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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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]

Money talks and bullshit walks.

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

[Ja'chyra]

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]

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

[Ja'chyra]

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.....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]

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

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]

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]

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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]

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?

I thought not. Elegant rhetoric alone does not an argument make.

CR

[Fisherking]

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]

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.

What I just made bold is the rationale for why people would choose to support smaller mom and pop stores that are more likely owned and operated by the community. For many people, capitalism telling them to go with cheaper economies of scope (Wal-Mart) are put second to actual decent treatment by store owners at that extra cost to them individually as consumers.

[Ja'chyra]

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]

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]

Children: in charge of their lives starting age 2

No, their parents are, as I said.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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]

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]

"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]

Any proof of that?

CR

What 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.


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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.