WalMart: Helping the Poor, Despised by (some) Urban Liberals [Archive]

View Full Version : WalMart: Helping the Poor, Despised by (some) Urban Liberals

Crazed Rabbit

02-13-2011, 19:36

WalMart is a national chain of huge discount stores. Their angle is selling stuff for cheap, and selling cheap stuff for really cheap.

Now, it's common sense cheaper goods allows poorer people to buy more things, increasing their quality of life. WalMart also provides jobs to lots of people.

And yet there's a lot of opposition (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_0210meninos_wal-mart_jihad/srvc=home&position=1) to WalMart among some urban liberals and democrats.

Will Mayor Tom Menino save Boston’s poorest families from the scourge of . . . everyday low prices?

Yes, the wolves of Wal-Mart are again at the city’s door. They want to spend millions building a store, hiring construction workers and creating hundreds of permanent jobs. No wonder the mayor hates them.

Is “hate” too strong a word? In 2005, Menino told a cheering Labor Day breakfast crowd “Wal-Mart shouldn’t be in downtown Boston!” A year later, after shooting down a Wal-Mart proposal, he claimed there was no place for them here.

“Wal-Mart does not suit the clientele we have in the city of Boston,” Menino said. “I don’t need employers like that in our city.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/09/AR2011020906783.html

When politicians, agency officials and other establishment types discuss the pros and cons of Wal-Mart opening stores in poor, retail-starved neighborhoods in the District, they often talk about pretty high-minded stuff. Fair pay. Job training. Environmental safeguards.

By contrast, in the scruffy blocks around the corner of New York Avenue and Bladensburg Road in Northeast Washington, where the first of four Wal-Marts planned for the District would probably be built, the residents have more immediate, street-level concerns.

First, would a new Wal-Mart there really stock the same quality of food and products as its stores do in better-off, suburban communities?

"I'll believe it when I see it," Mya Harris, 24, said skeptically. "Sure, you can put the store here, but what are they going to put inside it?"

Second, and I was amazed when this anxiety was aired in fully half the interviews, residents worry that the store would suffer severely or even fail because of petty theft.

"There'll probably be a lot of shoplifting going on. They'll need a lot of security," Terriea Sutton, 35, said.

Brenda Speaks, a Ward 4 ANC commissioner, actually urged blocking construction of the planned store in her ward at Georgia and Missouri avenues NW partly because of that risk. Addressing a small, anti-Wal-Mart rally at City Hall on Monday, Speaks said young people would get criminal records when they couldn't resist the temptation to steal.

All the opposition seems to stems from ignorance, or just a general dislike of large companies, since WalMart does a lot to help the poor by its very existence.
The study below is from 2005 (http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf), but from progressive Jason Furman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Furman), now one of Obama's top economic advisors.

There is little dispute that Wal-Mart’s price reductions have benefited the 120 million American workers employed outside of the retail sector. Plausible estimates of the magnitude of the savings from Wal-Mart are enormous – a total of $263 billion in 2004, or $2,329 per household.

Even if you grant that Wal-Mart hurts workers in the retail sector – and the evidence for this is far from clear – the magnitude of any potential harm is small in comparison. One study, for example, found that the “Wal-Mart effect” lowered retail wages by $4.7 billion in 2000.

But Wal-Mart, like other retailers and employers of less-skilled workers, does not pay enough for a family to live the dignified life Americans have come to expect and demand.
...

Some of the largest price differentials are for groceries, with Wal-Mart’s prices substantially below the prices at unionized chains like Kroger and Safeway.

The most careful economic estimate of the benefits of lower prices and the increased variety of retail establishments is in a paper by MIT economist Jerry Hausman and Ephraim Leibtag (neither researcher received support from Wal-Mart).

They estimated that the direct benefit of lower prices at superstores, mass merchandisers and club stores (including but not limited to Wal-Mart) made consumers better off by the equivalent of 20.2 percent of food spending.

In addition, the indirect benefit of lower prices at competing supermarkets was worth another 4.8 percent of income. In total, the existence of big box stores makes consumers better off by the equivalent of 25 percent of annual food spending. That is the equivalent of an additional $782 per household in 2003.

Because moderate-income families spend a higher percentage of their incomes on food than upper-income families, these benefits are distributed very progressively. As shown in Table 1, the benefits from big box grocery stores are equivalent to a 6.5 percent increase in income for the bottom quintile (average income of $8,201) and a 0.9 percent increase in income for the top quintile (average income $127,146).
...

In the spring of 2004, a new Wal-Mart opened up in Glendale, Arizona. The store received 8,000 applications for 525 jobs with wages starting as low as $6.75 per hour.

A Harvard applicant has a higher chance of being accepted than a person applying for a job at that Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart experiences similarly high application ratios at other jobs. These anecdotes strongly suggest that jobs at Wal-Mart are better than the opportunities these workers would have in the absence of Wal-Mart, either other jobs or unemployment.
...

Implicit in much of the criticism of Wal-Mart is the belief that the company has enormous resources and could easily pay higher wages or more benefits without making a major sacrifice. After all, Wal-Mart’s mind-boggling $10 billion in profits last year make it appear as if the company could wave a wand and do anything it wants. But Wal-Mart also has a staggering 1.3 million American employees, multiplying the costs of even a modest change in compensation.
...

If Microsoft paid each of its employees an additional $5,000 or expanded its health benefits, its profits would be largely unchanged. If Wal-Mart took the same step – and did not pass the cost on to consumers – it would be virtually wiped out.

In the last fiscal year, Wal-Mart had revenues of $288 billion and costs (including taxes and other charges) of $277 billion – a razor-thin profit margin of 3.7 percent of revenues. Even a very small increase in its costs, without a corresponding increase in revenues, would wipe Wal-Mart’s profits out entirely.

CR

HoreTore

02-13-2011, 19:45

Walmart could easily help the poor, all it would take is to change its wage status from "slave" to "decent". When people cannot feed their family despite working 100%, something is seriously diseased.

I do love, however, how CR suggest that the way to cure poverty is to drag people down and make everyone as poor as the next, instead of raising the poor to the level of the working class.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-13-2011, 19:47

I don't understand it. Maybe people prefer shopping at their local family owned grocery, but you have to think of all the people in your area having a tough time financially (this is the other criticism of walmart I think).

Crazed Rabbit

02-13-2011, 19:48

@Horetore Perhaps next time you could read further than 'WalMart' before replying.

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

02-13-2011, 19:50

@Horetore Perhaps next time you could read further than 'WalMart' before replying.

CR

Thanks for saving me the effort :laugh4:

I wonder what's the going hourly rate for slave labor anyway. What did they make back on the plantations?

HoreTore

02-13-2011, 19:53

@Horetore Perhaps next time you could read further than 'WalMart' before replying.

CR

Is this an attempt to starte a flame war or something?

PanzerJaeger

02-13-2011, 19:54

But Wal-Mart, like other retailers and employers of less-skilled workers, does not pay enough for a family to live the dignified life Americans have come to expect and demand.

This, I think, is the major reason for Wal-Mart hate.

Wal-Mart pays people what they are actually worth, not what they think they are worth. The company is on the cutting edge of a new trend in the American workforce that many people, especially union workers, will have a hard time accepting. The post-war American economy that yielded such aberrations as factory workers earning 3 figures simply is not a reality in the new globalized economy.

gaelic cowboy

02-13-2011, 19:58

Now, it's common sense cheaper goods allows poorer people to buy more things, increasing their quality of life.

not true most cheap foodstuff have lots of additives like salt, sugar etc in order to increase profitability while decreasing costs of production.

it has not been proven anywhere such practices help poor people, and indeed there health statistics would say it is actually bad for them to shop at Wall Mart.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-13-2011, 19:58

Wiki says 10.78 an hour on average for full time workers, and 2,500 a year in savings for poor families on food due to low prices.

HoreTore

02-13-2011, 19:59

Sasaki Kojiro

02-13-2011, 20:00

PanzerJaeger

02-13-2011, 20:01

The statement a social democrat makes when it comes to wages is very simple:

When you work full time, you should earn enough money to support a family.

Wal-Mart currently does not do this, which is why social democrats abhor their slave wages.

What if your work is not worth the money it takes to support a family?

Is stocking shelves worth $40,000 a year?

Sasaki Kojiro

02-13-2011, 20:01

The statement a social democrat makes when it comes to wages is very simple:

When you work full time, you should earn enough money to support a family.

Wal-Mart currently does not do this, which is why social democrats abhor their slave wages.

I worked once for a union political organization, they paid less an hour than walmart (10.31).

HoreTore

02-13-2011, 20:08

not true most cheap foodstuff have lots of additives like salt, sugar etc in order to increase profitability while decreasing costs of production.

it has not been proven anywhere such practices help poor people, and indeed there health statistics would say it is actually bad for them to shop at Wall Mart.

Extremely true.

Why does one pack of spaghetti cost one dollarm while anothere pack costs 10? Because the latter is filled with stuff that has nutritional value, while the former is filled with stuff like palm oil, which is horribly unhealthy, or sicilone dioxside, which is sand. You know, the stuff you find on beaches. I'm sure it has lots of nutrition in it though, I'm sure its not put in there to scam people....errrrrr......

Poor people are obese. Poor people buy cheap food. Cheap food is filled to the brink with palm oil. "Obesity in a can" is another name for palm oil.

And people still attack poor people for everything that's wrong in the world. That bum on 5th avenue? Obviously the source of the credit crunch.

gaelic cowboy

02-13-2011, 20:10

People aren't obese because of eating food with additives.

Yes they are, at least if they are shopping in Wall Mart regularly.

Sure exercise is good for you, but if your eating poor quality ingredients then your chances of exercising enough to burn off the sugar/salt even in supposed low fat healthy foods is practically nil.

HoreTore

02-13-2011, 20:10

What if your work is not worth the money it takes to support a family?

Is stocking shelves worth $40,000 a year?

Can a store function without its shelves being restocked?

jabarto

02-13-2011, 20:26

I'm honestly not sure how to respond to this. WalMart knowingly employs illegal aliens, ships jobs off to China, and forces other businesses out of work due to the massive coroporate welfare that WalMart recieves. They're everything that conservatives hate and yet you're here defending them?

Crazed Rabbit

02-14-2011, 00:36

I'm more libertarian than conservative.

I'm not defending hiring illegals.

"Shipping jobs off to China" is protectionist bunk.

What exactly do you mean by "massive corporate welfare"?

As for the whole 'WalMart makes you unhealthy' - that's not just wrong, the opposite is true:

WalMart makes you healthier: (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-16/does-walmart-make-you-skinny/)

In the popular imagination, a big-box store such as Wal-Mart is more often seen as part of the problem than part of the solution: We associate Wal-Mart with large women in stretch pants, fat kids sucking down tubs of soda, and morbidly obese men inching down the snack-food aisle in motorized shopping carts. The store makes candy, chips, and soda ridiculously cheap—so wouldn’t Wal-Mart contribute to the obesity problem?
That’s what economists Art Carden of Rhodes College and Charles Courtemanche of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro suspected. So they conducted a study to find out. Carden and Courtemanche have done a number of studies on Wal-Mart. Carden insists they get no funding from the company, directly or indirectly. Rather, he says, the two free-market economists have been intrigued by the Wal-Mart debate and wanted to test some of the more common criticisms of the store. Generally, they’ve found that the worst fears about Wal-Mart are unfounded, and that the stores have a mostly positive impact on their communities.
But they thought this one might be different. “We expected the study to show an increase in obesity in communities with a Wal-Mart,” Carden says. “We know that Wal-Mart lowers the cost of food, but we figured it’s not always the best food for you.”
To their surprise, they found the opposite—there was a small but statistically significant reduction in obesity rates in communities with a Wal-Mart, perhaps because the store also sells fresh produce of good quality at a good price.

The statement a social democrat makes when it comes to wages is very simple:

When you work full time, you should earn enough money to support a family.

Wal-Mart currently does not do this, which is why social democrats abhor their slave wages.

That's stupid. First off - WalMart pays equal to the industry average.

More importantly, not every job should support a family. Not every job provides the value to others (in terms of goods produced or services rendered) that is equal to the goods and services necessary to support a family.

Arbitrarily imposing some extreme minimum wage would greatly disrupt the economy and make everything more expensive as well, decreasing the real minimum wage.

Plus there are a lot of people who want jobs at WalMart at the wages they have now.

Can a store function without its shelves being restocked?

I'll bet there's lots of people willing to do that work for less than $40k a year.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

02-14-2011, 00:49

I don't know enough to really contribute a thought out opinion on this subject, but I would like to kindly ask CR, not to cherry pick the paragraphs he chooses from the articles he provides as evidence.

Here is the continuation of what CR has quoted in the post right above me

To their surprise, they found the opposite—there was a small but statistically significant reduction in obesity rates in communities with a Wal-Mart, perhaps because the store also sells fresh produce of good quality at a good price.
Broadening the study to big-box stores in general, the effect was even more pronounced. “People actually bought more produce, more fruits and vegetables,” Carden says. “Instead of just eating more, they ate a higher-quality diet—a lower-fat diet than the rest of the population.”
Wal-Mart didn’t escape the study completely unscathed. Carden and Courtemanche found an increase in alcohol purchases in communities with Wal-Mart Superstores, and increases in smoking in communities with a Sam’s Club. They also found that the presence of a Wal-Mart in the community correlates with less exercise. But the overall “Wal-Mart effect” on health was positive.

With so many positive and negative factors playing into a Wal-Mart opening up I really don't see how they can conclusively say, "oh yeah, overall it is still healthier for the community.", I'm skeptical as hell over this study now.

Crazed Rabbit

02-14-2011, 00:57

a completely inoffensive name

02-14-2011, 01:03

Bah. It was a direct response to the unfounded allegations that WalMart food is bad for you and makes people fatter. They weren't talking about alcohol or smoking (which is a separate issue from nutrition and food quality).

I don't see the reason for the skepticism. Even in the part you quoted, the article mentions the overall positive health effect.

CR

Perhaps it has been a while since I have taken economics but how "solid" is comparing alcohol rates, exercise rates, the nutrition of food and smoking rates and then coming up with a statement, "yeah they are healthier by our calculations."?

What are the calculations that determine how much nutrition of food should increase to negate a high smoking rate among a population?

