AverageAmericanGuy: JosephFinn: AverageAmericanGuy: base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour, with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.To put it another way, the raises are between 2.5% and 5%, in line with most other industries.Which I'm sure is a delight to the people at WalMart working poverty-level wages with no insurance coverage & forced and unpaid overtime. But hey, 5% of almost nothing!Beggars can't be choosers.
Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Not the point at all.
rikkitikkitavi: patently false
GreenSun: It's like taking the business hostage just because all of a sudden, you don't like what you signed up for.
Sergeant Grumbles: clowncar on fire: You divide your day into three 8 hour blocks- that may include weekends. you get a job during block a (dayshift) making it clear you will only be available during block a. Now get a second job, making it clear that you will only be available during blocks b or c. Never will there be a conflict in your schedule.And, if you'd read the rest of the comment, there's not always a guarantee that the your employer gives a flying fark about your schedule. Tell him all you like that you're no available during block a, but if that means you get scheduled for even fewer hours during block b, it really doesn't do you much good.
peeledpeas: We really don't need the ability to make a "living wage" at an extremely low skilled job. If Americans get any dumber, there won't be an America for much longer.
Anonymocoso: Japan and Australia are commie poofs who did not start illegal wars like real men do.Real men spend money on finding non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Not on that fairy minimum wage.
I sound fat: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with the executives earning 1% less if it means your lowest paid staff member earns a living wage?Well, what happens is they have to raise prices. The world has seen that this business model works spectacularly. If Wal Mart no longer USES this business model, there will be 1000 Walmart Wannabes ABLE to get the billions in capital to put the same business model into operation elsewhere.When companies compete on price, price is what matters. The new walmart clones will make money, Walmart doesent and shrinks, the no longer needed employees will either be out of work, or now at the new stores without any longevity or stability./besides life isnt that simple. if you cut CEO compensation 1 percent, that comes to 181,000 dollars per year, a GHASTLY amount for 1 percent. however split amongst 2.1 million employees, that comes to an increase of 9 cents a year for each employee. So if you cut it 99 percent, it comes to $8.53 extra per employee per year. How does that provide a living wage to anyone?
Sergeant Grumbles: rikkitikkitavi: patently falseSo I'll flag you in piss yellow with the moniker "Taxes are Theft."Agree? Disagree? I really don't have the time to word-wrangle with folks who don't understand the social contract and refuse to pay for the privilege of civilization.
rikkitikkitavi: Dinjiin: rikkitikkitavi: If I'm a Walton, I don't give two farks what you think about me. Serious.Nor would I expect them to. But they shouldn't be surprised when the war of the classes target them as public enemy #1. To the Progressives, they are the poster children for why inheritance taxes should have more teeth.I'm generally not in favor of taxing the same money twice, or thrice. It was taxed when it was earned. And any earnings on that invested income has been taxed. Simply changing hands, from one generation to the next shouldn't be taxable. At all. Period. If Bank of America taxed you a percentage just to move your money or hold onto it and not spend it, then you'd be biatching up a storm. What makes you think the government gets that right to tax money that's already been taxed?
Nintenfreak: When you buy something with money, it's taxed. When you are paid money, it's taxed. When the rich pay themselves, well that's sacred and we can't expect them to pay taxes on money that's already taxed, even though everyone else has to.
rikkitikkitavi: Nintenfreak: When you buy something with money, it's taxed. When you are paid money, it's taxed. When the rich pay themselves, well that's sacred and we can't expect them to pay taxes on money that's already taxed, even though everyone else has to.FALSE!I'm not taxed when I buy something. The seller of goods is taxed to do his business. It's the fee to do business. A purchaser is not taxed.If I give money away, it's not taxed. If I donate money to a philanthropy or a church, it's not taxed (in fact I get to deduct that from my taxable income), but if I give my own money, which I've already been taxed on, to my kids (which I already do in the form of housing, food, clothing, and other goods) then I get taxed on it.You just hate successful people that have something to give.
Your Zionist Leader: Yours is a dizzying intellect
rikkitikkitavi: I'm not taxed when I buy something.
rikkitikkitavi: If I donate money to a philanthropy or a church, it's not taxed
tbhouston: This thread got a little stale before but my points still stand.1. No one forces you to work at walmart, dont like your job get another one.2. These workers cant afford to lose a paycheck, most of their money goes to bills and the holiday season is even harder on these types3. Saying to why walked out on your job during one of the busiest times and got fired is a hard interview question to answer
tbhouston: This thread got a little stale before but my points still stand.
Hickory-smoked: smitty04: Ask the Hostess how much their union has done for them.Yes, ask them.
