If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   The Complete Idiot's Guide to Wal-Mart's Black Friday Showdown, which pits low-wage workers against greedy management and owners   (salon.com) divider line 370
    More: PSA, Wal-Mart, picket lines, forced labour, North Jersey, unfair labor practice, cover letters  
•       •       •

12435 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Nov 2012 at 10:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



370 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
kab
2012-11-21 11:51:19 AM

Linux_Yes: Black Friday is the best time for Anthropoligists to study the American in their natural habitat.


And the best time to troll the shiat out of shoppers, for the lulz.
 
2012-11-21 11:55:46 AM

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.


People willing to work shouldn't have to be beggars and definitely shouldn't have the likes of you calling them that. Because WalMart pays poverty level wages, its workforce must get foodstamps and other safety net programs just to get by. Which we all then pay for. In other words, Walmart is shifting its moral obligations onto all of us taxpayers as our burden. AND they and their partners in crime have shifted the conversation so much that they can pretend it's not even their moral obligation to start with.
 
2012-11-21 11:59:18 AM

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Not the point at all.


Uh, it was exactly the point. Way to dodge the issue entirely, but hey, at least you get to feel like you're better than somebody in the world.
 
2012-11-21 12:02:00 PM
So I guess it'll be too much to ask that this strike be the one that forces WalMart to close its doors.

/go Team Strikers!
 
2012-11-21 12:08:03 PM

rikkitikkitavi: patently false


So 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.
 
2012-11-21 12:09:04 PM

GreenSun: It's like taking the business hostage just because all of a sudden, you don't like what you signed up for.


3.5/10
 
2012-11-21 12:09:13 PM

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.


It's cute that he thinks he'll be able to call the shots like that though.
 
2012-11-21 12:14:27 PM

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.
 
2012-11-21 12:21:57 PM

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.


Yeah, 2003 was a rough year...grow up.
 
2012-11-21 12:28:10 PM

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?


Where in the world does the raising prices crap come from? Walmart exists to maximize profits, not maintain a profit margin. If they could make more money, they would. If they thought raising prices would get them more money, they'd be doing that right now. It's got nothing to do with their costs. They're raising profits as high as possible, without regard to costs.
 
2012-11-21 12:36:40 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: rikkitikkitavi: patently false

So 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.


wow, your conclusion was reached by a rather lengthy leap of assumption. i wholeheartedly agree with paying a fair share in taxes on earnings to support the government, etc. etc. i do NOT subscribe to the notion that every time money changes hands in the form of gifts, donations, philanthropies, inheritances, etc. that the govt is entitled to a cut. once i've earned my dollar, the remaining 88% or thereabouts are mine to do with as i see fit, free from any further taxing. taxes are not necessarily theft. redundant, duplicitive and excessive taxes are theft. not to mention inefficient, yet another discussion.

if that is refusal to "pay for civilization" then color me yellow. otherwise STFU.
 
2012-11-21 12:53:59 PM

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?


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.
 
2012-11-21 01:08:10 PM

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.
 
2012-11-21 01:10:06 PM

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.


Yours is a dizzying intellect
 
2012-11-21 01:11:01 PM

Your Zionist Leader: Yours is a dizzying intellect


Have you read the tax code? And you call me dizzying?
 
kab
2012-11-21 01:13:01 PM

rikkitikkitavi: I'm not taxed when I buy something.


At a state level you most certainly can be.
 
2012-11-21 01:40:37 PM

rikkitikkitavi: If I donate money to a philanthropy or a church, it's not taxed


Those 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.
 
2012-11-21 02:22:49 PM
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 types
3. Saying to why walked out on your job during one of the busiest times and got fired is a hard interview question to answer
 
2012-11-21 02:25:48 PM

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 types
3. Saying to why walked out on your job during one of the busiest times and got fired is a hard interview question to answer


So getting rich by putting your employees in the situation where they have to decide if they want to eat or be treated like a human being is a-ok?
 
