which increases their disposable personal income that can be spent on consumer goods, stimulating the economy.

The Macroeconomic effect of repeal of the mortgage interest deduction would be diversion of spending from consumer goods to taxes, slowing the economy.

Wendy


Thank you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
All profit-making businesses (including doctor's offices) pay the minimum necessary to hire qualified workers.
=================================

I don't buy this. There are some that don't take advantage of their employees.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

I don't buy this. There are some that don't take advantage of their employees.


That's because it's not correct in the slightest. Companies have to go out into the marketplace to get labor. Scare resources (i.e., workers with skills that few have) see their "price" (wages) bid UP.

Workers whose skills are commoditized, i.e., anybody can do it, fall into the category that Wendy is talking about.

So what's a poor single mom to do? The root problem isn't the EITC, evil Republicans or her rent-seeking doctor's office. The problem is that her skills aren't any different than anybody else's.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why doesn't the doctor's office pay her enough to not qualify for EITC?

An employer is going to pay a rate based on how qualified a person has to be and how many in society could fill that role. NOT based on what lifestyle expenses an applicant has - such as children or a mortgage.

A receptionist is a low-skilled job that can be done without even a high school degree, therefore it's going to be low-paid.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
However, numerous middle class taxpayers currently take the mortgage interest deduction, which increases their disposable personal income that can be spent on consumer goods, stimulating the economy.

Consumer goods verus "necessities" aren't always the same thing. Yes the mortgage tax deduction subsidizes increased spending for some who take it, but that doesn't mean that's a good enough reason of why to keep it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Macroeconomic effect of repeal of the mortgage interest deduction would be diversion of spending from consumer goods to taxes, slowing the economy.
=====================================

Not THAT long ago all interest was deductable. Did the removal of that deduction lead to a slowing of the economy.

I remember hearing credit card purchases would decrease, since the interest would no longer be deductable. Did that happen?

Jean
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
At what point do you fail to get the distinction between "not being able to afford" a home without the MID, and making good use of the disposable income that comes as a result of it?

If it's "disposible" income than it's not spending on necessities - which would mean it wouldn't be "a financial calamity" for middle class taxpayers to lose which was your original assertion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So what's a poor single mom to do? The root problem isn't the EITC, evil Republicans or her rent-seeking doctor's office. The problem is that her skills aren't any different than anybody else's.

========================================

How about if the Doctor's office paid her $20.00 per hour.

She still qualifies for EITC.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The problem is that her skills aren't any different than anybody else's.

And a second problem, which a lot of women don't want to highlight, is she brought 2 children into the world without being able to afford their expenses. Now we don't know the complete history to know what led to this woman's current situation - did she have a different career before and face a medical crisis that directly effected her ability to earn a higher living, did she have a husband at one time who she took a gamble would support her and the kids and therefore give up her ability to earn a higher living, or did she never consider the expenses to raise 2 children and had them anyway? Having children is expensive, and they're not a necessity to one's own personal survival in the US in 2012. But many still aren't willing to admit that and admit therefore having children is a big decision and one should be able to fully support themselves before bringing children into the world.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
An employer is going to pay a rate based on how qualified a person has to be and how many in society could fill that role. NOT based on what lifestyle expenses an applicant has - such as children or a mortgage.

A receptionist is a low-skilled job that can be done without even a high school degree, therefore it's going to be low-paid.


________________________

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is a low skilled job, I would go so far as to say you get what you pay for based on who I get to talk to when I call someone. Same thing for the banking employees in most lobbies these days.

Moreover, we have turned these into low skilled jobs, who are in turn being replaced by answering machines which will work for nothing and hang up on you or give you options that do not address the situation.

I would say those who enjoy being veiled behind stupidity and machines are the ones who are low skilled.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
How about if the Doctor's office paid her $20.00 per hour.

She still qualifies for EITC.


Which doesn't change her reality: she's doing a job that anyone can do.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Earned Income Tax Credit is also what's wrong with the tax code...the system too complex.