Sergeant Grumbles: rikkitikkitavi: If I donate money to a philanthropy or a church, it's not taxedThose are what we call exceptions. They are excepted because of the work they do. Your kids don't count as a charity.Generally, money is taxed when it comes into possession of a separate legal entity. While claimed as dependents, your children don't really count as such. Inheritances are a different matter. They need to be taxed on that income. It's no longer yours and neither you nor your money is being taxed again.
The My Little Pony Killer: peeledpeas: We really don't need the ability to make a "living wage" at an extremely low skilled job. If Americans get any dumber, there won't be an America for much longer.You provide the perfect example of a dumbed-down American with that bolded statement.Please, go fark yourself with a rusty pitchfork. You are everything that is wrong with this nation.
Tell me you're not so stupid that you can't even begin to comprehend my point. If the labor market becomes flush with easy to do, low skilled jobs that pay well enough for people to buy McMansions, where in the fark will the motivation come from for people to better educate themselves for the higher skilled jobs? If I can have a McMansion and a Chrysler LeBehemoth and all the goodies I want doing a job that a trained chimp could do, why would I want to subject myself to higher education? Bigger picture. Look at it. It's right there.
Lee Jackson Beauregard: [i9.photobucket.com image 220x284]
rikkitikkitavi: Fundamentally disagree. It is mine. And I'll give it to whom I deem fit. It needn't be taxed. In fact, some studies have shown that taxing it does more harm than good for the economy. But neither here nor there, we disagree.
Arumat: tbhouston: This thread got a little stale before but my points still stand.1. No one forces you to work at walmart, dont like your job get another one.2. These workers cant afford to lose a paycheck, most of their money goes to bills and the holiday season is even harder on these types3. Saying to why walked out on your job during one of the busiest times and got fired is a hard interview question to answer1. If there are no other jobs in the area that you can find, the imperative to feed yourself and/or your family amounts to forcing you to take this job, and Wal-Mart knows it.2. I can support them being willing to risk the only paycheck they have a shot at if it means a chance at a better future and getting some damn respect.3. This one, sadly, I agree with. All you can hope for is that the person doing the interview has also been in a similar situation.
daveinsurgent: Tell me you're not so stupid that you can't even begin to comprehend my point. If the labor market becomes flush with easy to do, low skilled jobs that pay well enough for people to buy McMansions, where in the fark will the motivation come from for people to better educate themselves for the higher skilled jobs? If I can have a McMansion and a Chrysler LeBehemoth and all the goodies I want doing a job that a trained chimp could do, why would I want to subject myself to higher education? Bigger picture. Look at it. It's right there.Do you really not see the difference between "living wage" and "buying an over-sized house and vehicle" and any number of other luxuries? Are you really that stupid?These types of jobs don't pay you enough to stay healthy and then retire and enjoy some very basic pleasantries in life after you've put in 40 years of work. There's a huge farking difference and you should take 30 minutes out of your life and really think that through and come to terms with how you can possibly justify a job in which every single one of us depends on to be done yet doesn't afford the people doing it the basics.I hope you can, because otherwise you're a horrible, unintelligent and selfish person with absolutely no grasp of reality. We're not demanding some communist paradise make-work situation where everyone who simply shows up gets a job and every single detail the same as someone who has a hard to learn skill or a hard to fill job.The situation is farked for a lot of people and I can't even begin to imagine what concessions would have to be made if I had to provide for a family on a double minimum wage type income.
JosephFinn: Which I'm sure is a delight to the people at WalMart working poverty-level wages with no insurance coverage & forced and unpaid overtime. But hey, 5% of almost nothing!
Sergeant Grumbles: The French Revolution disagrees with you. It's the ultimate outcome of zero inheritance and gift taxes, an entrenched, unempathetic aristocracy holding all the wealth thrown down by violent peasants with nothing to lose.
People_are_Idiots: The question though is this: What is the "Living Wage" in all the US? What is poverty in CA is rich in TX.
Man On Pink Corner: Sergeant Grumbles: The French Revolution disagrees with you. It's the ultimate outcome of zero inheritance and gift taxes, an entrenched, unempathetic aristocracy holding all the wealth thrown down by violent peasants with nothing to lose.[i.imgur.com image 576x478]
A Shambling Mound: People_are_Idiots: The question though is this: What is the "Living Wage" in all the US? What is poverty in CA is rich in TX.That is not completely accurate and the reality is much more complicated. Even within Texas an $8.00 per hour job in Mineral Wells or Vidor will do you just fine. I mean, you still live in Mineral Wells or Vidor but at least you have a little jingle in your pocket after paying rent, buying food and whatever other costs you feel you can afford.That same job won't get you into a studio apartment in Austin much less buy you frivolous things like food, water and electricity.