Samurai Waki

02-14-2011, 01:17

I prefer shopping elsewhere, not because I have anything in particular against Wal-Mart, I just dislike hoards of roaming Mullets, screaming kids (I get enough of that at home), and sub par service. I only partially agree with Horetore, mostly because I think places like Walmart actually cater to the lifestyle of the poor, but do relatively nothing to elevate them (or motivate them) to do more. Now you could say that, that isn't Walmart's responsibility, and that of course is also true, if you don't want to work for slave wages stop complaining, and get educated to work a job that pays in more than peanut shells, which arguably can be a difficult thing (but far from impossible) to do.

jabarto

02-14-2011, 02:06

I'm more libertarian than conservative.

If you like.

I'm not defending hiring illegals.

You are, however, defending an organization that does exactly that.

"Shipping jobs off to China" is protectionist bunk.

...every single time you post, I hope that you'll someday show some sign that your economics education wasn't a complete farce, and every single time, I'm bitterly disappointed.

What exactly do you mean by "massive corporate welfare"?

That probably wasn't the right term, I'll admit. But WalMart gets massive tax breaks for new stores that local businesses don't, causing the latter to shut down and destroying the tax base of a region.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-14-2011, 02:14

You are, however, defending an organization that does did exactly that.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), the world's largest retailer, escaped criminal charges when it agreed to pay $11 million, a record fine in a civil immigration case, to end a federal probe into its use of illegal immigrants as janitors.

Additionally, 12 businesses that provided contract janitor services to Wal-Mart will pay $4 million in fines and plead guilty to criminal immigration charges, officials said.

The deal resolves a more than four-year-long Department of Justice (search) investigation into the employment practices of the company's former floor-cleaning contractors.

"This case breaks new ground not only because this is a record dollar amount for a civil immigration settlement, but because this settlement requires Wal-Mart to create an internal program to ensure future compliance with immigration laws by Wal-Mart contractors and by Wal-Mart itself," said Michael J. Garcia, assistant secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (search).

"We plan to use this settlement as a model for future cases and efforts in worksite enforcement," he said.

Wal-Mart received a target letter from a grand jury in Pennsylvania and was the subject of an October 2003 raid spanning 21 states and 60 stores. The raids led to the arrest of 245 allegedly illegal immigrants.

Wal-Mart, which has 1.2 million domestic workers, had pledged its cooperation in the investigation.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150846,00.html#ixzz1DtJhWysr

Mountains, molehills.

...every single time you post, I hope that you'll someday show some sign that your economics education wasn't a complete farce, and every single time, I'm bitterly disappointed.

What?

That probably wasn't the right term, I'll admit. But WalMart gets massive tax breaks for new stores that local businesses don't, causing the latter to shut down and destroying the tax base of a region.

That's a local government being incompetent problem...or else a lack of federal standards problem. I have no idea how that one will be solved but I don't see how it's a criticism of walmart specifically.

I just don't get your whole approach to this thread, you brought up a bunch of criticisms that you feel your right wing opponents should agree with? But going after a caricature is kind of pointless...

Strike For The South

02-14-2011, 03:52

I hate Wal-Mart but only because my family is in direct competition with them

And we are winning

I lol and lol hard at gorcerey stores who complain, Have a good buisness model and you will succeed

And before any of whiny libreal whack jobs whine, just know we match Wally worlds prices, have better selections, keep our stores clean, and pay our employees better

I guess thats why we were named gorcer of the year in 2010

\Is stocking shelves worth $40,000 a year?

I wish! I WOULD BE A THOUSANDARE

Veho Nex

02-14-2011, 03:58

Wal-mart does what the coal mines used to do back in the early 20th century. Way back when it was legal to pay the coal miners in currency only accepted at the local general store, owned by the coal company. Basically the miners weren't making money, and since the prices were so high sooner or later the miners would be in debt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCen9-RELM

Sasaki Kojiro

02-14-2011, 04:00

But afaik walmart pays in cash???? And has low prices rather than cripplingly high prices???? And doesn't give you lung cancer????

Crazed Rabbit

02-14-2011, 04:02

Perhaps it has been a while since I have taken economics but how "solid" is comparing alcohol rates, exercise rates, the nutrition of food and smoking rates and then coming up with a statement, "yeah they are healthier by our calculations."?

What are the calculations that determine how much nutrition of food should increase to negate a high smoking rate among a population?

That's a fair question. I'm not sure how they defined overall health.

But WalMart does provide more healthy food options.

...every single time you post, I hope that you'll someday show some sign that your economics education wasn't a complete farce, and every single time, I'm bitterly disappointed.
What?

Apparently when my statements about economics don't jibe with his leftist views, that means my minor in economics was "a complete farce".

CR

Strike For The South

02-14-2011, 04:07

The only way wal-mart encourages the lifestyle of the poor is having a dirty ass store and engaging in pallet dropes

That is just a sign of a lazy store

My stores would never engage in such uncouth shenanigans

SRSLY guys I live breathe and eat the grocery store

I know all there is to know

Louis VI the Fat

02-14-2011, 05:05

WalMart helps the poor in the same way that the factories in 1820's Britain helped the poor. Working fourteen hours a day from the age of five is still preferable to starving to death, so in this direct sense a sweatshop helps the poor.

WalMart and the Industrial Revolution are double faced beasts. They destroy existing social and economical patterns by making the people whose lives it ravages an offer they can't refuse.

More in general, living wages for Americans are evaporating. The gentle middle class America of the 1950s is no longer. In its place, America has turned itself into some sort of Brazil. With an enormously unequal income distribution, little social mobility, gated communties, violence. It is not unthinkable that the middle class in America will go the way of that of Argentina, and simply evaporate.

Strike For The South

02-14-2011, 05:08

Except for the fact there are good sweatshops out there beating the walmart sweatshop

Fisherking

02-14-2011, 09:12

SFTS I am surprise that you are an “evil capitalist pig“!

The very idea of selling for profit! I mean, I mean.... :laugh4:

Is this the chain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-E-B

Hum, same last name as the goalie for FC Bayern?:balloon2:

Askthepizzaguy

02-14-2011, 14:12

I am not as happy with Wal-Mart for other reasons, but I'd like to point out there are worse companies.

A chain, lets call it Mizza Mut, used to pay its drivers the minimum wage, plus $1.00 per delivery, and the drivers made tips of course. They charged the customer $1.50 for delivery, so the driver still got most of that, even though it wasn't all of it.

4 years later, a chain called Mizza Mut pays it's drivers just over 4 dollars an hour, a significant decrease in hourly pay, plus 80-90 cents per delivery. They charge the customer $2.50 for delivery, so the driver is making half of what he was making, and now, his tips are suffering in the extreme because some people think the driver gets that $2.50. And by "some people" I mean basically everyone who is not tipping, which amounts to well over 50% of the customers I deliver to.

4 years ago, if I got stiffed by a customer, it was an odd thing I could remember. Now, it's a 10-15 times daily occurrence.

Should we complain that Mizza Muts are moving into town, decreasing our wages? Well, I hear the situation is just as bad at the other big chains.

The problem is that the dollar isn't worth what it used to be worth, and prices everywhere are going up, but it just so happens, the wage and tips of an entire profession got cut literally by half, as prices are rising.

My store has hired more new drivers in the month that I've worked there, than I saw get hired in the year plus that I worked at my old store. And the new guys are already tired of it and want to leave. Plus we got robbed three times since I've been there, and my car was stolen.

Yep, things are great all around. It's the economy, stupid....

Gregoshi

02-14-2011, 16:57

Greyblades

02-14-2011, 17:19

Ah wall mart, america's tesco, as despised as the taliban but as neccissary for the everyday man as the NHS.

Andres

02-14-2011, 17:23

Are the wages per hour you guys are talking about before or after taxes?

All in all, those wages seem very, very low to me.

What's the minimum wage in the US?

Sasaki Kojiro

02-14-2011, 17:30

7.25

Andres

02-14-2011, 17:32

7.25

Before or after taxes?

Do you have to pay taxes if you gain only minimum wage or are you exempt?

If you get paid 10 $ an hour and work 40 hours/week, you get +/- 1.640 $ a month; how much is left approximately in the US after you have paid your taxes.

Is working 40 hours a week considered working fulltime in the US?

Isn't it so that the average worker hardly has any holidays? Isn't it so that your employer can fire you without reason and doesn't have to compensate you at all for doing so? If your sick, you don't get paid?

Sasaki Kojiro

02-14-2011, 17:37

Before or after taxes?

Do you have to pay taxes if you gain only minimum wage or are you exempt?

If you get paid 10 $ an hour and work 40 hours/week, you get +/- 1.640 $ a month; how much is left approximately in the US after you have paid your taxes.

I'm really not sure what the tax rates are at that level. I've only ever worked part of the year due to school, most I made was 5000, paid about 800 tax total I think which they refunded me at the end of the year...when you get higher than that you probably do have to pay some tax though.

Is working 40 hours a week considered working fulltime in the US?

Yes.

ajaxfetish

02-14-2011, 18:30

Before or after taxes?

Do you have to pay taxes if you gain only minimum wage or are you exempt?

Someone more expert on taxes will likely correct me, but I'll give you my impression at least. The minimum wage is before taxes, and minimum wagers aren't exempt from paying taxes. Your overall taxes are calculated based on your year's income, however, not your monthly or hourly income. If you're below a certain threshold, you get a refund of your taxes paid (taxes for social security and medicare, etc. are still kept, however). If you're poor all round, you aren't going to pay much in taxes. If you do a minimum wage job for a couple months, but make plenty of money the rest of the year, you'll be paying taxes on your minimum wage earnings along with the rest.

Also, states can set state minimum wages as well, some of which are higher than the federal one. For example, here in Indiana, the minimum wage is the same as the federal level, but if I were to move west into Illinois, north into Michigan, or east into Ohio, it would go up. http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

Ajax

Husar

02-14-2011, 19:00

How can someone say he gets 4$ an hour at mizza mut when the federal minimum wage is 7.25$?
Do the tips etc. calculate into that?

Xiahou

02-14-2011, 19:23

I have mixed feelings about Walmart. I don't see them as evil nor as good as they are made out to be.Sometimes a pen store is just a pen store. :yes:

This is my first retail job (at the ripe old age of 51) and it amazes me that some of my co-workers can get by wages this low - especially coupled with limited, part-time work hours at this time of year.For how many of them is their wage the sole or even primary source of income for their household? That's one of the biggest problems I have with the "living wage" crowd. Why does a college kid flipping burgers for beer money need to make enough cash to support a family of 4? He doesn't.

Noncommunist

02-14-2011, 20:14

Is working 40 hours a week considered working fulltime in the US?

Isn't it so that the average worker hardly has any holidays? Isn't it so that your employer can fire you without reason and doesn't have to compensate you at all for doing so? If your sick, you don't get paid?

Probably depends on the work place and where you are in the hierarchy.

a completely inoffensive name

02-14-2011, 20:23

How can someone say he gets 4$ an hour at mizza mut when the federal minimum wage is 7.25$?
Do the tips etc. calculate into that?

We have this great system, where if you have a job that people know is complete **** to do (like waitresses or servicing people in general), good ole' American charity comes in and people can give you tips for doing your job so well as an incentive to keep it up, otherwise a stagnant wage that isn't dependent on quality makes for bad waiters. And then, we allow business owners to slash their actual wages by 50% (so it comes out to less than minimum wage) because we all know that it is unfair for both the consumer and the business to pay the worker, so we all let business owners take away that large portion of minimum wage under the guise of "accounting" for "wage earned in tips".

And now it all works out for these jobs because we all know that people are not cheap and will always tip the expected 15% of the bill, right? RIGHT?

Husar

02-14-2011, 20:48

Well, if I collected all the "tips" at the fuel station, I'd probably average about 20-50 cents per 6 hour shift.

If I got 15% of the bills as tips that would be nice though.... :laugh4:

All kidding aside, making the workers reliant on tips is a bit weird, you don't let managers rely on bribes either, do you?

Sasaki Kojiro

02-14-2011, 20:56

We have this great system, where if you have a job that people know is complete **** to do (like waitresses or servicing people in general), good ole' American charity comes in and people can give you tips for doing your job so well as an incentive to keep it up, otherwise a stagnant wage that isn't dependent on quality makes for bad waiters. And then, we allow business owners to slash their actual wages by 50% (so it comes out to less than minimum wage) because we all know that it is unfair for both the consumer and the business to pay the worker, so we all let business owners take away that large portion of minimum wage under the guise of "accounting" for "wage earned in tips".

And now it all works out for these jobs because we all know that people are not cheap and will always tip the expected 15% of the bill, right? RIGHT?

There's nothing wrong with the tips system in general, it just doesn't seem like a good idea for pizza delivery drivers to me...it's not as widely known that you're supposed to tip pizza delivery drivers...

HoreTore

02-14-2011, 22:20

Sometimes a pen store is just a pen store. :yes:

For how many of them is their wage the sole or even primary source of income for their household? That's one of the biggest problems I have with the "living wage" crowd. Why does a college kid flipping burgers for beer money need to make enough cash to support a family of 4? He doesn't.

We're only talking about making enough money to provide 50% of the money needed to support a family; both parents are, of course, expected to work. I'm not going to pay for some housewife who sits around watching oprah all day...

Also, 10 USD an hour or less? Bah, if that was the minimum wage here I wouldn't have bothered to work a day in my life so far. Instead, with proper wages, I have worked everything from part time to the four jobs I currently hold(plus school)... Four jobs? Only in Norway.... And I do get enough sleep, thank you for asking!

Decent wages encourage people to work. Laughable US wages encourages people to sell drugs to the kids in Xiahou's family.

You reap what you sow. Have fun with your crack-addicted offspring.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-14-2011, 22:25

hmm, this: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Says that the Average tax rate for the bottom 50% (<33,000) is 2.59%.

Togakure

02-14-2011, 22:41

ajaxfetish

02-14-2011, 22:55

All kidding aside, making the workers reliant on tips is a bit weird, you don't let managers rely on bribes either, do you?

You make me happy, Husar. ~:)

Ajax

Askthepizzaguy

02-14-2011, 23:29

That's interesting Askthemizzaguy.