Again, go to the modified flat tax and all these deductions and credits go bye-bye. No perks for home ownership or college savings. No special treatments for anything. The only deduction I would permit is for State Income and Property Taxes. That way nobody can be piggy-backed into a rate that's too high. Basically, no tax breaks for lifestyle choices.

Simply put...

$0 to $15,000 No Income Tax
$15,001 to $50,000 7%
$50,001 to $500,000 15%
$500,000 and up 20%

Zero deductions, credits and anything else. No hidden taxes for Social Security and Medicare, everything is funded straight from this.

Of course I'm open to fidgeting the rates and brackets.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Which doesn't change her reality: she's doing a job that anyone can do.

_________________

I don't agree with that at all. A stupid doctor's receptionist can cost a patient their life.

A stupid bank employee can lose customers for you.


An upper or middle manager who thinks of their underlings in such a manner, are the stupid ones.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
she's doing a job that anyone can do.

================================

Your repeating this says more about you than you might think.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't agree with that at all. A stupid doctor's receptionist can cost a patient their life.

A stupid bank employee can lose customers for you.


An upper or middle manager who thinks of their underlings in such a manner, are the stupid ones.


If she's making min wage, then *by definition* she's doing a job that anyone can do. Either this doctor is playing with fire by hiring low skilled people or doesn't care about the safety of his/her patients.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Your repeating this says more about you than you might think.

Fail. If she's making min wage, then by definition she's doing a job that just about anyone can do.

If you're arguing that her skilset is such that she should be able to command better in the marketplace, then she should easily be able to find work in another doctor's office, shouldn't she? At a much higher rate?

In other words: heh. Higher skilled employees can command more than lower skilled ones. All you people jumping on me are making my case for me. Thanks.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If she's making min wage, then *by definition* she's doing a job that anyone can do. Either this doctor is playing with fire by hiring low skilled people or doesn't care about the safety of his/her patients.
_________________________________-

Oh make the silly happy

She is doing a job that can be done by a huge number of other folks with no real training and for which specialized knowledge gained through experience does not really offer a great amount of added value to the employer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
$15,001 to $50,000 7%


ARE YOU FRICK'N CRAZY !!!

7% tax on the "untaxed" ?


STONE HIM ..... STONE HIM !


Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If she's making min wage, then *by definition* she's doing a job that anyone can do. Either this doctor is playing with fire by hiring low skilled people or doesn't care about the safety of his/her patients.

====================================

Wendy is making the assumption she's at 10.00, which BTW is more than min.

She could be making up to $20.00 and still receive EITC.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If she's making min wage, then *by definition* she's doing a job that anyone can do.

Whose definition? The rich, their brown nosers or cheap bastards?

Either this doctor is playing with fire by hiring low skilled people or doesn't care about the safety of his/her patients.



I thought you just said by definition, if she's making minimum wage then anyone can do it.

What I have always found remarkable about doctors, is quite often their staff has no health insurance, yet I know of a surgical dentist who owns a yacht and somehow uses it as a business writeoff.

Remarkable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Wendy is making the assumption she's at 10.00, which BTW is more than min.

A couple of bucks. BFD.

She could be making up to $20.00 and still receive EITC.

Well, according to the replies in this thread, as a medical receptionist she is in fact a highly skilled employee and should therefore be getting more. Which neatly whacks Wendy's original anecdote, doesn't it?

BTW salary.com says $30k/year for a receptionist.
http://www1.salary.com/Receptionist-Salary.html

For a medical receptionist the average is right around there
https://www.google.com/search?q=average+medical++receptionis...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Whose definition? The rich, their brown nosers or cheap bastards?

People who hyperventilate. BTW, I'm letting you set the tone of my responses.

I thought you just said by definition, if she's making minimum wage then anyone can do it.

And then I gave you the benefit of the doubt and noted that if these folks are worthy of more money that doctors were playing with fire by not paying more (and thus attracting more highly skilled people).