Man On Pink Corner: Sounds like a good reason to improve oneself and get the hell out of WalMart. But whadduhIno.
TopoGigo: ox45tallboy: If everyone "bettered" themselves through education or "bootstraps" or what have you, then who would clean the toilets or empty the trash or stock the shelves?High school kids, alcoholics, part-timers, and chronic fark-ups. You know, the type of people we all imagine are working min-wage jobs anyway. $8 is a living wage for these types of people. If there were plenty of $12 and $14 jobs out in the world, we wouldn't be biatching about Wal-Mart employees getting paid too little, because people with families who were willing to work full time would choose better jobs.Again, those jobs don't exist anymore, and that's the problem.
daveinsurgent: The answer, to me, is an obvious "yes"
daveinsurgent: The question though is this: What is the "Living Wage" in all the US? What is poverty in CA is rich in TX.But... that really isn't the question. Not yet. You think it is, but you're mistaken. You're right that it is a question, but it's not the one you have to get answered. That question, I'm sorry to say, is "Do people deserve a living wage for performing basic, but nonetheless useful jobs"?The answer, to me, is an obvious "yes", but there's no shortage of dipshiats who have no clue how much luck was involved in forging their 'self-made' success and how unlikely they are to actually repeat it if they had been given a different, perhaps even slightly, set of conditions. On top of that are the ones that actually believe they are going to achieve some level of "wealth" in their lifetime (and think that $100k/year is actually "wealthy" - and so they're afraid of taxes on the "wealthy"). It's just sad to see how many people don't get that a massive redistribution of wealth would result in an increase for most people - themselves included. There are so few people who would actually suffer a loss, it's very unlikey you have met one, let alone are one.I make $85k a year and wouldn't even know where to start to list off all the luck that went in to getting me here.
SuperDuper28: They exist but they're often seasonal or subject to being laid off or even outsourced. But yeah, it's not like 50 years ago where you could start a job out of highschool and expect to work there your entire adult work life while steadily making more money which eventually led to a nice retirement. Those days are long gone and it will come back and bite us in the ass eventually as more people nearing retirement age will have to rely on assistance because they weren't able to build up a big pension and savings. Even if you started out at a place like Walmart 30-40 years ago and grandfathered in to make you immune to their bootstrapy policies I can guarantee you that finding some way to get rid of you has been discussed behind closed doors. If the uppers think you compensated too well you're going to have a target on your back. I personally have seen this at my Walmart and this is the kind of world we're living in today.
People_are_Idiots: No, that's not a question I want answered, since I'm not hiring. My question is What should be considered a "Living wage?"
steamingpile: That's the idiots guide to a biased look at Walmart. Its not the idiots guide to anything else except how stupid uneducated people are.
daveinsurgent: No, that's not a question I want answered, since I'm not hiring. My question is What should be considered a "Living wage?"It's a question that a society has to answer and act accordingly on. The fact you think you don't need/want to answer it is puzzling. You aren't the one to answer it any more than you are the one to answer "Should we go to war with [x] country?". It affects you. It affects your neighbour, or your kids, or someone you meet on the street. It affects your chances of being robbed, violently. Just like the war affects you, some way, some how. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean anything. I guess you can say, shucks, I don't want to participate - fine, sure, whatever, but within your lifetime I think it is a pretty safe bet that we are going to see some very drastic, possibly violent and destructive events unfold as a result of the "answer" to questions like the one I asked. I'm not saying the answer to the question you're concerned with isn't important, just that it has no meaning unless you actually believe, and society believes, that people deserve to be paid a livable wage for an honest days work.
People_are_Idiots: The problem is too many people want their "freebies" from the backs of people.
Edward Rooney Dean of Students: I'm confused; nowhere in the article does it explain that these people were FORCED to take these jobs without knowing what the wage was. I men, that had to be case, right? Otherwise...
theenez: Wal-mart workers are figthing to get more from those that shop at Wal-mart. I am still unclear why anyone has a problem with this. Many more Fark Duh moments to come
Summoner101: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: EmmaLou: As a taxpayer, i don't feel like i should foot the bill for Walmart employees that have to be on welfare just to get by even though they work. Pay your people a living wage for fark's sake.This. It's obscene that we live in a developed nation and many of our full-time workers can survive on their wages alone. There's something very, very wrong with a society where you can work full-time and not break even.What compounds the problem is that people have come to some agreement that unions are unnecessary because of state/federal laws except many of the anti-labor business practices Walmart employs would take a union to combat.
Want to see behind the curtain? Try
It's how we feed the squirrel
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 24 2017 08:22:31
Runtime: 0.417 sec (416 ms)