I've been working at Target (a department store more, ahem, upscale than Walmart) for the past 6+ months in the electronics department. Because of security and product knowledge, only a handful of store employees are qualified to work the department. Still, I'm getting only $8.50/hour. Maybe I'll get a raise after a certain trial/probationary period, but at the moment that Walmart $10.76 is looking rather nice. This is my first retail job (at the ripe old age of 51) and it amazes me that some of my co-workers can get by wages this low - especially coupled with limited, part-time work hours at this time of year. And my store is located in one of the wealthiest counties in Pennsylvania, so I'm not seeing a correlation between wages and the economic health of the area in my situation.

I have mixed feelings about Walmart. I don't see them as evil nor as good as they are made out to be.

At Wal-Mart, the 10 dollars an hour thing is an average which (iirc) includes people like pharmacists and forklift drivers and optometrists, who would normally get paid much more than they are, but have accepted a pay cut to work at Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart competes with and then absorbs other businesses.

The dude stocking the shelves is not making ten dollars an hour. Most of the employees are not. But add in hourly management and highly specialized people who work as an eye doctor, and look at that, it almost looks like Wal-Mart pays a decent wage.

The average is not the realistic expectation one should have unless they're planning on going into management or have a degree.

Wal-Mart does depress the wages and income of highly skilled people, because they get paid less working for Wal-Mart than they do when competing with Wal-Mart, but because of the convenience of having an eyeglass store right next to where you buy dog food, consumers will go there, running family owned businesses out of business.

That's the nature of free market economics, sometimes the majority of consumers will only offer less than what a thing is worth, or worth to the person selling. Like the housing market. Even if the original price you paid for a house was inflated, the market creates a condition where the price of the house is deflated by more than it is worth, but because there is no demand, you cannot charge what it is worth and expect to sell it. That forces people, like pharmacists, to accept a wage that is less than what they are worth, even if it is more than minimum wage, because of demand.

Free market economics doesn't always create fair trades. Sometimes people lose their shirts, and have to trade it in for a Wal-Mart uniform.

Sometimes a guy lives on tips, and customers aren't obligated to tip, so he goes home with 20 dollars in his pocket instead of 60. That doesn't mean the job he did was worth a third of what he used to get paid for it. It just means that was how much the consumer was willing to pay, and there aren't enough jobs available to say "screw this.... I will go somewhere where they pay me at least minimum wage, thanks!"

See, because with the half-wage, plus tips, he might technicaly make over 7 dollars an hour. Of course, he's also spending 20-25 dollars a day on gasoline, amounting to a huge percentage of his income, and then there's massive wear and tear, maintenence, and higher insurance costs which are also not covered. But, because it's technically over the mininum, not including expenses, it's legal. Legal doesn't mean fair. That doesn't mean the market is being fair. It means the market is being free to set prices according to demand, or even whim. Because the demand for employment is so high, the employee must accept an unfair wage, as anything is better than unemployment.

That is the choice those working at Wal-Mart make; it might not be what I am worth, but it is more than nothing. I might not be able to see a dentist, or pay for health insurance, or feed a family, or save for retirement, or do anything on my vacation, but it is more than zero.

Wal-Mart isn't the biggest offender, because their wages are better than some. It just happens to be the largest offender, in terms of number of employees they don't pay well.

That's the main argument. The defense of Wal-Mart, has many fine points. Some of those points ignores what the argument with Wal-Mart is based on. As for myself, I've worked at Wal-Mart as well, and I preferred it over unemployment. Those are the choices we make.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-15-2011, 01:45

That's true, cashiers make 8.30

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Wal-Mart_Stores%2c_Inc/Hourly_Rate

Strike For The South

02-15-2011, 06:14

The average is not the realistic expectation one should have unless they're planning on going into management or have a degree.

So learned skills and a college education improves your job prospects

THE PAPERS MUST BE CALLED

Wal-Mart does depress the wages and income of highly skilled people, because they get paid less working for Wal-Mart than they do when competing with Wal-Mart, but because of the convenience of having an eyeglass store right next to where you buy dog food, consumers will go there, running family owned businesses out of business.

Lies, Damned Lies, And Statistics

Its a sad day when my fellow Americans throw up thier hands in the face of one of the most poorly one companies in the world

Wal-Mart is a one trick pony with a horrid culture, I laugh at it

Husar

02-15-2011, 06:56

So learned skills and a college education improves your job prospects

THE PAPERS MUST BE CALLED

So what once everybody has a college degree? No poor people anymore and everybody will be a manager and get enough of a wage to support the family?

And the wife working thing is pretty good, but then the two of you will have to earn enough for a nanny since who is going to care about the kids, eh?
And the nanny gets 20$ an hour after taxes because she has 5 kids and is divorced, and of course she will bring them all to your home whenever she comes because she cannot afford a nanny for 20$ an hour during her working hours where she makes 20$ an hour - tax. :shrug:

Strike For The South

02-15-2011, 07:00

So what once everybody has a college degree? No poor people anymore and everybody will be a manager and get enough of a wage to support the family?
There will always be the ignorant, arrogant, and lazy souls who never think to challenge themselves

Besides a dollar goes along way, I will say that many Americans can't budget to save the miserable fat souls

And the wife working thing is pretty good, but then the two of you will have to earn enough for a nanny since who is going to care about the kids, eh?
And the nanny gets 20$ an hour after taxes because she has 5 kids and is divorced, and of course she will bring them all to your home whenever she comes because she cannot afford a nanny for 20$ an hour during her working hours where she makes 20$ an hour - tax. :shrug:
Um ok?

a completely inoffensive name

02-15-2011, 07:35

There's nothing wrong with the tips system in general, it just doesn't seem like a good idea for pizza delivery drivers to me...it's not as widely known that you're supposed to tip pizza delivery drivers...

And then you have Mr. Pink...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLV4OxzDKwI

Askthepizzaguy

02-15-2011, 07:37

There will always be the ignorant, arrogant, and lazy souls who never think to challenge themselves

Besides a dollar goes along way, I will say that many Americans can't budget to save the miserable fat souls

Hmmm.... well I have a different perspective. I went for three months without any groceries, living off of scraps my roomates gave me, and some leftover ramen noodles/pasta from when I could afford groceries. My only expenses were rent, gasoline, and insurance. I switched off my phone and cancelled my insurance (forced to....) and that's all I spent. The reason why is I only had enough money left for rent and gas to look for a job, those last few months I was looking.

As for the rest, I don't know about other people, but my ignorant, arrogant, lazy butt went to college for over a year and I got a nearly 4.0 GPA. I challenged myself pretty well, until the economy went into the toilet, I lost my job, and could not get one for over 2 years. Which did include applying at every single restaurant, fast food place, retail store, and other business that hired unskilled labor, in not one city (Spring Hill/Brooksville and surrounding areas), not two cities (Clermont/Kissimmee), but 3 different cities (Orlando). I moved twice to find a job.

I was on unemployment for roughly 6 months of that, the rest I paid myself. It was not for lack of looking for work.

A dollar doesn't go as far as you seem to think it does. College isn't a fix-all solution to everyone's problems. Many people with perfectly fine brand spanking new college degrees and 100,000 dollars in debt are now trying to work at Applebee's because that's the only available job.

As for myself, loans/grants do not pay all your expenses, even if they somehow paid 100% of your school expenses which they often do not, so if you have no income because you have no job, none of that stuff is useful to you at all. You have to eat and have a roof over your head first. That's why I dropped out. Wasn't for lack of trying or bad grades. It was lack of money.

Strike For The South

02-15-2011, 07:44

I am sure this was a trying time for you, you have my sympathies.

However it does not disprove anything I have said

Askthepizzaguy

02-15-2011, 08:45

How can someone say he gets 4$ an hour at mizza mut when the federal minimum wage is 7.25$?
Do the tips etc. calculate into that?

Tipping professions like waitresses and pizza drivers rely on tips for income, so the managers of those stores lower your hourly wage, and then have you claim your tips. As long as you earn minimum wage every hour, you're fine.

It doesn't matter if you spent three dollars that hour on gas just doing your job. You still made over 7 dollars, hourly plus tip (if any) so even if you only ended up making four dollars that hour after expenses, your income level is above the legal standard.

Although to be honest, there are hours when I collect nothing in tips (it's really easy to get 3-4 customers in a row not tip you... my record is 12 in a row at this store) so that, plus the 4 dollars, plus the 80-90 cents you'd get on gas, can sometimes put you below minimum wage, even before expenses. The company and the IRS assumes that I will be making tips. That assumption doesn't always hold true. But I can guarantee you, I will be spending a certain amount on gasoline, insurance, and car maintenance. Interesting how that works. :laugh4:

In case you're wondering if it's me, here are some pertinent facts- I have several years driving experience. The computer calculates how long each driver is on the road, and I consistently come up number one at my store in terms of fast delivery, and the actual wait times for the customer are between 20 minutes when we're not busy to usually under an hour when we are, which is quite standard. I actually take my job very seriously, and because of the unusual lack of tips in my area, I was curious enough to ask my customers after each delivery, for a week, "were you satisfied with your service today?", and I always make sure I greet them warmly. I had to know if I was doing something wrong, because I give a darn.

No surprise, not a single customer had a complaint about the service or the speed of delivery or even my attitude. And I worked at two other stores before, four years ago, and I always got tipped well there, and I haven't changed a thing about what I do. I know it's not me. The reason the tips are so bad, I've found, is that people honestly do not understand that the 2.50 does not go to the driver. Some nice customers have been good enough to ask me what that is and how it breaks down, because they didn't know.

Well that begs the question, what about the easy solution: Tell everyone what the delivery charge does, how it is not a tip, and how tips are customary!

That's against store policy (you can get fired for that) and it's also rude. I am not allowed to discuss tips at the door unless people ask me about it (or I'm posting anonymously on the internets). If someone is under the impression that 2.50 goes to me, they'd obviously never think to ask. It's also not their business to care, really.... it's not their responsibility to make sure I make enough to pay my bills, that's my responsibility. But I am unable to do that, because the company has taken away my ability to collectively bargain as the terms of my employment dictate I am not under contract and I can be terminated at any time. Even hinting about collective bargaining can get you canned or your hours cut. The company is following what is now (didn't used to be) standard practices for this profession. If they change, they lose their competitive edge, so they have no incentive to do so. Their obligation is to their shareholders, not the drivers.

It's also the fact that so many people are hurting for money, so obviously they're going to be more careful about counting out exact change, not rounding it off, if that kind of money matters to them. It's still an economic problem. There are hours when I get a customer who tips well, and that does make up for bad hours over the long term. That plus my absolutely bare bones lifestyle and lack of other options means this is good enough for now.

Well, if I collected all the "tips" at the fuel station, I'd probably average about 20-50 cents per 6 hour shift.

If I got 15% of the bills as tips that would be nice though.... :laugh4:

All kidding aside, making the workers reliant on tips is a bit weird, you don't let managers rely on bribes either, do you?

15% is a figure commonly used in restaurants for when a server gives you decent service (great service, 20%) and you'd like to reward him or her by paying them more than the 3 dollars an hour or so that they make. Some restaurants actually include gratuity in the bill, which is a nice feature, but those are obviously better places to work than others.

If a delivery driver made 15%, I'd probably be rich (by my standards). I routinely deliver 60-100 dollars worth of food to people's houses in a single trip, and in an hour, it is usually at least 100 dollars to 200 dollars worth of food I've served. I will freely admit, I do not need to earn 15%, because I only spend about 15-20 minutes "serving" someone, and it usually involves only a single trip to their "table". Even if I am driving my own vehicle, paying my own insurance, and risking my own bodily harm or theft of my vehicle (already happened to me), it's still not worth the same as what a waiter makes, because they make several trips to your table and can end up serving you for over an hour.

The truth is, I could get by with my gasoline covered by the company, and 2 dollars per delivery tip, no matter what the size of the order. If the company actually gave me that 2.50 that they charge the customer, I would be sitting pretty. I don't need a percentage. If I made between 2 and 5 dollars per delivery, 2 for a small order and 5 for a huge order, I'd make a wage that could feed a family, or help me go back to college. That's not even what I'm asking for.... not even a percentage, not even 2-5 dollars. Even a dollar, I realize, can pay what meager bare bones bills I owe. But that dollar is not guaranteed.

It should fall into the same category that fancier restaurants do, which is include the gratuity on your check. A percentage of the order going to the driver would be interesting, but it costs me the same to deliver 1 pizza as it does to deliver 10. It should really be a flat fee per delivery. That's why a delivery charge is an excellent idea. My complaint is that it cuts into my tips, which I need because I do not get the entire delivery charge and I make an abysmal hourly wage. That's really my only issue. And that issue I take up with the company who used to pay a minimum wage. I'd take what tips I made and keep my tank full and my car running fine, and live off the minimum wage. I'd save whatever was left over. That's a good system. It doesn't work that way anymore. And it really isn't up to the customer to learn how the system has changed.... and it's actually against the rules for me to inform them unless they ask. So I blame Mizza Mut and their competitors for raising prices on customers while also cutting wages for employees. In the end, it really is their fault for this mess.

And in that sense, they are worse than Wal-Mart. To my knowledge, Wal-Mart has not recently cut hourly wages in half for anyone. In fact, when I worked there, I got fairly regular raises (not that these raises did anything but keep your head above inflation). And, my expenses were not as high because I wasn't dragging my own vehicle through hell and back. There is still room for improvement though; Wal-Mart and companies like Mizza Mut have policies which allow them to terminate anyone at any time for any reason, provided the reason has nothing to do with things like racial discrimination, which means if you attempt to unionize, you lose your job.

Wal-Mart and companies like Wal-Mart act in their best interests as a single, powerful entity; their best interest is a higher stock price and better dividends for their shareholders and bonuses for their managers. They will do whatever they can to make that happen. They will keep wages low, and prices low, until they have enough market share that their competitors will also keep wages low, and lower prices. Now, the entire marketplace has collapsed on the worker; there is nowhere to go that pays better, and companies all across all sectors follow suit. Entire marketplaces have no unionized labor, and several companies form what amounts to a monopoly on employment. They merge together and gobble up other companies and they all institute the same practices which keep wages low, enough that they actually lose value due to inflation and meager raises.

Customers will of course act in their best interests and shop for the best value at the lowest price. They take their business elsewhere, and through such behavior, they force companies to offer better values and lower prices. They will do whatever they can to make that happen.