What I have always found remarkable about doctors, is quite often their staff has no health insurance, yet I know of a surgical dentist who owns a yacht and somehow uses it as a business writeoff.

Then report him to the IRS.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, according to the replies in this thread, as a medical receptionist she is in fact a highly skilled employee and should therefore be getting more.
________________

I never said that, Mr. put words in my mouth. I said you get what you pay for.

BTW my MIL with advanced Parkinson's was one of those whose life was not only jeopordized but ended tragically by the actions of more than one several such "anybody can do it" receptionists. Their job is to be the fall guy and buffer the doctors and hospitals, only they are too stupid to know it.

It was gruesome, ugly, and immoral.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I never said that, Mr. put words in my mouth. I said you get what you pay for.

Oh, okay. Then you're just implying Wendy's friend isn't worth any more?

BTW my MIL with advanced Parkinson's was one of those whose life was not only jeopordized but ended tragically by the actions of more than one several such "anybody can do it" receptionists. Their job is to be the fall guy and buffer the doctors and hospitals, only they are too stupid to know it.

It was gruesome, ugly, and immoral.


Well, I'm sorry about your MIL, but you've not provided enough data for me to comment on it one way or the other.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Then report him to the IRS.

_________________

I am sure it is all quite legal.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2126612_use-boat-as-tax-deduction.ht...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh, okay. Then you're just implying Wendy's friend isn't worth any more?

Maybe she is, maybe she isn't.

Neither one of you has made a case.

Quite often I have found that both side's argument wittles down to they are just low skilled people. One side says they should be pitied and be supplemented (but not by them), the other side thinking they're not to be pitied because they are low skilled and it's their fault.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Maybe she is, maybe she isn't.

Neither one of you has made a case.

Quite often I have found that both side's argument wittles down to they are just low skilled people. One side says they should be pitied and be supplemented (but not by them), the other side thinking they're not to be pitied because they are low skilled and it's their fault.


Wendy's point was that the eeevil Republicans want to take away this woman's transfer payment and that the economy would suffer as a result. Never mind all the macro stuff she gets wrong, her point was a political one. Problem was, she didn't back it up with much.

My one and only point was that higher skilled employees make more money. So far, nobody's disputing that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A couple of bucks. BFD.
---------------------------

I take it that you are talking about some other state than Washington.

Why don't we ask the receptionist if a couple bucks is a BFD.

Jean
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I take it that you are talking about some other state than Washington.

Why don't we ask the receptionist if a couple bucks is a BFD.


Indeed. You're hellbent on making this an emotional debate instead of simply conceding the point that highly skilled workers can make more money.

But since you want to play it that way, why not.

You're a small bidness owner. Why aren't you paying high school kids $40/hour to work for you?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My one and only point was that higher skilled employees make more money. So far, nobody's disputing that.

===============================

I missed your point.

I thought your point was that receptionists were low skilled worth only min. wage employees.

jean
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You're a small bidness owner. Why aren't you paying high school kids $40/hour to work for you?

=================================

The receptionist was a highschool kid with two kids? I didn't realize that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Wendy's point was that the eeevil Republicans want to take away this woman's transfer payment and that the economy would suffer as a result. Never mind all the macro stuff she gets wrong, her point was a political one. Problem was, she didn't back it up with much.

My one and only point was that higher skilled employees make more money. So far, nobody's disputing that.
_____________________

That wasn't the only point you made, although I agree that Wendy is blowing smoke and mirrors.

I have seen more than one "progressive" on here all in favor of Obamacare who don't cover their own employees and still won't. They'll pawn them off on the government.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The receptionist was a highschool kid with two kids? I didn't realize that.

I don't know. We'd have to ask Wendy.

And why would you ask that question? Do you age discriminate?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh, okay. Then you're just implying Wendy's friend isn't worth any more?

Maybe she is, maybe she isn't.

Neither one of you has made a case.