2012-11-21 02:29:55 PM

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 types
3. Saying to why walked out on your job during one of the busiest times and got fired is a hard interview question to answer


Some people can't get another job. Otherwise they would.
 
2012-11-21 02:39:51 PM

tbhouston: This thread got a little stale before but my points still stand.


About as well as a one legged dog, but you just keep trying to stand it back up...
 
2012-11-21 02:55:23 PM

Hickory-smoked: smitty04: Ask the Hostess how much their union has done for them.

Yes, ask them.


You're asking us to believe those commies at Forbes?
 
2012-11-21 03:00:45 PM

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 types
3. Saying to why walked out on your job during one of the busiest times and got fired is a hard interview question to answer


1. 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.
 
2012-11-21 03:16:40 PM
Legal prostitution would solve a lot of America's problems.
 
2012-11-21 04:17:39 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: rikkitikkitavi: If I donate money to a philanthropy or a church, it's not taxed

Those 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.


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.
 
2012-11-21 04:34:49 PM

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.
 
2012-11-21 05:27:21 PM
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.
 
2012-11-21 05:49:23 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: [i9.photobucket.com image 220x284]


Only if it's also "See Her Nekkid Day"... gotta have some compensation for not getting stuff cheap.
 
2012-11-21 05:50:00 PM

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.


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.
 
2012-11-21 06:21:03 PM

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 types
3. Saying to why walked out on your job during one of the busiest times and got fired is a hard interview question to answer

1. 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.


To be entirely fair, I don't know many retail managers that would hold walking off a job at Walmart against a prospective employee if everything else about them seemed good.

People who understand that Walmart is a terrible place to work also understand why people do it but don't begrudge them when they eventually reach the end of their rope and just let go. It also helps to realize that the hiring process for someone of the caliber that Walmart employs is not exactly complex. These are (generally) not the type of people that show up in a suit bearing a resume. When I am hiring unskilled labor I will typically only check one reference and even then it's just to make sure they aren't totally bullsh*tting me. The bulk of the decision rides on the behavior and attitude of the person sitting in front of me.
 
2012-11-21 07:59:50 PM

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.


The question though is this: What is the "Living Wage" in all the US? What is poverty in CA is rich in TX.
 
2012-11-21 08:00:52 PM

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!


Sounds like a good reason to improve oneself and get the hell out of WalMart. But whadduhIno.
 
2012-11-21 08:05:51 PM

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
 
2012-11-21 08:20:09 PM

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.
 
2012-11-21 08:28:32 PM

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]


I'm really not sure what this has to do with anything...?
 
2012-11-21 08:37:10 PM

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.


$8 an hour can't get you a paper bag in the middle of the street in CA.
 
2012-11-21 08:58:30 PM
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.
 
2012-11-21 09:00:04 PM

Man On Pink Corner: Sounds like a good reason to improve oneself and get the hell out of WalMart. But whadduhIno.


1.) Define "improve oneself". Do you mean take some night classes? With what money? And what time?

2.) So, you're saying then that those that cannot "improve themselves" deserve to be treated this way by Wal-Mart. and don't deserve a living wage or health insurance.

3.) Have you thought about the fact that if EVERYONE "improved themselves", no one would be stocking groceries or cashiering at Wal-Mart?
 
2012-11-21 09:04:34 PM

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.


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.
 
2012-11-21 09:04:45 PM

daveinsurgent: The answer, to me, is an obvious "yes"


Very well put. Success and arrogance tend to go hand in hand.

Most people also don't realize that prosperity actually trickles up, as the lower classes will keep spending their money until it gets to the upper classes. The upper classes don't spend money, they save it or invest it - neither one of which pump cash directly into the economy the way that spending it does.

The money will eventually work its way to the top in pretty much any type of economic situation other than totalitarianism, and even then it does if you consider the state to be "the top". Prosperity happens when the money makes lots and lots of stops along the way.
 