So, both companies and consumers have a method of keeping the market fair on themselves, to ensure a profitable and/or pleasurable experience, by acting in their best interests and as a giant, united entity. But the marketplace is not all owners and customers, it is also the labor force.

When wages are cut in half, laborers are meant to work for tips that customers aren't obligated to provide, and attempts at collective bargaining will cause you to lose your only means of support, when you can't afford to see a dentist and have not done so in over fifteen years, when you cannot afford to see a doctor and have not done so since you were a child, except for emergency surgery that you couldn't afford to pay for, when you have no way of saving any substantial amount for retirement except by working 80 hours a week in two different jobs for no overtime whatsoever, when there aren't many other jobs available and attempts to go to college and become "successful" have left you thousands of dollars in debt, but businesses are enjoying healthy profits and consumers needs are being met, that means two thirds of the free market is functioning and healthy, but that last third is being exploited at the expense of the other two.

In a market, the worker is selling a service. They should be able to band together and get a better value for it, just as businesses and customers routinely do. A business can depress the wages of its workers, assuming other businesses follow suit. Customers can demand lower prices, and get them, provided they vote with their wallet. What can the worker do besides collectively bargain for a better wage? Companies like Wal-Mart are notorious for busting up attempts at unionization. And companies which treat their employees with even less regard than Wal-Mart do the same. And that is becoming pretty standard across all sectors of the economy.

A truly fair market would have all three (businesses, consumers, workers) able to push back and get a fair deal. Laborers could demand a living wage, and negotiate a system which is both fair and profitable for the company, without ripping off the consumer. The consumer and the business push back, and the demand for employment keeps the demand for better wages from spiraling out of control. But instead we have a system where the business and the consumer both press harder and harder on the laborer, with the business slashing wages and the customers not tipping or shopping in non-union retail stores for the best prices, and the laborer has no recourse whatsoever, since they can't just quit, and they aren't allowed to collectively bargain, so they must continue working for lower and lower wages, as inflation makes them poorer, as they watch benefits like health insurance and dental coverage and even paid employee meals fly right out the window. They lose the benefits they once had, and have no way of getting it back, because it isn't in the interests of the consumer or the company to give it to them, and they have 100% of the leverage.

That's the urban liberal's main complaint with companies like Wal-Mart. A fair market would allow workers to demand to be paid what they are worth, not just what the company wants to offer so that management gets bonuses and shareholders get big dividends. It's also free market, because companies are not obligated to hire people and customers are not obligated to shop. They do so because it gets them something they want; profits for businesses and goods and services for consumers. Laborers want to get paid enough to feed a family. That's not such a huge demand either, by the way. They should be able to bargain for such, but doing it alone gets you the following response from the company:

You already make what the market says you're worth.

The "market" in this case being the monopoly stake in the discussion that businesses and consumers have, and the zero leverage workers have, because they have no recourse and no options. Not 100% of the workforce can be independently wealthy, owners, or managers. The market will always have a demand for people to bag groceries, deliver food, flip burgers. These people work hard, and do not deserve to have to work 80 hours a week to make ends meet. It doesn't matter if they aren't worth what a doctor or a lawyer makes, because that's not what they're asking for. They're asking for enough to make sure there's food on the table, and that their children can see a doctor. When inflation causes prices to go up, but businesses and consumers monopolize the discussion and wages stay stagnant, and workers cannot make any demands, an entire class of already poor people just becomes poorer and poorer.

Then, you get people who truly believe that the worker always deserves to be in this terrible situation, that their situation is a result of apathy, ignorance, lack of education, laziness, or lack of talent, and that they always have a means to get out of it, and that those who advocate for them to be treated with dignity are misinformed bleeding hearts.

Then you get others who suddenly find themselves in this situation and have NO IDEA how people can afford to live under such a system. And once there, you suddenly find, you can't get out.... then their perspective changes. But it's too late.

Andres

02-15-2011, 10:41

a completely inoffensive name

02-15-2011, 11:40

I'm flabbergasted, really.

The idea that a company would fire you if you try to unionise to ask to get paid a bit more than a fricking 4 dollar an hour. And you have politicians defending such companies? What morons vote for such inhuman beings? In who's interest exactly is it that it is perfectly legal that people get paid 4 $ an hour? Why do you guys take that kind of crap?

Oh yes, there are probably thousands of people waiting to get that crappy 4 $ an hour job, because it's better than nothing.

Meh. You guys should go on strike and the unemployed should simply refuse such jobs. You need a few protest marches. This is a disgrace. How can you possibly encourage or even defend blatant exploitation of people in the name of "freedom" and "a free market" and at the same time still be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

4 $ an hour and the illusion that you'll get tips? And you have to use your own car for delivering pizza's? They can't give you a bike from the company?

Our unions here in Europe are sometimes nothing more than a bunch of spoiled brats, but clearly, in the US, unions are urgently needed and you guys need to go on strike and protest asap. Ignore the shareholders and employers' :daisy: that you'll make things worse and that you're communists. Why would anyone accept this?

(Cue someone right wing here talking about everything that is wrong is because of unions.) But seriously, for all we love to talk about wanting a free market. We don't. The fact is that companies have politicans in their pockets from borderline bribes and massive donations that politicians need to stay in office. These companies become protected monopolies/colluding oligopolies or are rewarded with heavy subsidizing or both. Then when someone tries to say, "Hey, maybe we should have campaigns be publicly funded and take the money out of the equation. That way politicians don't need to suck a lobbyists **** and provide lots of company protections in order to win. They will have to focus more on what the public wants and have to make a case why they are better because they can't simply outspend their opponent either.". But then the same people who love to talk about free markets come in and say that money is free speech and people, even companies, should be able to out spend other constituents in a bid to see who the representative deems is more equal than others.

So obviously the solution is less unions and simply to have the government not get involved in the economy or business in any way. Let's just forget about the fact that as long as companies are merely taxed (lets pretend all oversight and regulations were stripped away for the free market to handle), they will still have politicians get involved in the economy to re institute laws that will benefit them. Much in the same way how the Sherman Anti Trust Act was actually a huge failure for the public for the first five years of it due to companies being able to persuade judges to declare that it also applied to unions as well (which led to a lot of union busting).

Tellos Athenaios

02-15-2011, 11:59

$4? That's about the lowest minimum wage for children, here I think. 8 hours worth of work a week (admittedly at 6:00 in the morning, so with night premium) would earn me about €200,- to €300,- a month delivering papers to subscribers. (It depended on when the additional payments for the maintenance of the bike were included...) And of course you'd typically make a 13th month the week before Christmas by going round the doors of the subscribers you'd brought the papers for the year.

Andres

02-15-2011, 12:13

(Cue someone right wing here talking about everything that is wrong is because of unions.) But seriously, for all we love to talk about wanting a free market. We don't. The fact is that companies have politicans in their pockets from borderline bribes and massive donations that politicians need to stay in office. These companies become protected monopolies/colluding oligopolies or are rewarded with heavy subsidizing or both. Then when someone tries to say, "Hey, maybe we should have campaigns be publicly funded and take the money out of the equation. That way politicians don't need to suck a lobbyists **** and provide lots of company protections in order to win. They will have to focus more on what the public wants and have to make a case why they are better because they can't simply outspend their opponent either.". But then the same people who love to talk about free markets come in and say that money is free speech and people, even companies, should be able to out spend other constituents in a bid to see who the representative deems is more equal than others.

So obviously the solution is less unions and simply to have the government not get involved in the economy or business in any way. Let's just forget about the fact that as long as companies are merely taxed (lets pretend all oversight and regulations were stripped away for the free market to handle), they will still have politicians get involved in the economy to re institute laws that will benefit them. Much in the same way how the Sherman Anti Trust Act was actually a huge failure for the public for the first five years of it due to companies being able to persuade judges to declare that it also applied to unions as well (which led to a lot of union busting).

So, if I understand it correctly, the regular Joe Sixpack, the majoritiy of US citizens, either doesn't bother to vote (voting is not mandatory, right?) and if he votes, he votes for people that don't have his interests in mind at all?

If politicians happily accept money from companies, then they will represent companies, not the people. Apparently, the majoritiy of your people has no problem with that?

:wall:

a completely inoffensive name

02-15-2011, 12:27

So, if I understand it correctly, the regular Joe Sixpack, the majoritiy of US citizens, either doesn't bother to vote (voting is not mandatory, right?) and if he votes, he votes for people that don't have his interests in mind at all?

If politicians happily accept money from companies, then they will represent companies, not the people. Apparently, the majoritiy of your people has no problem with that?

:wall:

Your first sentence is 100% absolutely, completely correct. Anyone that tells you differently is lying.

Your second sentence is tricky. The majority isn't happy that our representatives are representing companies. The majority is happy that companies can lobby the government just like any citizen, because they think that by upholding the philosophy that money=free speech (which was actually declared by a SCOTUS ruling) that we are promoting a "freer" nation because obviously it follows from that logic that the spending of money is protected by the 1st Amendment and so to prohibit corporate lobbying is to violate the right to free speech.

Andres

02-15-2011, 12:29

So, in the US it is legal to bribe politicians? In the name of freedom, of course.

If I had a company that produced soft drinks that are simply put poison, I could "donate" lots of money to various politicians and the substance it contains would be allowed to be used.
If I would sell stuff that has been made by child labour in let's say Pakistan, then it would be no problem if I "donate" enough money to enough politicians who would make sure I'm left alone. I would be declared a businessman who sees the entire world as free market and thus brings freedom to the world by "my" politicians.

Meh.

Of course, you'll have politicians who'll even pull "studies" and "statistics" out of their behinds to explain to the people how companies à la Mizza Mut and Walmart are benevolent saints who spread freedom to the world. They're on Walmarts' and Mizza Huts' payroll too. But not at minimum wages. People like me are of course communist conspirators fighting against freedom.

Fisherking

02-15-2011, 12:35

So, if I understand it correctly, the regular Joe Sixpack, the majoritiy of US citizens, either doesn't bother to vote (voting is not mandatory, right?) and if he votes, he votes for people that don't have his interests in mind at all?

If politicians happily accept money from companies, then they will represent companies, not the people. Apparently, the majoritiy of your people has no problem with that?

:wall:

Did you just now notice this? https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?132839-The-US-State-of-the-Union-message-for-2011-Thoughts-and-Commentary&p=2053260006#post2053260006 posts #32 and 36 might offer clues.

Of course informed people have a problem with it but most just think it is a problem with the other political party and not their own.

And do you think any professional politician is going to bring up a bill or go against his own interests? :no:

Greyblades

02-15-2011, 15:12

If I had a company that produced soft drinks that are simply put poison, I could "donate" lots of money to various politicians and the substance it contains would be allowed to be used.
I think the politicians would more likely take your cash then call an investigation on you; busting a company that actively poisons people would be too good a chance for popular support for most politicians to miss. Of course they might just do it because they actively believe you shouldn't get away with such a thing, but these are politicians we are talking about.

If I would sell stuff that has been made by child labour in let's say Pakistan, then it would be no problem if I "donate" enough money to enough politicians who would make sure I'm left alone. I would be declared a businessman who sees the entire world as free market and thus brings freedom to the world by "my" politicians.
I believe most companies already do that, what with "made in china" stamped on anything worth less than £10.

Louis VI the Fat

02-15-2011, 15:30

Andres

02-15-2011, 15:46

Europe, sadly, looks set to follow suit.

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking that. It seems like the regular European Joe Sixpack can't wait to throw away everything the regular European Joe Sixpack obtained after decades (centuries?) of struggle.

It seems like a lot of people of my generation and younger (and those a generation older) are ready to smilingly accept that we'll have to work until age 68 only to get a pension that won't even pay the monthly bills. What other rights will be taken away under the guise of "being competitive".

How much :daisy: will we take? How long will it take before the middle class starts to realise they're being screwed over? I guess we (yes, I'm also middle class) will have evaporated before we realise it.

Meh.

Fisherking

02-15-2011, 16:07

Most Americans never noticed they were no longer citizens but had become only consumers.

The only thing they contribute is the money they send on the products sold in the country to keep the economy moving.

Government is geared to see this continues to happen. The great bailout was likely enough to pay off every bit of consumer debt owed in the country but instead the taxpayers (consumers) spent it on a few big companies.

A great joke isn’t it?

TinCow

02-15-2011, 16:30

Before or after taxes?

Do you have to pay taxes if you gain only minimum wage or are you exempt?

If you get paid 10 $ an hour and work 40 hours/week, you get +/- 1.640 $ a month; how much is left approximately in the US after you have paid your taxes.

Is working 40 hours a week considered working fulltime in the US?

Isn't it so that the average worker hardly has any holidays? Isn't it so that your employer can fire you without reason and doesn't have to compensate you at all for doing so? If your sick, you don't get paid?

$10/hour for 40 hour weeks is $20,800 per year, assuming no time off other than weekends. For the year that just ended (2010), taxes on that income for a single person would be $2,701 (calculator link (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm)), leaving a take-home of $18,099 per year. For a single person, that is well above the poverty line (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml) ($10,830), but it at the poverty line for a single income family of three.

That said, 40 hour weeks are not normal in the US. Most Americans work less than 40 hours per week:

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls fell by 0.1 hour to 34.2 hours in January. The manufacturing workweek for all employees rose by 0.1 hour to 40.5 hours, while factory overtime remained at 3.1 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls declined by 0.1 hour to 33.4 hours; the workweek fell by 1.0 hour in construction, likely reflecting severe winter weather. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

So, if we reduce Walmart pay to the national employment average (34.2 hours per week, not 40), annual pre-tax income is $17,784. That results in $2,249 of annual taxes, for an annual take-home of $15,535, which is about at the poverty line for a family of two. So, the average single-income Walmart employee is at or below the poverty line if that single job is their only source of household income, unless the employee does not support anyone else. So, basically, one Walmart job can support only one person above the poverty line. Anyone who is working at Walmart AND attempting to support any dependents of any kind (children, spouse, parents, etc.) will fall below the poverty line unless they can exceed the national average of working time per week or have a second job.

For the record, here's the average hourly wage in the US (same source as last link):

In January, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 8 cents, or 0.4 percent, to $22.86. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 1.9 percent. In January, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees rose by 10 cents, or 0.5 percent, to $19.34. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

Andres

02-15-2011, 17:25

How realistic is the poverty line of $10,830? That's about 668 € a month. You can't live from that here in Belgium, even if you're single.