Quite often I have found that both side's argument wittles down to they are just low skilled people. One side says they should be pitied and be supplemented (but not by them), the other side thinking they're not to be pitied because they are low skilled and it's their fault.

___________________________________________-

How they are compensated is based on their skill, why should their wage have to do if they are pitied or not?

The discussion was of their worth to an employer.

Though I feel for you in the loss of your mother in law, how that has anything to do with the salary of some low level job holding individual in frankly not something I understand

If you demanded a higher wage for everyone, then the same person would have the same job and you would have the same result. Well it is possible there would be no job for a lot of folks but that is generally a pretty simple of how it works out

Seems an absurd belief to me, that a higher salary would mean the same person would do a better job. Equally ridiculous that the lowest possible salary being higher (Note it would still take minimal skill and be fulfilled by the same person because other jobs would pay more since they STILL demanded more) would get a different person.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How they are compensated is based on their skill, why should their wage have to do if they are pitied or not?

The discussion was of their worth to an employer.

Though I feel for you in the loss of your mother in law, how that has anything to do with the salary of some low level job holding individual in frankly not something I understand

If you demanded a higher wage for everyone, then the same person would have the same job and you would have the same result. Well it is possible there would be no job for a lot of folks but that is generally a pretty simple of how it works out

Seems an absurd belief to me, that a higher salary would mean the same person would do a better job. Equally ridiculous that the lowest possible salary being higher (Note it would still take minimal skill and be fulfilled by the same person because other jobs would pay more since they STILL demanded more) would get a different person
_____________

I am not demanding the same wage for everyone. I am saying to say that a receptionist in general is a low skill job is hogwash.

Case and point. How would you deal with this?

Introduction

This case is about an owner discovering that his receptionist is most highly paid person in his firm. She was his first employee, when he started on a minimal budget. At that time, he did not have enough to pay her the salary she desired so he made her share in the profits of the firm. Now after seven years Harvey has realized that she being a mere receptionist is earning more than anyone else even the executives and only gets less than what he earns. He is at a loss about how to go about changing the situation.

On one hand, it is very clear that all other employees also deserve a better pay and if they come to know that Ms. Brenann is earning more than any other employee than a serious personnel problem can occur.

Several things need to be done to see how and why the receptionist has been earning and then to find some alternatives.

Contribution of Ms. Brenann

Since the company’s inception, she has been with Harvey and although the job description is that of a receptionist, however her work has been an overall effort from standing in for Harvey to even doing the sales representatives job. In fact, Harvey realizes that the decisions she makes in his absence are more effective. In addition, her presence in the main hall of the office makes her accessible to all the customers and employees. She became more of an administrator of the office and the business then just a common receptionist. And Harvey admits that the day she joined him was the most important day for the business.


http://www.essaydemon.com/essay-samples/wellpaid-receptionis...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Strange that there was broad Republican support for the increased EITC during the Bush years.


As I've noted repeatedly, it was a Republican tax plan that produced the famous "47%", so when they pee their panties over it what they're really telling us is that they shouldn't be trusted with tax policy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Who's talking about getting rid of the EITC?

No Dope, Flip can't pay for 5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy by clicking his heels and calling the Republican Revenue Fairy. Both Reagan and Bush proved that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You have to love the diahrea afflicting the righties as their viscera churn with fear at what Flip may do tonight.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No Dope, Flip can't pay for 5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy by clicking his heels and calling the Republican Revenue Fairy. Both Reagan and Bush proved that.

So it should be beyond easy for you to provide some evidence. Let's see it. From a credible source, please.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I am saying to say that a receptionist in general is a low skill job is hogwash.

Jobs in our society that do not require any degree or trade-skill training are considered "low skilled" - so that does include receptionists. I have friends who worked p/t as receptionists while in high school, just as I worked p/t at a daycare. Yes both jobs require some skills in thinking when unexpected issues crop up, but both for the most part are considered low skilled.