2012-11-21 09:07:43 PM

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.


No, that's not a question I want answered, since I'm not hiring. My question is What should be considered a "Living wage?"
 
2012-11-21 09:16:50 PM

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.


My question to TopoGigo was whether or not he felt that the number of teenagers, alcoholics, and general f*ck-ups was equal to or in excess of the number of low-paying, menial jobs. I do not believe it is.

Because of this, and the fact that employee turnover costs make hiring the above listed individuals less preferable, it seems that many responsible individuals wind up taking low-paying, menial jobs, and many in our society seem to believe that because of this, the employee (who, because he or she is responsible, is actually rather valuable to the employer) is only "worth" a substandard wage, and it is somehow their "fault" if they find themselves in this sort of occupation and their "responsibility" to somehow improve their lot, even though they are already doing good work and providing a valuable service to the employer.

The only way to break this line of thinking is to give the corporations that treat their employees a wake-up call as a hit to their bottom line. Wal-Mart will barely even notice reduced sales due to reduced staffing on Black Friday Thanksgiving, but they WILL notice all of the bad publicity. A few incidents on par with the past few years (pepper spray, fist fights and gun brandishing, greeter trampled to death, etc.) and the media will blame it all on striking employees, which will call attention to Wal-Mart's bad behavior. Already many people are starting to see that the union didn't kill Hostess, the private equity firms did (meaning many are becoming sympathetic to workers being treated like sh*t), and I honestly believe that a few sympathetic news stories centering around individuals and how they have been treated by the company will do some major damage to the brand.
 
2012-11-21 09:19:37 PM

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?"


Just to throw a number out there, why not use a multiple of the "poverty index" which is currently being used to determine eligibility for government assistance in purchasing insurance under Obamacare? It is already indexed based on residence.

Say 1.5 or 2 x the poverty level.
 
2012-11-21 09:52:48 PM
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.
 
2012-11-21 10:08:08 PM
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.

Capitalism has failed. It has not created worldwide wealth and prosperity attainable to anyone who wants to put their sweat and blood in to it like it claims. I don't think you can actually dispute that anymore. The entire system is broken. The real "the" question to me is: can we fix it with incremental, iterative change? Or are we going to continue on fiddling until some more epic, destructive collapse of power comes along as history has told us happens time and time again? Human quality of life now only improves as a function of profitability, as a side-effect of growth-based wealth creation. Productivity of workers has continued to increase while wages stagnate and a very select few amass fortunes that no human could ever spend. The system inherently does this. It isn't some grand conspiracy: the system has many stable states, but at its inception only one was perceived. It still claims to be in this state, but it has moved to anothe stable state that involves the continued extraction of wealth from the many in to the hands of the few. I have no idea how to fix it, I have no idea if there even exists a reasonable alternative - there may not, in which case some of our goals created in the spirit of a universal set of human rights are destined to be unobtainable. I don't want that to be true, I want to be able to say, "a person doesn't need to earn more in a day than others do in a year; more in a year than others do in their lives" and not be thought of some radical, freedom-hating commie. I think it stands, to good reason, that we should have both a minimum and a maximum wage and the difference between them ought to be reasonable enough to entice people to work hard, but not so much that it lends to the kind of money hording and socio-economic inequalities we have presently, and that the minimum is enough for a person to live on without having to endure hunger, pain or any other thing that represents a deficit in basic human needs.
 
2012-11-21 10:35:42 PM

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.


Do you now or have you in the recent past worked for Wal-Mart?

Well, now that you've read the article, consider yourself informed.
 
2012-11-21 10:38:16 PM

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.


The problem with a "living wage" idea is ,as I mentioned, location. What is considered poverty in one place is wealth in another. I know people in California living paycheck to paycheck at 2-300k salary, while I'm cruising at 50-60k a year. Someone in Detroit might consider a house luxury, where in Ohio a house is a necessity. A person in Mexico would consider $20 able to pay rent, feed kids for a month, and afford surgery... where in England it's enough to buy breakfast. There's no way to determine a "living wage" unless exceptions can be made to lowering or raising it as needed per state and city.