Strike For The South

02-15-2011, 18:18

How realistic is the poverty line of $10,830? That's about 668 € a month. You can't live from that here in Belgium, even if you're single.

You can live on that here in Texas :shrug:

Whats killing the American middile class is rampant coropartism and a tax structure which is back asswards, not the American buisness practices. The rich screw us by screwing the gummint, the worker is peanuts compared to the end game.

Then, you get people who truly believe that the worker always deserves to be in this terrible situation, that their situation is a result of apathy, ignorance, lack of education, laziness, or lack of talent, and that they always have a means to get out of it, and that those who advocate for them to be treated with dignity are misinformed bleeding hearts.

Your entire diatrabe is grating on the senses.

TinCow

02-15-2011, 18:32

How realistic is the poverty line of $10,830? That's about 668 € a month. You can't live from that here in Belgium, even if you're single.

I honestly have no idea. That number is supposed to be some statistical average about what is required to live, but I have no idea who decides what is required to live, nor what those specific requirements are. I think it's pretty obvious that $10,830 is not enough money to live on in New York City, but I can imagine someone being able to get basic shelter, clothing, and food for that amount in many rural areas. Also, I think it really only has to do with basic necessities of life, not quality of life. My understanding is that the poverty line is the average amount required to physically sustain a human being (i.e. not die from malnutrition or exposure), not the amount required to give them anything that could be described as a pleasing standard of living.

Beskar

02-15-2011, 19:38

How realistic is the poverty line of $10,830? That's about 668 € a month. You can't live from that here in Belgium, even if you're single.

Single person living by himself? No. Single person sharing accommodation with two others, could be living ok, due to the bills being divided, thus cost of living is cheaper.

HoreTore

02-15-2011, 19:50

I honestly have no idea. That number is supposed to be some statistical average about what is required to live, but I have no idea who decides what is required to live, nor what those specific requirements are. I think it's pretty obvious that $10,830 is not enough money to live on in New York City, but I can imagine someone being able to get basic shelter, clothing, and food for that amount in many rural areas. Also, I think it really only has to do with basic necessities of life, not quality of life. My understanding is that the poverty line is the average amount required to physically sustain a human being (i.e. not die from malnutrition or exposure), not the amount required to give them anything that could be described as a pleasing standard of living.

Ah, but that would be a description of "starvation", not "poverty".

Poverty is when you do not live, but instead merely exist. Ie., when you are only able to avoid dying, you are living in poverty.

Major Robert Dump

02-15-2011, 20:10

Many moons ago I was a salaried co-manager at a Wal-Mart Supercenter, thebusiest in the state and one of the busiest inthe nation. I ended up quitting for many reasons, but let me say that I was appalled at some of their practices and some of the things regional management directed me to do, which certainly expedited my departure. This is not an indictment of the company as a whole, the workers, or management....but lets just say the "corporate office" is no friend of the workers. I continue to have friends in upper management at the company, and according to their tales things havenot changed much

I have to go to class now, I will expand on this later

HoreTore

02-15-2011, 20:15

Commie.

TinCow

02-15-2011, 21:05

Ah, but that would be a description of "starvation", not "poverty".

Poverty is when you do not live, but instead merely exist. Ie., when you are only able to avoid dying, you are living in poverty.

This might actually be an interesting discussion topic: what is poverty?

Merriam-Webster defines it as (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poverty) "the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions." That sounds like a reasonable definition to me, but how do we determine what is usual or socially acceptable? Certainly people earning $10,000 per year are lacking a socially acceptable amount of money by the standards of most developed nations, so we describe those people within our own societies as living in poverty. However, $10,000 per year would be acceptable, if not actively wealthy, by the standards of many developing nations in Africa and elsewhere.

So, we would end up in a scenario where (for example) many people in Haiti are not living in poverty by their own standards, but are living in poverty by Swedish standards. The United States (and most developed nations that I am aware of) judge poverty based on their own, national standards. The United States is certainly not being judged by the standards of Luxembourg or Qatar, both of which have nearly double the per capita GDP of the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita). So, this trend would indicate that the Haitian poverty line should be judged by Haitian national standards, not by outside standards. Yet the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ha.html) states that 80% of Haitians live below the poverty line. But, by definition, if 80% are at that level of income, then it they are clearly not below the "usual or socially acceptable" level of income, as the 'norm' in Haiti is to be destitute.

Of course, it is ridiculous to state that Haitians are not in poverty simply because 80% of them fall into that category. The nation is clearly incredibly poor by all standards. So, the question then becomes, which nations get to determine their own poverty standards, and which have poverty standards imposed on them by outside nations? The line must be somewhere between the United States and Haiti, but where? And why?

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

02-15-2011, 21:05

@Horetore Perhaps next time you could read further than 'WalMart' before replying.

CR

Perhaps you can give us more legit proof then and not the Wal-Mart propaganda they spew out?

:idea2::idea2:

a completely inoffensive name

02-15-2011, 23:36

Whats killing the American middile class is rampant coropartism and a tax structure which is back asswards, not the American buisness practices. The rich screw us by screwing the gummint, the worker is peanuts compared to the end game.

This is basically it right here. But as I said before, no one wants to get rid of corporatism because they think that getting rid of it is tyrannical, oppressive, a violation of the 1st Amendment etc...

Beskar

02-16-2011, 00:54

Pizza already won this thread by getting it spot on. I don't need to post my views as he eloquently already spoke them better than I ever could.

Edit:

Possibly a tangent, but I think Pizza also states (reinforced by Andres), a concept of "Free Market" that I hold, in comparison to what some other posters might hold. As some one with 'socialist' leanings, I see the mass control of the elite corporate heads, simply as replacements of the old feudal lords of old. Instead of 'bloodline' being the defining attribute, it is 'wealth'.

I see the corporates at the top milking the laborers at the bottom, greatly undervaluing them, in the name of 'profit'. Corporatism is not the "Free Market" as touted by those seduced by the corporate elite. A "Free Market" would be based on a concept where there is 'balance' (as described by Pizza) between the different factions.

Crazed Rabbit

02-16-2011, 04:09

At Wal-Mart, the 10 dollars an hour thing is an average which (iirc) includes people like pharmacists and forklift drivers and optometrists, who would normally get paid much more than they are, but have accepted a pay cut to work at Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart competes with and then absorbs other businesses.

Are you sure those professions get paid less? How would WalMart hire pharmacists in the first place if they only paid less than everyone else employing pharmacists?

Free market economics doesn't always create fair trades. Sometimes people lose their shirts, and have to trade it in for a Wal-Mart uniform.

It does. The consumer and WalMart both come out ahead in their trade. The people who lose their shirts are the ones who lost the business of the consumer.

Wal-Mart and companies like Wal-Mart act in their best interests as a single, powerful entity; their best interest is a higher stock price and better dividends for their shareholders and bonuses for their managers. They will do whatever they can to make that happen. They will keep wages low, and prices low, until they have enough market share that their competitors will also keep wages low, and lower prices. Now, the entire marketplace has collapsed on the worker; there is nowhere to go that pays better, and companies all across all sectors follow suit.

I do not think that happens.

Near where I live, a Costco and WalMart are located close together. The Costco pays higher wages to employees, but they manage to offer competitive pricing - if not always offering the cheapest brand x crap - and that store is doing just fine. It's been that way for years. And the Costco employees aren't unionized.

They should be able to band together and get a better value for it, just as businesses and customers routinely do.

Actually, such business groups or conglomerates are called cartels or monopolies and destroyed by the government.

A truly fair market would have all three (businesses, consumers, workers) able to push back and get a fair deal. Laborers could demand a living wage, and negotiate a system which is both fair and profitable for the company, without ripping off the consumer. The consumer and the business push back, and the demand for employment keeps the demand for better wages from spiraling out of control. But instead we have a system where the business and the consumer both press harder and harder on the laborer, with the business slashing wages and the customers not tipping or shopping in non-union retail stores for the best prices, and the laborer has no recourse whatsoever, since they can't just quit, and they aren't allowed to collectively bargain, so they must continue working for lower and lower wages, as inflation makes them poorer, as they watch benefits like health insurance and dental coverage and even paid employee meals fly right out the window.

It's important to note that even you agree that a low paying job is better than none at all - and because of the way WalMart's (and other low paying stores) business is structured, those jobs might not even exist if wages were increased. That important point was from the study I linked to in the OP, written by one of Obama's main economic advisors.

~*~
With regard to public funding of campaigns - how could anyone trust that the two main parties wouldn't set it up so that public funds would only go to candidates from those two parties?
~*~

In terms of corporations having benefits given by the government - that's true, and it is not the free market. But it stems from government intervention in the economy being acceptable in the first place. Of course corporations, seeing the government get involved in the economy, would try to get it involved in such a way as to benefit the corporation. Many of the regulations trumpeted by safety obsessed ninnies or by politicians as a way to get a reign in large corporations serve to make it relatively harder for small companies to compete. This is due to the economies of scale a big company experiences when hiring lawyers, etc.

@Warman - try reading all (or, you know, even 5%) of my first post.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

02-16-2011, 06:10

~*~
With regard to public funding of campaigns - how could anyone trust that the two main parties wouldn't set it up so that public funds would only go to candidates from those two parties?
~*~

You can't but here is the problem with that argument:
1. The public funding system is nevertheless more accountable than the one we have now of not knowing who is giving what to which Senators and Congressman and not being able to do anything about that. For the most part the vast majority of funds being spent already go 99.999% to the two major parties since companies recognize that they are the only ones in power and will be the only ones in power. It's kind of why all the third parties actually talk about ending corporate welfare.
2. Restructuring campaign finances is not supposed to bring third parties to the table in the first place, it is supposed to simply remove the incentive of parties catering to companies instead of the companies.

So the argument is invalid because the goal for allowing third parties to join in and be competitive requires a change in the fundamental way American government is set up (you would need Proportional Representation, not First Past the Post) and not simply a change in where money comes from.

In terms of corporations having benefits given by the government - that's true, and it is not the free market. But it stems from government intervention in the economy being acceptable in the first place. Of course corporations, seeing the government get involved in the economy, would try to get it involved in such a way as to benefit the corporation. Many of the regulations trumpeted by safety obsessed ninnies or by politicians as a way to get a reign in large corporations serve to make it relatively harder for small companies to compete. This is due to the economies of scale a big company experiences when hiring lawyers, etc.
CR

So you are essentially agreeing that the main libertarian argument of "just get the government out of it and there won't be anymore corruption" is an unrealistic argument?

Meneldil

02-16-2011, 09:03

The people who will make me work for 4$ (+ some miserable tips) an hour aren't born. Take the arms comrades. Walmart is a disgrace.

America is a rotten society. It takes barely one hour of walking around there to find it out. Saddly, Europe is also on its way there.

Husar

02-16-2011, 09:11

How would WalMart hire pharmacists in the first place if they only paid less than everyone else employing pharmacists?

If there are more pharmacists than there are jobs for them that's pretty simple, they just take the ones that are left over and desperate to get a job because they don't want to become homeless and live under a bridge. Now of course that's how a market regulates itself, there is too much supply, so the producers of that supply should reduce their output, as in universities should not allow any more pharmacy students and the ones studying now should be thrown out onto the unskilled labour market. The unskilled labour market however also has about 4000 people applying for one single job so the price for an hour of labour goes way down, so the supply should be reduced, in typical european agricultural fashion this can be done by destroying a lot of the produce, meaning all the jobless people should be shot to reduce the supply, once the employers are desperately looking for unskilled labour, the price for an hour of work will naturally go up.

The funny thing about that is that now they complain they can't raise the wages as that would cripple them, yet when they are desperately looking for someone to come and work it is hardly a problem to offer them a higher wage and benefits.
Another problem is apparently that to regulate the market you have to kill people, which a lot of humans will probably see as different from just reducing the production output. If the US had a safety net of some sort that would allow people to decline a job because the wage is too low that might help but of course many will fear that such a system would be exploited by the lazies, apart from that people might still take low wage jobs for the sole reason that they can then claim to have work, may sound silly, but does happen.

Raising the demand is another option but it's not easy because people don't buy a lot, say the companies, well, one wonders why they don't buy a lot when they get less than the federal minimum wage...
Then there are the taxes, way too high, but an aircraft carrier doesn't finance itself and we wouldn't want the chinaman to come and destroy us, would we?
One good question may be though, why the US has too high taxes and still less social security than most european countries? Where does all the money go except aircraft carriers?
And why is the german industry saying that it is doing fine, yet we still have a lot of unemployed people here, too? Surely the industry doing fine doesn't automatically create enough jobs for everyone then?

The solution isn't easy and I can't claim to have one.

Apparently though, there is a bit of truth to all of it, the impression i get is that the huge corporations are doing fine and could easily cut into their profits a bit to give people higher wages, but then they'd lose their capital by ways of the shares going down. On the other hand you have the smaller businesses, family level and slightly above, who struggle to keep pace with the bigger players and probably really can't afford to pay a whole lot.
Now the stock market has helped a lot in speeding up progress and economic growth but it has also made the companies more loyal to their owners, which contrary to the original idea are not the common people but rich investors. The consequence being that companies strive to keep their shareholders happy while the way to deal with customers and employees is to exploit and deceive them to give up their rights and money, which happens in a lot of ways. Most likely they reason is that rich shareholders tend to be educated and clever while the common customers think the "bonus stuff" that they give their information up for is actually a nicety of the company while in reality it's not only included in the price the customers pay but also sold for additional profit.
So it's harder to deceive the public than to deceive the very critical shareholders, it's also easier to count the value of your shares than to know all the factors that make the market price of a product.
Information asymmetry leads to all sorts of problems as we all know.
Now forcing companies to make all that info public is wrong as well, perhaps a better education about business and financial things at high school level would even the playing field a bit more?

My two(or three, four,...?) thoughts.

Askthepizzaguy

02-16-2011, 13:45

To Crazed Rabbit:

Are you sure those professions get paid less? How would WalMart hire pharmacists in the first place if they only paid less than everyone else employing pharmacists?