And from your link - it's clear you're confusing Receptionist with Office Manager. Most doctor's offices employ receptionists, billing specialists, nurses, and an office manager. And typically they're not all the same. And if a receptionist in a doctor's office ever stands in for the doctor, the doctor will probably lose his/her license to practice medicine.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Since the company’s inception, she has been with Harvey and although the job description is that of a receptionist, however her work has been an overall effort from standing in for Harvey to even doing the sales representatives job. In fact, Harvey realizes that the decisions she makes in his absence are more effective. In addition, her presence in the main hall of the office makes her accessible to all the customers and employees. She became more of an administrator of the office and the business then just a common receptionist. And Harvey admits that the day she joined him was the most important day for the business.

http://www.essaydemon.com/essay-samples/wellpaid-receptionis......
_____________________________________

Certainly every receptionist has a different job.

Just as any function has a slew of possibilities.

Yes a receptionist working at any firm will over time become more valuable. However, in most cases that knowledge is quite limited to that employer.

If you are in a position where a receptionist takes additional responsibilities. Well that is no longer a receptionist, but rather a clerk/receptionist or some other combination.

If you are an executive office, your receptionist is one thing, a sales office another a doctors office another still. Each with a relative worth to the employer.

Typically at a doctors office the knowledge is pretty low level. Book an appointment, be pleasant and let the doctor know what is going on. Stamp some envelopes and send some e-mails

As you know everyone's name and more about the doctor's nature etc you can answer questions better and reflect well upon the doctor, and will get paid more for that. IT is not transferable for the most part and is very limited in ho much extra value you can provide and thus what you are worth.

Your a receptionist is worth XXXX is kind of illogical. I say that for it is like saying a salesman can and should make millions of dollars a year, a good one can close deals on hedge funds to Pension fund managers, and blocks of advertising time to multi-national corporations -- that does not translate to shoe salesman

The vast majority of receptionists are low skill jobs. That any person of average intelligence with a nice nature and a degree of professionalism can master in weeks. That is just how it is . That function will always have a relatively low worth.

Finding an exception out there somewhere is just that an excpeption
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
As I've noted repeatedly, it was a Republican tax plan that produced the famous "47%", so when they pee their panties over it what they're really telling us is that they shouldn't be trusted with tax policy.
_______________

More telling would be to see a list of the tax cuts "for the rich", who proposed them,pork barreled with what and lobbied by whom?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Jobs in our society that do not require any degree or trade-skill training are considered "low skilled" - so that does include receptionists. I have friends who worked p/t as receptionists while in high school, just as I worked p/t at a daycare. Yes both jobs require some skills in thinking when unexpected issues crop up, but both for the most part are considered low skilled.

And from your link - it's clear you're confusing Receptionist with Office Manager. Most doctor's offices employ receptionists, billing specialists, nurses, and an office manager. And typically they're not all the same. And if a receptionist in a doctor's office ever stands in for the doctor, the doctor will probably lose his/her license to practice medicine.
_______________

No, the link specifically states that her job title was a receptionist who over time was really functioning as an office manager and above. She was being compensated well for it. Smart boss. But now he has to deal with the preceptions of what "the executives" think they should be earning as opposed to her.

This lumping a job title into one skill set is no better than what the government does with their pay grades.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Since the company’s inception, she has been with Harvey and although the job description is that of a receptionist, however her work has been an overall effort from standing in for Harvey to even doing the sales representatives job. In fact, Harvey realizes that the decisions she makes in his absence are more effective. In addition, her presence in the main hall of the office makes her accessible to all the customers and employees. She became more of an administrator of the office and the business then just a common receptionist. And Harvey admits that the day she joined him was the most important day for the business.

Thanks for continuing to make my point.

So in addition to being a receptionist she
*Does sales and in fact stands in for others
*In fact she does a better job that the other guy does
*She's the office administrator

So does that sound like she just does the normal, everyday job of a receptionist? Uhh, no. Sounds like she does a lot more, and should be compensated as such. Good for her.

