Re: WalMart: Helping the Poor, Despised by (some) Urban Liberals
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.
Re: WalMart: Helping the Poor, Despised by (some) Urban Liberals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasaki Kojiro
"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.
Quote:
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.
Re: WalMart: Helping the Poor, Despised by (some) Urban Liberals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crazed Rabbit
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