That requires a longer, complicated answer than this, preferably with facts and links, which you deserve if I am going to respond to you. I will admit, however, my internet fact-finding skills are suck, and I'm going to bed after I post this. Perhaps someone else can help.

The preview is, companies which are basically just pharmacies are in direct competition with Wal-Mart's pharmacy. But, because of the promise of lower prices and the convenience of where it is located, and the fact that Wal-Mart doesn't need to derive 100% of its profits from its pharmacy, it can throw its weight around and claim a bunch of market share from the stand-alone pharmacies.

In order to compete, the stand-alone pharmacy needs to lower it's prices to compete, and offer less and less in wage increases.

When the mom and pop pharmacies are run out of business, there's nowhere for the pharmacists to gain employment except at a chain pharmacy, or Wal-Mart. The competition between those has deflated the wages for pharmacists at Wal-Mart, and pharmacists at Walgreens.

How Wal-mart gets employees if it pays less than what a pharmacist is worth, is the same way Mizza Mut hires employees at below minimum wage when it used to pay more than minimum wage: Demand.

When Wal-Mart and Walgreens and very few others are the only game in town, and the objective is low, low, low prices, and the business and the consumer has more leverage, then the worker has a demand for employment but little in the way of pressuring the company to pay better.

In the generic sense, one does not get a pay raise going from selling propane at a propane company to selling propane in the propane aisle at Wal-Mart. It's generally going to be a pay decrease. But if that's the only place you can work, because the local employers can't compete with Wal-Mart, that's where you go to work.

It does. The consumer and WalMart both come out ahead in their trade. The people who lose their shirts are the ones who lost the business of the consumer.

Or the worker who has no leverage, and no way of coming out ahead in the trade.

I do not think that happens.

Near where I live, a Costco and WalMart are located close together. The Costco pays higher wages to employees, but they manage to offer competitive pricing - if not always offering the cheapest brand x crap - and that store is doing just fine. It's been that way for years. And the Costco employees aren't unionized.

Not many employees are unionized. Unions are at a pretty low point right now.

Actually, such business groups or conglomerates are called cartels or monopolies and destroyed by the government.

Destroyed is a strong word. Sometimes they break up big companies, sure. But then, like the phone company, it just merges back together, or joins up with cable companies and internet service providers and creates a big company that way, which merges with a media conglomerate.

The government occasionally breaks up the most egregious offenders, but I think we can agree the government doesn't always do a phenomenal job, and that the effects of breaking up some of these groups are often temporary and ineffective.

It's important to note that even you agree that a low paying job is better than none at all - and because of the way WalMart's (and other low paying stores) business is structured, those jobs might not even exist if wages were increased. That important point was from the study I linked to in the OP, written by one of Obama's main economic advisors.

I'm aware. Consumers have seen prices inflate everywhere, and are highly sensitive to further inflation. So rather than charge a little bit more per transaction to pay the employees a little bit more per hour, companies will cut jobs.

That's why, in spite of all I've stated here, I don't think right now is the time to be aggressively pursuing union tactics. I just object to the fact that these companies take such a strong stand against unions that you'll get fired for even mentioning your positions on it, and I don't like how Mizza Mut in particular has slashed pay while increasing prices on the consumer.

If the solution to all of this was obvious, we probably wouldn't have intelligent, deep debates about it. I still advocate for strengthening the worker's position, so after the economy recovers, the worker can ask for a decent wage again, instead of getting even poorer and poorer due to inflation.

Mizza Mut once handed out a .07 cent increase in hourly wages one year. That was the "good" raise. The bad raise was .02 cents.

I know inflation was more than that, so it was effectively a pay cut. But that's before I saw what a real pay cut was....

I realize that I should be thankful for the meager earnings I make, considering some go without. And there is a valid point in saying that making changes which could cost jobs will create more problems. But that's for now.

When the economy can afford an adjustment to the wages at the bottom, it is overdue, and desperately needed, and the worker should be able to demand it, bargaining collectively if necessary, because that's the only way it's going to happen.

I will also agree there are worse companies than Wal-Mart. Because it's so big, it is subject to enough scrutiny that they can't afford to be the worst offender. But they still get away with a lot, and it isn't all peaches and creme. They're a company I consider more ruthless than most, based on their track record and having worked there, and seen firsthand how people are treated: like cattle.

To Andres:

I'm flabbergasted, really.

The idea that a company would fire you if you try to unionise to ask to get paid a bit more than a fricking 4 dollar an hour. And you have politicians defending such companies?

In the United States, we have politicians whose careers are owed to the big businesses which fund their campaigns, and the two political monopolies in our capital who basically select our candidates for us, and suppress anyone who doesn't conform to the party's wishes, and if you can't get several business endorsements, you will never get enough advertisement to compete with a major candidate.

Politicians rarely address the labor class when trying to get votes. They talk about the "shrinking middle class" and talk about tax cuts for the middle class, etc, because those are people who will donate, and likely vote, and who could use a tax cut. The labor class doesn't have much money, often does not vote (nobody represents us anyway) and tax cuts are meaningless to us because most of our money gets spent on basic services and we don't pay much in income tax. We also don't have the time or the money to spend on campaigning. That sort of thing is meant for people who have several days off from work (I worked 11 days in a row last week, had one day off, and worked another 7 days in a row this week, and I still don't have any money, because I owe more than I have, so it's already spent.)

With no money, no ability to campaign, and no one representing us vote-wise, and with candidates hand-picked from the entrenched, wealthy, powerful parties who are both married to big business, exactly why would we have much enthusiasm for voting, and why would politicians turn away from their big-money contributors and important middle-class voters to pander to people who can't volunteer, can't donate, and make demands for promises the upper and middle class voters won't like?

It's a simple choice. Take the wealthy and powerful voters, and give no reason for the labor class to even vote. And if they didn't like you, they could only affect a close election anyway since they can't campaign or advertise against you.

Trust me, I abhor our campaign process.

What morons vote for such inhuman beings?

The morons who have a vested interest in keeping businesses profitable, powerful, and in control of the labor market. The morons who could use a middle-class tax break, and are interested in ordering pizza every week at the lowest price possible.

Everyone votes for themselves. People are selfish; if the politicians are addressing the needs of the rich and the middle class, who cares about the poor? Not the upper class. Not the middle class. Not the businesses. Not the consumers. Not the politicians. So who?

In who's interest exactly is it that it is perfectly legal that people get paid 4 $ an hour? Why do you guys take that kind of crap?

I was unemployed for two years, and went over 2,000 dollars in debt. Before I got this job, I was down to just enough money for rent that month, and hadn't gotten groceries in a long time. I got insurance, and got my license back...

(they suspend it if you suspend your insurance.... between insurance for a car I wasn't driving anywhere except to the rare interview, as most employers expect online applications ONLY, and rent for the roof over my head, I chose roof).

And spent the last bit of money I had on making sure my car was street-worthy and legal to drive for this job, before I was even confirmed to have gotten the job.

I told pevergreen I was "risking it all" on this job, because after years of looking, and only a month's rent left to spare anyway, and no other prospects, that meant if I didn't get this job, the extra month of rent wasn't going to do me any good anyway. It was either bet the entire farm on getting the job, or don't bother going for a second interview.

When you need a job that badly that you're willing to spend your last couple hundred dollars on a *chance* that you'll get hired, that means you can't afford to be picky, and you can't afford to rock the boat. There's no way I have any choice but to take that kind of crap.

Oh yes, there are probably thousands of people waiting to get that crappy 4 $ an hour job, because it's better than nothing.

After just under two months of employment at my store, I am now one of the most senior drivers they have. There are literally a dozen people newer than me.

Why is that? Because the people who were not in dire straits looked and looked for a job, and after putting up with this nonsense for a while, and after getting robbed, and after seeing their wages cut, they decided they didn't want to risk bodily harm and their vehicles driving through a crime-infested neighborhood to deliver hot pizzas to ungrateful, non-tipping customers for 4 dollars an hour.

They had the means and the opportunity to get away from this, and they voted with their feet, and left Mizza Mut.

Meh. You guys should go on strike and the unemployed should simply refuse such jobs.

Can't.

I'm being serious when I said I spent the last of my money gambling I'd get this job. That was borrowed money, too, by the way, which I am now working towards repaying.

When you have a choice, after exhausting all the money you saved up for college, and thensome, of either accepting a job at half your former pay, or literally having no roof over your head, no money for gasoline, no legal way of driving your car, no reason to because you have no place to go....

Honestly, you lack the ability to fight the system. There is no "refuse such jobs". There is no strike. There is no one for all and all for one. If there were a union, I'd have been the scab that worked while the workers who were unionized went on strike.

There is no idealism. There is no fight. There is no choice, there is only bread. No one is going to care that they can't get pizza unless they go to the store and pick it up. No one would care, except Mizza Mut, as that affects their profits. But they are a big, massive, well-fed dog. They can afford a contest to see who starves first. Again, I can't form a union, and I won't, because I can't risk my job. And with the current economic conditions, Mizza Mut just hires the unemployed and feels no ill effects for the strike.

It's supply and demand. If I were a homeowner dead-set on selling a house for what I paid for it, and not half what I paid for it, and I refused to budge on the price, and no one ever bought it, but I really needed to sell my house, then I have not accomplished what I set out to do, but shot myself in the foot.

It doesn't matter if the market says the price is half of what it's worth to me. It doesn't matter if it's fair. It only matters what I can get for it. Just like the job; it doesn't matter if I am worth double what I'm getting paid. It doesn't matter if I deserve a tip. If I don't get what I want, I have no recourse. I just have to accept what I can get.

Here's some interesting info about Wal-Mart's anti-union stance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart#Labor_union_opposition

Admittedly, I have not done a whole lot of studying on this subject. I'm not a rabidly pro-union person, not until wages get cut in half arbitrarily. When I worked at Wal-Mart I was fine with getting paid 9 dollars an hour, after several raises. That was enough for me, and I lacked the time or the energy to bother thinking about demanding more. I was focusing on college anyway.

I do know, however, that Wal-Mart is pretty brutal when it comes to spreading their message about how bad unions are, and how ruthless they are in destroying any that attempt to spring up.

You need a few protest marches. This is a disgrace. How can you possibly encourage or even defend blatant exploitation of people in the name of "freedom" and "a free market" and at the same time still be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

When you live in a nice house, drive a nice car, and don't have to worry about your life being ruined if that transmission blows, then you need not concern yourself with the fairness of capitalism. You just enjoy it's rewards.

4 $ an hour and the illusion that you'll get tips? And you have to use your own car for delivering pizza's? They can't give you a bike from the company?

:inquisitive:

It's less profitable for the company to risk its own assets on the road. It's really dangerous out there. Cars can be damaged, stolen, and they break down and require maintenance.

Why would a company with 100% of the leverage risk it's own assets when it can risk mine? Heck, if my car gets stolen, and it did, then the employee pays the 1,000 dollar deductible for the damage/towing/storage/administrative costs when it was recovered. That's even less risk to Mizza Mut.

What sane company with shareholders to think about would have company vehicles? Lower overhead costs means we can keep prices lower longer than our competitors, and if an employee suffers a vehicle-related loss, we can just replace him with another unemployed bum. We don't care about the employee. We care about the bottom line, as every company should.

Our unions here in Europe are sometimes nothing more than a bunch of spoiled brats

They can get that way. And then, when the company does poorly and customers shop elsewhere, they have to make concessions on pensions and wages. The market pushes back. A fair market does a pretty good job of adjusting itself like that.

but clearly, in the US, unions are urgently needed and you guys need to go on strike and protest asap. Ignore the shareholders and employers' :daisy: that you'll make things worse and that you're communists. Why would anyone accept this?

As long as there are millions of unemployed, waiting for work.... there will be no improvement. Unions wouldn't even help.

Big companies realize this, and even though most have recovered from the depression, are making profits, and could afford to hire more people, most of them are not doing so. They appreciate the fact that they have so much leverage, that employees are less demanding, that they're making profits in a down economy, that their jobs are secure, and that they can put more pressure on an employee and get more for their money, while being able to replace anyone at anytime.

How realistic is the poverty line of $10,830? That's about 668 € a month. You can't live from that here in Belgium, even if you're single.

I can do it, because I am absolutely ruthless in my budgeting.

$300 for rent.
$100 for insurance.
$150 for food. (5 dollars a day)
$20 for tracfone.
Gasoline covered by Mizza Mut because of the .80 per delivery.
The rest goes to repay the kind people who helped me get this far.

I can almost get by on my hourly alone, because I work so much overtime and spend so very little of my own money.

However, I have a highly unrealistic budget, that most people cannot copy. Most people have car loans, credit card loans, cable TV, pay for their internet access (I use roomate's) and have an entertainment budget greater than zero. I spend all my free time on here, and enjoying free entertainment on the internet. I haven't bought or rented a movie in ages. The last computer game I bought was.... Civilization IV? Or something?

I also have such low rent because my bedroom is basically a large closet. There's enough room for the bed with a laptop at the end of it, and a pile of my clothes. Beggars can't be choosers.

You couldn't come close to this in an urban center, where a lot of people live, because rent is much, much higher.

Your entire diatrabe is grating on the senses.

I'd imagine. It's not necessarily meant to be flowers and sunshine. :book:

You can scroll past it with very little effort.

gaelic cowboy

02-16-2011, 14:26

And why is the german industry saying that it is doing fine, yet we still have a lot of unemployed people here, too? Surely the industry doing fine doesn't automatically create enough jobs for everyone then?

Apparently though, there is a bit of truth to all of it, the impression i get is that the huge corporations are doing fine and could easily cut into their profits a bit to give people higher wages, but then they'd lose their capital by ways of the shares going down. On the other hand you have the smaller businesses, family level and slightly above, who struggle to keep pace with the bigger players and probably really can't afford to pay a whole lot.

There is some evidence to suggest that we will have higher unemployment as a rule due to the rise of Asia and the decrease in many service jobs which sucked up workers. I believe people are talking about somewhere between 6 and 10 percent as being a normal rate of unemployment in advanced economies, and hey presto the rate in the EU was 9.6% for 2009.

The suspision that companies don't invest in workers is well founded mainly because shareholders demanded "value" and this meant it was often a good idea to hold off on capital investment in both machinery and workers. Jack Welch himself has recently become convinced his staements on shareholder value were a misstake.