Want to quit now, or do you have an example of a receptionist who stands in for the CEO but somehow only makes minimum wage? If you do, then may I suggest you tell these people you to read up on negotiating higher salaries.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your a receptionist is worth XXXX is kind of illogical
_______________________

I for one have never said that. Just the folks saying receptionists in general are low skilled, pleasant ding bats.

I'll give you that's the only people taking the job these days.:)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Want to quit now, or do you have an example of a receptionist who stands in for the CEO but somehow only makes minimum wage? If you do, then may I suggest you tell these people you to read up on negotiating higher salaries.
________________

The "executives" in the company think she is making too much and are pressuring the CEO to compensate them as much as her or more.

Probably some snot nosed little college boys who think their degree gives them some kind of entitlement.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Just the folks saying receptionists in general are low skilled, pleasant ding bats.

Wrong. People are saying "low skilled job" and you're making the assumption that means "stupid person". Everyone else seems to understand that "low skilled job" means requirements for entry are very low - that's not a reflection of the intelligence of the person doing the job.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Most doctor's offices employ receptionists, billing specialists, nurses, and an office manager.
_______________

ps and many of them don't offer them (or better put) pay for their health insurance.

I actually agree, with some other points you made, as women need to consider that kids cost money and to chose how they are going to go about providing for them wisely, be it a husband that respects them to stay home "and do what any "low skilled" person could do, or afford to pay for one who can and think mighty hard about getting divorced simply because "their heart isn't in it anymore".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The receptionist/executive admin at my old job with big-F'500-company ended up becoming executive VP of Finance of another major F'500 company. She was one of the smartest and most politically savvy people I have ever worked with. She was an admin while she was in school.

Receptionist/Admin does NOT mean stupid. People who automatically think it does are themselves rather dim.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Wrong. People are saying "low skilled job" and you're making the assumption that means "stupid person". Everyone else seems to understand that "low skilled job" means requirements for entry are very low - that's not a reflection of the intelligence of the person doing the job.
_____________

Well, things keep going the way they are, we can all expect to do "low skilled jobs", until we drop dead, including those with "high skills".:)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The receptionist/executive admin at my old job with big-F'500-company ended up becoming executive VP of Finance of another major F'500 company. She was one of the smartest and most politically savvy people I have ever worked with. She was an admin while she was in school.



Receptionist/Admin does NOT mean stupid. People who automatically think it does are themselves rather dim.
_________________

Have you ever, ever made a point rather than showing your condescending attitude towards those you know nothing about?

BTW, politically savy does not necessarily mean "smart", although this young lady may very well be smart. Good back stabber maybe, cover your own a$$er, maybe, or she very well may have been competent.

Good for her getting to go to school. I bet the F500 helped her pay for it. (rich ba$tards)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Just the folks saying receptionists in general are low skilled, pleasant ding bats.

Wrong. People are saying "low skilled job" and you're making the assumption that means "stupid person". Everyone else seems to understand that "low skilled job" means requirements for entry are very low - that's not a reflection of the intelligence of the person doing the job.



That's pretty much the problem with people like Romney and his supporters - they have a grotesque disregard for anyone who earns less than they do.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The "executives" in the company think she is making too much and are pressuring the CEO to compensate them as much as her or more.

Probably some snot nosed little college boys who think their degree gives them some kind of entitlement.


LOL, so she *does* make more than an average receptionist.

I rest my case.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Receptionist/Admin does NOT mean stupid. People who automatically think it does are themselves rather dim.

Good thing no one in this thread is really implying that, huh?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's pretty much the problem with people like Romney and his supporters - they have a grotesque disregard for anyone who earns less than they do.

Not at all! We'd like to consume the living flesh of the poor for our immortality machines.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
LOL, so she *does* make more than an average receptionist.

I rest my case.
________________

What are you resting? The "executives" right to think they deserve more or that the CEO was smart to treat this "receptionist" with respect and compensate her accordingly.