Capitalism has failed. It has not created worldwide wealth and prosperity attainable to anyone who wants to put their sweat and blood in to it like it claims. I don't think you can actually dispute that anymore. The entire system is broken. The real "the" question to me is: can we fix it with incremental, iterative change? Or are we going to continue on fiddling until some more epic, destructive collapse of power comes along as history has told us happens time and time again? Human quality of life now only improves as a function of profitability, as a side-effect of growth-based wealth creation. Productivity of workers has continued to increase while wages stagnate and a very select few amass fortunes that no human could ever spend. The system inherently does this. It isn't some grand conspiracy: the system has many stable states, but at its inception only one was perceived. It still claims to be in this state, but it has moved to anothe stable state that involves the continued extraction of wealth from the many in to the hands of the few. I have no idea how to fix it, I have no idea if there even exists a reasonable alternative - there may not, in which case some of our goals created in the spirit of a universal set of human rights are destined to be unobtainable. I don't want that to be true, I want to be able to say, "a person doesn't need to earn more in a day than others do in a year; more in a year than others do in their lives" and not be thought of some radical, freedom-hating commie. I think it stands, to good reason, that we should have both a minimum and a maximum wage and the difference between them ought to be reasonable enough to entice people to work hard, but not so much that it lends to the kind of money hording and socio-economic inequalities we have presently, and that the minimum is enough for a person to live on without having to endure hunger, pain or any other thing that represents a deficit in basic human needs.

It depends on which form of capitalism you talk about there too. Social-market capitalism failed years ago with communism, as did Mercantilism. Mixed Capitalism is failing because of the shift from a balance to Social-Market. The only one that might work better is Free-market capitalism (which, despite what one thinks, hasn't been tried save -maybe- in Texas). The problem is too many people want their "freebies" from the backs of people. If all goes as the state would like, the good doctors would be driving in Pintos, while the bad doctors still have a job. Everyone in the labor force would make the same amount, and all things bought would be regulated heavily. Imagine 1984 without the smoking.
 
2012-11-21 11:01:24 PM

People_are_Idiots: The problem is too many people want their "freebies" from the backs of people.


I disagree. I think people just want a living wage in exchange for contributing 40-45 hrs. per week to society. Whether that be as a janitor or an assembly line worker or a stocker at Wal-Mart, they feel that they are contributing to our society and deserve a reasonable lifestyle in exchange for their time and effort. People are beginning to see that citizens of other countries such as Sweden and Germany are achieving this, and they wonder what is wrong with our country that it has so much wealth, but the standard of living for so many of its citizens is far below that of many other countries.

I don't think that anyone would argue that people that work "harder" (whether that be through spending more hours, or working a more demanding job, or one that requires an investment in education) should be compensated more. However, the fact is, we're not providing a reasonable living for many of the individuals such as janitors or stockers or cashiers on which the functioning of our society depends. They're not at the forefront, making breakthroughs that make everyone's life easier; they are the people that help maintain the standard of living we have come to expect. Their jobs really are important, and if they choose to do these jobs, they deserve to be compensated for them.

Which would you notice first: if half of the garbage collectors disappeared, or half of the lawyers? Half of the hospital orderlies, or half of the health insurance executives? Half of the public transit workers, or half of the lobbyists? Half of the grocery store cashiers, or half of the private equity executives who own the food companies?
 
2012-11-21 11:06:50 PM

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...


And therefore, they should only work that wage forever and ever, till the end of time. Even asking for one cent more should get them fired...no, EXECUTED!

/STOP. BLAMING. THE WORKERS.
 
2012-11-21 11:11:46 PM

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


Because they don't deserve a living wage! They work at WAL-MART!

/Yes, that is what the argument has boiled down to.
 
Displayed 50 of 370 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report