The problem as I see it is shareholders are the most mobile stakeholder in a company so they have no reason to worry about it's future profitability, a balance needs to be stuck between stakeholders so no one side pushes there agenda too far.

Strike For The South

02-16-2011, 17:30

I'd imagine. It's not necessarily meant to be flowers and sunshine. :book:

You can scroll past it with very little effort.

I could but you're being validated and we can't have that

Comfort is not meant to be handed out

You used the social saftey net and got a job that is how the system is supposed to work

If you are upset with your station, learn more skills or work with what you have in different ways.

Why in Gods name should someone pay you a liveable wage for something that requries no skill or even critical thinking ? Sersouisly I want to know. Instead of complaining about how we're all going to hell in a handbasket because the workers are being screwed. Maybe one should take a step back and realize your job quite simply does not merit a "liveable" wage

I'm also lol'ing hard at working 40 hours a week as "full time" I know that's the cut off but if you're telling me 40 hours is actaully putting any strain on anyone esp someone who has no childeren you're quite simply lying. I work 40 hours a week as a fulltime student and somehow I have managed to keep my sanity

Guys seriously, you sound like a bunch of old women.

And I know it makes everyone all warm and fuzzy inside to rail against this nameless faceless companies and complain that they are the reason small buisness cant compete but that's not true
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/running_small_business/archives/2008/06/does_wal-mart_really_hurt_small_business.html

There is some evidence to suggest that we will have higher unemployment as a rule due to the rise of Asia and the decrease in many service jobs which sucked up workers. I believe people are talking about somewhere between 6 and 10 percent as being a normal rate of unemployment in advanced economies, and hey presto the rate in the EU was 9.6% for 2009.

Typical quitter talk, does no one think outside the box anymore? There is always some doom and gloom scenario blah blah blah blah.

Money talks and bullshit walks.

gaelic cowboy

02-16-2011, 18:11

Typical quitter talk, does no one think outside the box anymore? There is always some doom and gloom scenario blah blah blah blah.

Money talks and bullshit walks.

do you know what outsourcing or industrial automation is whats mechatronincs or additive manufacturing how do these affect workers.

this aint doom its reality you need a dose the same in America trust me were 3yrs in here and nothing happened, such a laugh "typical quitter" typical american jock talk more like what a laugh

Sasaki Kojiro

02-16-2011, 19:10

sfts, the jobs should have a livable wage because someone has to do them. The job may not merit it but the person does.

Louis VI the Fat

02-16-2011, 19:34

Money talks and bullshit walks.Lately you have been doing to the American language what WalMart is doing to living wages. :smash:

Ja'chyra

02-16-2011, 19:56

sfts, the jobs should have a livable wage because someone has to do them. The job may not merit it but the person does.

No they don't.

You get paid what the job is worth. Minimal wage is what ensures it is livable.

a completely inoffensive name

02-16-2011, 21:00

My god, are we really discussing whether or not people deserve to have enough money to live if their job is "worthless"?

Ja'chyra

02-16-2011, 21:10

Any job should pay what it's worth not what people think others should earn

a completely inoffensive name

02-16-2011, 21:13

Any job should pay what it's worth not what people think others should earn

That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not we should let the dogma of capitalistic "worth" override our responsibility as a society to make sure that no matter what the job is, that a person can function within society and not have to bank everything they have on a Pizza Hut offer like ATPG.

EDIT: Saying, I want all jobs to at least let people pay the bills on all the responsibilities society pushes on them (rent, utilities, insurance etc...) is not giving them "what other people think they should earn". It is giving them what they need to earn to survive.

HoreTore

02-16-2011, 21:41

Any job should pay what it's worth not what people think others should earn

.....And how, pray tell, would you define what a particular job is worth....? What a job is "worth" will depend on other peoples valuation of said work.

How will you value cleaning, for example? It doesn't sell anything directly, it's just an expense in the budget. Does that mean the cleaning job isn't worth anything? But then again, you won't be able to sell anything at all in a dirty store, so would that mean that the cleaning maid should be the highest paid worker?

I'd say it's a no on both questions, and that the value of the cleaning personells work will be somewhere between "nothing" and "everything", but precisely where would be up to some other guys judgement.

Husar

02-16-2011, 21:46

Why is restocking shelves in a Walmart worthless?

Have you ever seen a Walmart where they hired noone to restock the shelves?
Do you know how well Mizza Mut would do without their delivery drivers? They're a crucial part of the business model. It's like the customers forcing MizzaMut to sell their mizzas for a dollar a piece, I mean who cares about whether the company makes a profit or not? A mizza is worth a dollar and if they got a problem with that they can go build Porsches, right?

Askthepizzaguy

02-16-2011, 21:51

I could but you're being validated and we can't have that

*rimshot*

*canned laughter*

Comfort is not meant to be handed out

Who is talking about comfort?

Did I ever say I needed a big screen TV? I don't have a television. Did I ever say I needed a Lexus? I don't have a Lexus. Did I ever say I needed more than one pair of shoes? Did I say I needed to rent a movie every month, or afford cable?

No..... never said anything about comfort.

But if my car needs repairs, and it does, I need more income than what my bills are every month, so I can fix it and keep my job.

You know, a living wage. A wage where I can afford to live. Not the lap of luxury, the continuation of my existence. It's a real lot to have to ask for, too, I am sure. How presumptuous of me!

You used the social saftey net and got a job that is how the system is supposed to work

Cool! But that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about wages and union-busting and why big companies are despised by some people, for either legitimate and/or illegitimate reasons.

Any mention I make of such a thing is merely to provide context to something else I said, and isn't really the subject of the discussion. To focus on that is more of a red herring.

If you are upset with your station, learn more skills or work with what you have in different ways.

Thanks, dad.

Maybe you missed the part where, the last time I had a Pizza Hut job, and an Applebee's job, I had saved up 15,000 dollars of my own money to go to college. I was going to be a teacher. The part where, I lost my job and the economy tanked, and very few people out there could find jobs. Many are still looking, in fact. The part where, grants/loans do not replace your income; you need money to pay for rent and food, which requires a job.

These are details, but the point is, "Learn more skills" is something I've already tried to do, and it actually ended up making my situation worse. I make about half what I used to make at the same job, I can't afford to save for college again, because wages got slashed.

While it is true that I could self-teach and get into a new field, these things take time, and even if I can get out of this kind of work, someone else is going to end up doing it. I know some people at my job who try to support their wife and kids on this kind of work, and sorry to say, not everyone can just go get a quick degree or teach themselves how to repair computers on the side, or get a second job. Sometimes parenting is the second job.

If at the end of the day, hollow, short-sighted, and ultimately callous "advice" is the only response one can give to those who don't have options to get out of these situations, mayhaps one should keep such advice to themselves.

"Work with what you have in different ways"

Which of my bills do you propose I not pay? How do you suggest I alter my income? Perhaps I should get a second job, after all, I don't have a family to support. Which begs the question, if a single guy living on such meager expenses needs to get a second job, how does the parent with kids make ends meet?

Surely we couldn't pay these people more. It must be their fault they make half what they used to. The system works just fine.

Why in Gods name should someone pay you a liveable wage for something that requries no skill or even critical thinking ? Sersouisly I want to know. Instead of complaining about how we're all going to hell in a handbasket because the workers are being screwed. Maybe one should take a step back and realize your job quite simply does not merit a "liveable" wage

Sure, because paying someone else to buy your food, take your order, make your food, and drive a food taxi to your house, isn't worth paying those people enough to cover their bills. Certainly not when they also have to risk being robbed, or having their personal property damaged in order to deliver you that food.

Maybe one should take a step back and realize that any job that requires someone to have a clean driving record, insurance to cover themselves and others, constant repairs paid for by the employee, requires someone to incur much higher risks than most other professions, is not the same as a 5 dollar an hour babysitting job that someone does to earn extra cash while they're in school. It's actually a real job, which requires real, responsible adults, who need a real, minimum wage to cover their expenses.

Is it vital for society to have these people on the road? No, but it's also not vital for society to have actors and cable repairmen, yet they get paid plenty.

If you're going to hire a taxi for your dinner, expect to pay for one, and also, understand that tipping is both customary and expected, to the point where instead of the minimum wage, companies can legally pay below that wage. Not because the man has less expenses than the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's, in fact, he has quite a bit more. The reason being, society has developed a quirk where people wish to pay what they want to pay for certain kinds of customer service, rewarding promptness, accuracy, and courtesy with real dollars.

If this arrangement isn't vital enough to pay properly, or you disagree with the idea that a working man deserves a certain minimum wage, then don't hire a taxi for your dinner. It's really that simple. There are cheaper ways of getting your dinner than hiring a company to make it for you and ship it to your door while it's still hot, and if you're not willing to pay the middlemen enough to live, then maybe you should go pick up the food yourself.

Interestingly, the system worked just fine when drivers made minimum wage. People ordered pizza, the company made profits, and drivers made enough to live. Why should people complain when their wages get cut in half, even if their job isn't "surgeon" or "police officer"?

I runno, raggy. Let's hop in the mystery machine.

I'm also lol'ing hard at working 40 hours a week as "full time" I know that's the cut off but if you're telling me 40 hours is actaully putting any strain on anyone esp someone who has no childeren you're quite simply lying. I work 40 hours a week as a fulltime student and somehow I have managed to keep my sanity

Great, so on the one hand, if someone can't make enough at 40 hours a week, it's on them to "get skillz" and an education so they no longer have to work those bottom of the barrel jobs, duly noted.

But wait! We're also saying that this person should have to work 80 hours a week to pay his bills, because his function in society isn't vital. I see.

So, I'll get two jobs, and go to school when I'm sleeping.

You've got it all figured out! I'm on your side, why would anyone complain? They have it too good at 4 bucks an hour. If anything, they deserve a pay cut.

Guys seriously, you sound like a bunch of old women.

And you're blowing hard.

Beskar

02-16-2011, 21:59

.....And how, pray tell, would you define what a particular job is worth....? What a job is "worth" will depend on other peoples valuation of said work.

How will you value cleaning, for example? It doesn't sell anything directly, it's just an expense in the budget. Does that mean the cleaning job isn't worth anything? But then again, you won't be able to sell anything at all in a dirty store, so would that mean that the cleaning maid should be the highest paid worker?

I'd say it's a no on both questions, and that the value of the cleaning personells work will be somewhere between "nothing" and "everything", but precisely where would be up to some other guys judgement.

'Worth' is based on the labour required to produce the product and the utility of the product.

'Value' is added from this base price in accordance to supply and demand, where larger demand inflates the 'value', and excess supply devalues the utility of the product, till it becomes pointless to invest in the labour to produce it.

I believe in a minimum wage based on labour consumed, with any other wage benefits being the result of the utility and demand. This produces the fairest results.

Strike For The South

02-16-2011, 22:33

sfts, the jobs should have a livable wage because someone has to do them. The job may not merit it but the person does.

2 pages later and someone finally gets it

A person has intrinsic monatery worth, and the state is obligated to provide that worth? Really?

As for the rest of the thread mostly for the lulz :daisy:

Lately you have been doing to the American language what WalMart is doing to living wages.

I cater to my fans, all 1 of them

Crazed Rabbit

02-17-2011, 03:35

When the mom and pop pharmacies are run out of business, there's nowhere for the pharmacists to gain employment except at a chain pharmacy, or Wal-Mart. The competition between those has deflated the wages for pharmacists at Wal-Mart, and pharmacists at Walgreens.

But what makes the mom and pop pharmacies good to have around in the first place; why is it better they exist and not WalMart? WalMart has greater efficiency and lower prices to the consumer.

How Wal-mart gets employees if it pays less than what a pharmacist is worth, is the same way Mizza Mut hires employees at below minimum wage when it used to pay more than minimum wage: Demand.

If WalMart can hire a pharmacist by paying less than they are worth, is the pharmacist really worth that much? How, if not by offers of employment, would you determine what a pharmacist is worth in terms of wages?

Or the worker who has no leverage, and no way of coming out ahead in the trade.

Destroyed is a strong word. Sometimes they break up big companies, sure. But then, like the phone company, it just merges back together, or joins up with cable companies and internet service providers and creates a big company that way, which merges with a media conglomerate.

The government occasionally breaks up the most egregious offenders, but I think we can agree the government doesn't always do a phenomenal job, and that the effects of breaking up some of these groups are often temporary and ineffective.

It's true the government doesn't break up monopolies perfectly. My point is that they do target them and try to break them up for doing what unions do.

I'm aware. Consumers have seen prices inflate everywhere, and are highly sensitive to further inflation. So rather than charge a little bit more per transaction to pay the employees a little bit more per hour, companies will cut jobs.

That's why, in spite of all I've stated here, I don't think right now is the time to be aggressively pursuing union tactics. I just object to the fact that these companies take such a strong stand against unions that you'll get fired for even mentioning your positions on it, and I don't like how Mizza Mut in particular has slashed pay while increasing prices on the consumer.

I would rather employees become more educated about trading their labor, and pushing for higher wages when unemployment is low.

If the solution to all of this was obvious, we probably wouldn't have intelligent, deep debates about it. I still advocate for strengthening the worker's position, so after the economy recovers, the worker can ask for a decent wage again, instead of getting even poorer and poorer due to inflation.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Why is restocking shelves in a Walmart worthless?

It's not. But it's not worth a family supporting wage, because a lot of people are willing to do it for less.

sfts, the jobs should have a livable wage because someone has to do them. The job may not merit it but the person does.

Why? Why does a person, merely by their existence, merit getting a certain value for their time regardless of what value they are generating?

I do support a minimum wage (similar to what the US has now), and it doesn't seem right what 'mizza mut' is doing - not paying drivers minimum wage and having them get tips. That should be limited to waiters.

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

02-17-2011, 03:40

Why? Why does a person, merely by their existence, merit getting a certain value for their time regardless of what value they are generating?

A: because they are people, and haven't done anything to remove us of our obligation toward our fellow man. Remember we are just talking about a livable wage. Which walmart may very well pay already.
B: aren't you opening a whole kettle of fish with "value they are generating"? Because people aren't paid what they generate.

I do support a minimum wage (similar to what the US has now), and it doesn't seem right what 'mizza mut' is doing - not paying drivers minimum wage. That should be limited to waiters.