How would you handle the chirping "executives"?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
What are you resting? The "executives" right to think they deserve more or that the CEO was smart to treat this "receptionist" with respect and compensate her accordingly.

That's not what I said at all. That's your attempt to make it all about God knows what.

My point was and is: highly skilled people command more money in the workplace and that the path to more money is to make yourself valuable.

You and everybody else have helpfully piled on example after example making that very same case. This is fish in a barrel territory.

How would you handle the chirping "executives"?

Not that it has anything whatsoever with this thread, but I'll answer your question thusly:

1. What other people in the company make is confidential information and inquiring about such is a fireable offense, so STFU.
2. If you think you're under compensated, then we will discuss it at your next performance review.
3. If you still insist on talking about what other people make, raising a stink in the process, and weren't able to lobby for a pay increase, then find another job at a place that appreciates your "talents" more.

Now. Save yourself some time and CTRL-C the following: "Dope's totally right". See? I just saved you some keystrokes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What are you resting? The "executives" right to think they deserve more or that the CEO was smart to treat this "receptionist" with respect and compensate her accordingly.

How would you handle the chirping "executives"?
_______________________________

ME?

Same way I handled anyone who wanted to get paid more when they were working for me.

You sit down and tell them so and so has a different job. I do try to compensate you fairly, I try to treat everyone right on my perception of what they do for the company, and frankly on what you could get if you leave me and go work for someone else.

I always had folks who thought someone else was worth more. What a spitstorm I had many many moons ago when a copy of the executive pay chart was left in a copy machine!
I gave the same basic chat many times. Always punctuated by a plea that if they can make themselves more valuable that we would both be winners. That everyone's career was always really more up to them than to me. Sure I would always try to look out for everyone and channel them as best I was able, but it was really up to them to give me a clue of their actual value to stand out to find ways to demand I give them more through their being invaluable.

I did promote more than one receptionist into IT on the help desk over the years as they became knowledgeable and did outstanding jobs of directing calls I knew they had gained a functional knowledge that was a jump off point. I did never overpay a receptionist though, except in the transition when I was promoting someone.

Ir is as natural as can be to carp for more, from executives to 7 year olds who all want to be shortstops or get more shots.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What are you resting? The "executives" right to think they deserve more or that the CEO was smart to treat this "receptionist" with respect and compensate her accordingly.

That's not what I said at all. That's your attempt to make it all about God knows what.

I didn't say you said that. I asked what you were resting? You said you rested your case. Your case was that a receptionist is a low skilled job.

My point was and is: highly skilled people command more money in the workplace and that the path to more money is to make yourself valuable.>

That is certainly not how you expressed yourself initially.

You and everybody else have helpfully piled on example after example making that very same case. This is fish in a barrel territory.

Who piled on? Seems to me ginko, one on the other side of the aisle from you agreed whole heartedly with you, not me.

How would you handle the chirping "executives"?


Not that it has anything whatsoever with this thread, but I'll answer your question thusly:

1. What other people in the company make is confidential information and inquiring about such is a fireable offense, so STFU.
2. If you think you're under compensated, then we will discuss it at your next performance review.
3. If you still insist on talking about what other people make, raising a stink in the process, and weren't able to lobby for a pay increase, then find another job at a place that appreciates your "talents" more.


I would have sat down with the "receptionist" since she was now obviously a major stockholder and historically has done what's best for the company and ask her, if for the time being did she think it would be warranted for both of us to take a pay cut or discuss ways to increase volume to have our cake and eat it too.

Now. Save yourself some time and CTRL-C the following: "Dope's totally right". See? I just saved you some keystrokes.

Is that suppose to pi$$ me off? Mostly it just amuses me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ps and many of them don't offer them (or better put) pay for their health insurance.

Most small companies do not offer as generous benefits as larger companies. But manytimes they're more flexible schedule-wise with employees (something that can be a perk for a single mom) and often times a way to learn many things, thereby improving one's experience to move onto a larger company with better benefits.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's pretty much the problem with people like Romney and his supporters - they have a grotesque disregard for anyone who earns less than they do.