CR

Well if you support a minimum wage :inquisitive:

Louis VI the Fat

02-17-2011, 04:05

it's not worth a family supporting wage, because a lot of people are willing to do it for less.Desperate people will accept any wage.

However, do consider this: a person has to live. If he doesn't live, he doesn't exist. Therefore, either we accept people die*, or his work must pay suffciently to live. Including to procreate himself. If a job pays less than hat is needed for a person to sustain himself, that is to live and procreate, yet still performs a full time job, then the employer is getting subsidised by others: government handouts, or savings by the employee (=previous employers), or the employee's friends and relatives (=other employers).

Hence, to pay less than a living wage means somebody is paying a hidden subsidy to the employer. To prevent this, employers must be obliged to pay a living wage.

*Or do not make enough to raise a family, and thus are prevented from procreating. Sheer fascism, nevertheless, one can not simply brush aside as unnatural the thought that the weak should simply perish.

Crazed Rabbit

02-17-2011, 07:38

A: because they are people, and haven't done anything to remove us of our obligation toward our fellow man. Remember we are just talking about a livable wage. Which walmart may very well pay already.
B: aren't you opening a whole kettle of fish with "value they are generating"? Because people aren't paid what they generate.

I think the minimum wage is 'livable'.

Desperate people will accept any wage.

And still be better off than if they hadn't.

However, do consider this: a person has to live. If he doesn't live, he doesn't exist. Therefore, either we accept people die*, or his work must pay suffciently to live. Including to procreate himself.

Nonsense. If a person wants to procreate, they ought to get themselves a higher paying job.

If a job pays less than hat is needed for a person to sustain himself, that is to live and procreate, yet still performs a full time job, then the employer is getting subsidised by others: government handouts, or savings by the employee (=previous employers), or the employee's friends and relatives (=other employers).

Hence, to pay less than a living wage means somebody is paying a hidden subsidy to the employer. To prevent this, employers must be obliged to pay a living wage.

Any proof of that? :inquisitive:

I thought not. Elegant rhetoric alone does not an argument make. ~;p

CR

Fisherking

02-17-2011, 08:39

CR,

I don’t buy into the notion that employers have no responsibility to their employees other than just to pay them.

The current trend is to work employees about 38 hours a week to save having to pay benefits.

If employees are expected to do a good job for their boss, the boss should also have the interest of his workers in mind.

A corporate bean counters view of people as numbers just rather disgusts me. Once taking care of your workers was a reasonability to remain in business. I won’t go into when or why it ended but lets just say it was corrupt.

Remember, even Henry Ford wanted to pay his workers well enough to afford what they made. It is as good for the company as it is for the economy and everyone benefits.

Right now we seem to be back in an age of Robber Barons, who paid so little workers starved so they just hired new ones.

Now it just isn’t Wal-mart, it is more of a trend.

a completely inoffensive name

02-17-2011, 13:18

Ja'chyra

02-17-2011, 18:56

Companies, no matter what one, pay people based on how much that job is worth to them. Hence, in my line of work admin types who book transport/stationary etc get £20kish and I get £35kish as a project manager who purchases, and is responsible for, life saving equipment. Just an example but I doubt that anyone could argue that this is fair?

If a company needs 10 shelf stackers/ form fillers/ whatever and 100 poeple are prepared to do this for minimum wage then why shouldn't the company, a privately or shareholder run organisation do so. If this isn't enough to raise a family, don't. Can't pay the bills, don't have as many. WAnt more money, get another job/education/skills, hell move if necessary. Minimum wage should ensure that a person cannot exist as a result of working full time and not earning enough for food and shelter. Now I understand that there will be times when people get into a rut and need a hand out, I was at one time, there should be government run, or company if they so choose, schemes to help with this. But nothing is free and if someone pissed their childhood away and got no life skills then they should bear the cost of that in later life and if that means no family then tough shit my friend, you pay your money and you make your choices.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-17-2011, 20:32

But nothing is free and if someone pissed their childhood away and got no life skills then they should bear the cost of that in later life and if that means no family then tough shit my friend, you pay your money and you make your choices.

Children: in charge of their lives starting age 2

Ja'chyra

02-17-2011, 21:53

Children: in charge of their lives starting age 2

No, their parents are, as I said.

a completely inoffensive name

02-17-2011, 22:59

No, their parents are, as I said.

But you are essentially condemning the children of slackers who might be intelligent and hard working people. People have sex, people have children. Saying, oh well you didn't work hard enough, tough luck for your baby is really a form of class warfare some would say.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-17-2011, 23:34

No, their parents are, as I said.

"If someone ******* away their childhood and got no life skills then they should bear the cost of that later in life"

HoreTore

02-17-2011, 23:42

"If someone ******* away their childhood and got no life skills then they should bear the cost of that later in life"

Yes.

When someone is unable to pay attention at school because their daddy rapes them anally every thursday at 4pm, they can blame themselves when they reach 20 and have no social network or skills. They should be forced to work around the clock without ever getting close to making the money they need to sustain themselves, and everyone who pities them is a bleeding heart liberal completely out of touch with society.

Louis VI the Fat

02-18-2011, 02:49

Any proof of that? :inquisitive:

CRWhat proof of what do you require?

It is a logical principle, which I think is self-evident. If a person's wages are insufficient to live off, yet somehow he lives, then by necessity he must have some other means of sustenance. :huh:

This other means of sustenance must be understood as a hidden subsidy to the employer.

What's more, any wage that is insufficient to sustain an adult plus one child (his reproduction) is unsustainable, and hence means the employer enjoys a hidden subsidy. Therefore, with several exceptions, wages ought to be sufficent to sustain an adult and one child lest the employer enjoy a subsidy and undermine the market.

So, yes, government imposed living wages are an absolute requirement for a free market. :cheerleader:

Crazed Rabbit

02-18-2011, 03:43

What proof of what do you require?

Something besides mere rhetoric.

It is a logical principle, which I think is self-evident. If a person's wages are insufficient to live off, yet somehow he lives, then by necessity he must have some other means of sustenance. :huh:

You have a silly definition of living. People live without other sustenance because they get along without paying for everything you include in your definition.

What's more, any wage that is insufficient to sustain an adult plus one child (his reproduction) is unsustainable, and hence means the employer enjoys a hidden subsidy. Therefore, with several exceptions, wages ought to be sufficent to sustain an adult and one child lest the employer enjoy a subsidy and undermine the market.

No - it means that instead of being in a minimum wage job for the rest of their lives, people work to get better jobs. It's not unsustainable because it doesn't continue forever.

Hence no subsidy.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

02-18-2011, 03:55

No - it means that instead of being in a minimum wage job for the rest of their lives, people work to get better jobs. It's not unsustainable because it doesn't continue forever.

Hence no subsidy.

CR

How can someone move up if the pay they are receiving continues to burden them with increasing debt? If they can't pay for food, rent, insurance and utilities with their paycheck then their life will continue to actively regress instead of progress.

You can't go to school and gain better skills to gain that better job if you are stuck in Wal-Mart land where you have to choose every month which bill is going on your credit card in order to survive another 4 weeks. It creates a spiral of bad debt, low credit and cuts off their opportunity of getting a loan to afford additional schooling.

I don't understand the argument of "not enough money to survive = more gumption to gain that better job" Higher paying jobs don't care about how much gumption you have if you don't meet the prerequisites, and colleges take money not gumption as payment.

Crazed Rabbit

02-18-2011, 04:51

How can someone move up if the pay they are receiving continues to burden them with increasing debt? If they can't pay for food, rent, insurance and utilities with their paycheck then their life will continue to actively regress instead of progress.

We're not talking about people shopping at the company store, and I'm not talking about people getting paid less than minimum wage. Heck, WalMart provides cheap goods that help poor people get more for their money.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

02-18-2011, 05:28

We're not talking about people shopping at the company store, and I'm not talking about people getting paid less than minimum wage. Heck, WalMart provides cheap goods that help poor people get more for their money.
CR

The point is that the wage (the minimum wage because Wal-Mart won't pay any more than that) is not enough. You have already said you think the minimum wage is livable. But what ATPG and others have brought up is that it really isn't.

Crazed Rabbit

02-18-2011, 05:40

No, I believe ATPG's issue (or one of several) with 'mizza mut' is that they do not pay minimum wage.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

02-18-2011, 05:47

No, I believe ATPG's issue (or one of several) with 'mizza mut' is that they do not pay minimum wage.

CR

From my understanding, the company (for pizza guys or waiters or whatever) "calculates" the tips they "expect" you are receiving and dock that from your paycheck, which legally still allows them to say you are getting the minimum wage.

Fisherking

02-18-2011, 08:20

The reason that Wal-Mart and so many others hire illegal is simply because they are willing to work for less. This may keep cost down but it also depressed wages for everyone.

You can't blame the illegal for taking whatever job they can get but it causes a downward spiral in wages, particularly when unemployment is high.

The food service model is based on expected 20% tips and if unreported they are taxed on that amount...or at least they were.

Of course someone in a low paid job with short hours can move into a growth industry.

Today that would be as a Repo-agent or a process server. I hear those people are working lots of overtime and have benefit packages.

Ja'chyra

02-18-2011, 08:53

"If someone ******* away their childhood and got no life skills then they should bear the cost of that later in life"

I also said that people do get into a rut and need help out and this should be done by the government, hence pissed away life decides to turn it around and get an education later in life. But I guess you want us all to be responsible for every bum stiff and waster and let them toddle through life taking no responsibility for their actions.

Yes.

When someone is unable to pay attention at school because their daddy rapes them anally every thursday at 4pm, they can blame themselves when they reach 20 and have no social network or skills. They should be forced to work around the clock without ever getting close to making the money they need to sustain themselves, and everyone who pities them is a bleeding heart liberal completely out of touch with society.

Again, a totally different issue, but if it fits within your propaganda then knock yourself out.

Askthepizzaguy

02-18-2011, 11:45

But what makes the mom and pop pharmacies good to have around in the first place; why is it better they exist and not WalMart? WalMart has greater efficiency and lower prices to the consumer.

Oh, believe it or not, I find a lot of merit in this argument.

I do believe in the market enough to say that if consumers prefer lower prices and better efficiency, and those are their main concerns, then the dog who meets that criteria should get the most meat to chow down on.

If one of these mom and pop pharmacies could do it better, they would grow.... and BECOME Wal-Mart.

That said, consumers prefer lower prices and better efficiency. Workers prefer a wage that pays them enough to see a doctor. If consumers can decide not to shop at a business that meets their needs, then workers should be able to do the same.

You might say "okay, well, get an education and find a better job! There, problem solved. Or, shop around, and find another business which pays better."

That meets the analogy well enough, but it doesn't work that way in practice. Much like robber barons and their treatment of workers, the only thing that works against an unfair labor-management relationship is having the workers unite.

That's the only way they have enough power to stand against the constant stream of consumers wanting lower prices and management wanting higher profits. Both push against the worker's wage. The worker should be able to push back, as best they can.

If WalMart can hire a pharmacist by paying less than they are worth, is the pharmacist really worth that much? How, if not by offers of employment, would you determine what a pharmacist is worth in terms of wages?

I find this argument to be less valid.

Just because I could find someone from a third world country willing to clean my house for 50 cents an hour, that does not mean they are really worth that much.

Because market conditions and unethical employers can create a situation where the only jobs available pay less than I can realistically live off of, that DOES NOT mean that I am worth what they're willing to pay.

If I had some ability to negotiate, and press back against what they're willing to offer, by standing together with my fellow workers and saying no, if you want someone to clean your house, it's going to be the federal minimum wage at the very least, or you get nothing.

Then, they could say "I can clean my own house, thanks."

Or, they could agree to pay me what we both feel I am worth, instead of their lowball figure.

Just because they can lowball and I can't fight back, that does not mean I am actually worth 4 bucks an hour. It just means I can't negotiate equally because the playing field is not level.

It's true the government doesn't break up monopolies perfectly. My point is that they do target them and try to break them up for doing what unions do.

That's a fine argument, but what they do even when they aren't in a monopoly is what a union does.

If I want to work at Mizza Mut, Mizza Mut (the big corporation) decides how much it is willing to pay me. And it's basically the same at any of its tens of thousands of locations. So, it's a big freaking entity that collectively decides how much it wants to pay.

Now, if there were a big freaking entity, made up of workers, that said "No, Mizza Mut, we won't work for 4 dollars an hour. Give us minimum wage. It's bad enough you don't even give the employees who work full shifts a meal for free, when you throw away dozens of pizzas at the end of every night. You gotta give us minimum wage. Period."

And they could say "Nope, not worth it. We'd have to raise our prices, and customers don't like that".

And we could say "Same for your competitors, because we're a union. We won't work for Mapa Mohns or Momino's either, unless they pay minimum."

And they could say "Our sales will decrease. We'll have to let some of you go. We can't afford as many workers at that price."

And we can say "Well, that's bull:daisy: because you just raised prices, and you used to pay us that much before you raised prices.... twice."

And they can say "Yeah, you got me. We just don't wanna pay you that much."

And we can say "Too bad. Have fun delivering the pizzas yourself. I can work at NcDonalds for 8 bucks an hour. I don't need this :daisy:"

And they can say "Fine! DO IT :daisy:!!!"

And we can say "Okay! We will!"

And they can say "Fine!"

And we can say "FINE!"

And then, a week later, we end up making 6.50 an hour, still below minimum wage, but better than we were making. Still pissed that we don't get employee meals. But I'll be damned, it looks like we were worth more than they were offering. And it looks like we were willing to work for less than we were demanding.

Interesting how capitalism works if both sides have leverage and a large entity backing them. You know, a fair market.

I would rather employees become more educated about trading their labor, and pushing for higher wages when unemployment is low.

Yeah, I know. But you know what, I'm a damned good worker, and I'd be willing to risk being one of the people let go if it meant higher pay if I managed to keep my job. I think I am worth it.

That said, we do need to get out of this sinkhole depression. I want unemployment to lower soon. But the reason why it isn't lowering is because managers aren't hiring the unemployed based on silly notions like "if they don't have a job, they must not be a good worker" or "their skillz might have eroded".

I still know how to drive, and ring a doorbell. I am now one of their best workers, and they've even said so. I was unemployed for 2 years. I know that reasoning is horse manure.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I have reflexively given you political talking points and not considered your point of view enough times in the past. I'm learning. Trying anyway.