But many on the Left have a problem with thinking one's circumstances is all due to "luck" and that none of it is ever hard work or choices one makes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Most small companies do not offer as generous benefits as larger companies. But manytimes they're more flexible schedule-wise with employees (something that can be a perk for a single mom) and often times a way to learn many things, thereby improving one's experience to move onto a larger company with better benefits.
____________

Well, I would say that even larger companies are not offering those benefits anymore or wiggling out of them through bankruptcy or taking from the young to give to the old, without offering the young much job security or recourse for benefits, no matter what their skill level.

Hence, why we have this very high level of frustration.

Doctors in NY, the older ones, make big, big bucks and a lot of them are stingy, stingy, stingy with their employees, but live very high on the hog. The young ones don't make those kind of bucks, due to this fiasco of a healthcare system we have and high medical school debt, so it's more understandable. They're opting into becoming hospitalists which is more of a 9 to 5 job with high degrees of specialization with the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, and spending a lot of money covering their a$$, when the obvious breakdowns cause serious problems.

Used to be, you could start out in the mail room in these big corporations, they would help with tuition, etc and people really could move up, if they were hard working and industrious. No more. Their employees got lazy and mainly patted themselves on the back for being part of the corporate elite, not doing anything to earn it and as they moved up through the ranks, went out of their way to raid and parade, not innovate. They pride themselves in holding up and using "other people's money" resetting the bar as to who and what deserves very high compensation, with absolutely no regard for anything but being the best bully in the room.

We have a small company that depends on the health of big companies that really do make something and require goods and services, not just "markets" that push paper around and pride themselves in their degreed greed and hedonism.:) We are able to pay benefits when the economy isn't a shadow economy, which is what we have now.

Moreover, we have a mess on our hands that all this posturing by both sides doesn't address, but does guarantee a whole crop of youth not motivated to do anything but tune out. Engineers are not exempt, neither are doctors, so what's the point, they think. Investment banking on the other hand, now that's lucrative....for now. Why do you think all these politicians kids run or work for hedge funds?

Anyway, little miss receptionist of old (my mother having been one of them) who may have not been degreed, but could run circles around these degreed "self-prclaimed brains" is not likely to find herself such opportunities "to move on", nor the motivation to even try.

BTW I have a BS in biology, and a masters in science and technology and my husband has a HS diploma. I would consider him way more skilled and smart than me, and he was secure enough with himself to not only encourage me to get those degrees and he paid for them. What he does contributes more to this economy than I ever have. As these new little business and investment managers come on the scene, the only thing they are impressed with is themselves and their ability to BS.

So, I guess what I am saying is, yes, these doctors could be considered small business, but the ones doing most of the belly aching, make as much or more than my husband, would look down on his profession and begrudge him that much money , but he does pay benefits.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's pretty much the problem with people like Romney and his supporters - they have a grotesque disregard for anyone who earns less than they do.

But many on the Left have a problem with thinking one's circumstances is all due to "luck" and that none of it is ever hard work or choices one makes.



Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not so sure you could produce much evidence in support of that last statement.

My comment about today's Republicans is evidence by the dearth of policies helpful to the lower end of the income spectrum.

Your statement about 'luck vs hard work' isn't applicable to all of us progressives who are successful, but might be applicable to some poorer folk which seems rather anecdotal.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"My comment about today's Republicans is evidence by the dearth of policies helpful to the lower end of the income spectrum."

Because progressives like you have tunnel vision in your deluded thinking that government has the answers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
An acquaintance, a 30-something single mother of two who works as a receptionist in a doctor's office, told me last week that she is hanging on till tax time.

I think a bigger problem than the taxes is why a receptionist in a doctor's office can't easily support herself and two kids. Worker wages have declined over the last 40 years...around the time we started offering major tax breaks to the economically mighty few. Coincidence? I think not.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement