Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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)   Walmart and McDonald's are what is wrong with US employment   (salon.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Mcdonald, Wal-Mart, NELP, lion's shares, Domino's Pizza, big-box, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

8192 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 Dec 2012 at 7:42 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-02 07:14:19 AM  
And those food courts within Walmarts are satan-incarnate.
 
2012-12-02 07:27:37 AM  
Hey America, guess what!? It used to be that towns were self sufficient and the everyone bought from everyone else and it worked.Then these profit sucking big box retailers went in and now the money you spend leaves your county and state and goes into a rich Walton's pocket! It used to go to the shop owner who still had to buy milk from the grocer. Do not be fooled by "giving back to the community" because that is PR bullshiat. Not only do they "give back" they take a tax write off and leave towns further in the hole. The guy who ran his own pharmacy and employed people now is sucked into the CVS. And the worst part is, we don't even realize that we are doing this to ourselves in the quest for making our own dollar go further.

/rant
/moar coffee
///or maybe less

/slashies is in the food pantry line. He works at WalMart.
 
2012-12-02 08:08:54 AM  

silo123j: Hey America, guess what!? It used to be that towns were self sufficient and the everyone bought from everyone else and it worked.


Maybe in the 1800's... It hasn't been that way for a LONG time.
 
2012-12-02 08:16:22 AM  

Honest Bender: It hasn't been that way for a LONG time.


I disagree. It was still that way in smaller towns until just a a decades or so ago. Probably true for bigger cities though.

This is just one little example of why people vote so differently in flyover land versus cities. They have such different problems.

Of course there is no explaining why people would vote for a party that is represents the interests actively screwing them over except that Walmart is the only place they can afford to shop.
 
2012-12-02 08:18:39 AM  
Last week, Wal-Mart workers staged demonstrations and walkouts at thousands of Wal-Mart stores

???
 
2012-12-02 08:23:27 AM  
fark you, if you pay my burger flipper $15/hour then you're going to be bringing me my check in a Brinks truck.
 
2012-12-02 08:25:45 AM  

Snarfangel: Last week, Wal-Mart workers staged demonstrations and walkouts at thousands of Wal-Mart stores

???


That's what FOX News said, and it didn't happen, so that means everybody hates unions and loves Christmas and Jesus.
 
2012-12-02 08:25:46 AM  
Unlike industrial jobs, these can't be outsourced abroad. Nor are they likely to be replaced by automated machinery and computers.

www.extremetech.com
 
2012-12-02 08:33:30 AM  
I did some Googling, and here are some more pictures:
momentummachines.com
momentummachines.com
(Courtesy of Momentum Machines)
 
2012-12-02 08:37:28 AM  

silo123j: Hey America, guess what!? It used to be that towns were self sufficient and the everyone bought from everyone else and it worked.Then these profit sucking big box retailers went in and now the money you spend leaves your county and state and goes into a rich Walton's pocket! It used to go to the shop owner who still had to buy milk from the grocer. Do not be fooled by "giving back to the community" because that is PR bullshiat. Not only do they "give back" they take a tax write off and leave towns further in the hole. The guy who ran his own pharmacy and employed people now is sucked into the CVS. And the worst part is, we don't even realize that we are doing this to ourselves in the quest for making our own dollar go further.

/rant
/moar coffee
///or maybe less

/slashies is in the food pantry line. He works at WalMart.


Exactly. And local Gov't gives tax breaks to these businesses too. The local schlumps love Walmart and then get pissed about their taxes.
 
2012-12-02 08:38:28 AM  
I am capitalist. Don't buy this Fark fascism or socialism of means of production.

BUT! There should be a measure of companies profit and tax benefits versus the percentage of that company employees on government assistance.

I am sick of seeing Sam Walton heirs ranked among the richest in America,while a great percentage of their employees are on food stamps or Section 8.

As a Capitalist. I do not want the government subsides ( Tax funded safety nets) offsetting Walmart's finical obligation to their employees.

Why should the public have to carry the cost of labor to a company that makes billions.
 
2012-12-02 08:38:38 AM  

Snarfangel: Unlike industrial jobs, these can't be outsourced abroad. Nor are they likely to be replaced by automated machinery and computers.

[www.extremetech.com image 850x518]


pretty much.

When the minimum wage went up a few cycles ago, McDonald's "invented" the automatic fry hopper. Load a bag of fries and it would put the right amount into the basket. That little device removed a couple of fry-boys jobs from the store. Added up across the country a few thousand people lost jobs because of it.
 
2012-12-02 08:40:11 AM  

Snarfangel: I did some Googling, and here are some more pictures:
[momentummachines.com image 612x612]
[momentummachines.com image 773x667]
(Courtesy of Momentum Machines)


That looks better than the average fastfood burger, not sure if that is bad or not though.
 
2012-12-02 08:42:07 AM  
A federal law mandating progressive profit sharing would solve a lot of problems. Employees would see more money as companies grew and it would temper the size of larger companies and not allow them to run roughshod over their industry, thus increasing competition. Foreign outsourcing for cheap labor would become a larger problem, but that needs addressed anyways, as the ethics are shady at best.
 
2012-12-02 08:45:50 AM  
Listen

These people will always exist. There will always be exploiter employers.

They will always find ways to skirt and abuse any law or loophole. There is no way to stop them legally.

The only way for change is if you STOPPED GOING TO THEIR STORES

If you make the business environment so toxic for those who do these kinds of things, our businesses will respond because they want to make money.

We Americans demand less for more, and those people cannot support smaller businesses who pay higher wages. Until the American people change, this wont be solved.
 
2012-12-02 08:49:13 AM  
I think people assuming that unskilled McJobs/retail work should sustain a middle-class lifestyle and that somewhere there is a social contract saying they deserve a 60" TV is what is wrong, but hey, that's just what GRINDS MY GEARS
 
2012-12-02 08:51:17 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: I am sick of seeing Sam Walton heirs ranked among the richest in America,while a great percentage of their employees are on food stamps or Section 8.


The problem with that argument is their wealth is based on stock prices...not wages. If their wages were to be distributed across the entire employee force, it would only raise the employees wages a few cents an hour.

I, too, am a hard core capitalist. However, ceo wage caps will not solve this problem. Perhaps a new class of non-dilulated stock would.
(example: For every company who wishes to go public, a certain percentage of ownership (say 3%) must be held in reserve for the employees and thoese shares would be distributed inversely to the workers hourly pay)
 
2012-12-02 08:53:45 AM  

edmo: Honest Bender: It hasn't been that way for a LONG time.

I disagree. It was still that way in smaller towns until just a a decades or so ago. Probably true for bigger cities though.

This is just one little example of why people vote so differently in flyover land versus cities. They have such different problems.


Just how "self sufficient" are we talking here? Because I don't think the vast majority of communities in this country have grown their own food in the last 100 years. Do they make their own cars? Do they process their own lumber for building their houses? Where do they get their electronics? Fuel? Clothes?
 
2012-12-02 08:57:09 AM  
Cman is right. I refuse to shop at Walmart for various reasons. Anytime I have ever bought anything from there its junk. Treating their workers like shiat. To me saving that extra 5 cents isnt worth it. Hell if you shop around before hand Walmart prices really arent that great.
 
2012-12-02 08:59:35 AM  

Honest Bender: silo123j: Hey America, guess what!? It used to be that towns were self sufficient and the everyone bought from everyone else and it worked.

Maybe in the 1800's... It hasn't been that way for a LONG time.


It was working until the late 60s. Then we had a transitional period before the vulture capitalism really kicked in about 1981 when Reagan was ushered into the presidency. His first act was to crush PATCO. It's been downhill from there.
 
2012-12-02 09:03:27 AM  

SockMonkeyHolocaust: I think people assuming that unskilled McJobs/retail work should sustain a middle-class lifestyle and that somewhere there is a social contract saying they deserve a 60" TV is what is wrong, but hey, that's just what GRINDS MY GEARS


There's something to that.
Young people see all the amenities and don't understand that it has taken older people years to accumulate that stuff, that big house, the cars and etc. It takes a lifetime to accumulate capital but everybody just wants it all now.
People want stuff, they should get their asses to work doing whatever they can and they should get educated along the way.
 
2012-12-02 09:04:34 AM  
LOL, no mention of government policies that have had a LOT to do with this economy.

Guess what, suckers? Obama, Pelosi, and Reid set a whole bunch of bad things in motion with Obamacare and you are now going to get to see the results. Businesses are going to be putting everyone they can on part time hours because that will save them huge bucks in Obamacare costs.

It's going to get a lot worse, and you have only yourselves to blame.
 
2012-12-02 09:05:54 AM  
Globalism is what's wrong with U.S. employment.
 
2012-12-02 09:06:14 AM  
Dr.Mxyzptlk.: I am sick of seeing Sam Walton heirs ranked among the richest in America,while a great percentage of their employees are on food stamps or Section 8.

Ignoring, of course, that a lot of those employees are only really capable of part-time work, or take the Wal-Mart job to supplement other jobs they already have. This is on top of the problem that there are a whole bunch of people in the work force that really, honestly, seriously aren't worth much on the labor market.

Merely mandating that large companies have to pay their bottom-end employees more won't make those floor sweepers and cash register operators worth twice as much. If you want to have low-skill employees make more money, get them some skills before they hit the job market. A lot of those $9/hour workers are about as unskilled as you can be while still having the ability to cash a paycheck without assistance. If you force employers to pay their workers more for no particular reason except what you call "fairness," they'll just hire fewer workers. The floor sweepers will be replaced by industrial-sized Roombas, and the cash register operators will be replaced by automated or self-service payment kiosks.

There's one way to do this: make training mandatory for people who are on the public dole. Welfare? Workfare. Unemployment? Unemployed worker training and skills improvement. Long term unemployment? Give them a solid (but mildly unpleasant) city job, like collecting trash from the city parks.
 
2012-12-02 09:06:20 AM  

SockMonkeyHolocaust: I think people assuming that unskilled McJobs/retail work should sustain a middle-class lifestyle and that somewhere there is a social contract saying they deserve a 60" TV is what is wrong, but hey, that's just what GRINDS MY GEARS


How about just rent, food, public transport or gas, maintenance and insurance for their 10-year old car? Little things like that.
 
2012-12-02 09:06:24 AM  
"Nor are they likely to be replaced by automated machinery and computers."

Uh, heard of the self-checkout? Home Depot replaced 5 cashiers with one supervising a bank of self-checkouts years ago. Wal-Mart has as well in some stores, but had to make them 10 items or less because of all the theft - but they still have them - supervised by 1 employee.

I'm still waiting for the time when RFID tags are on all products and you load your cart, walk through a scanner, swipe your credit card and leave the store without even talking to a single retail employee - that will be glorious.
 
2012-12-02 09:06:27 AM  
Oh, and I can't wait for the McDonalds workers to go on strike. It won't take the manager 15 seconds to fire and replace them.
 
2012-12-02 09:13:51 AM  
 
2012-12-02 09:19:23 AM  
"Jobs are slowly returning to America, but most of them pay lousy wages and low if non-existent benefits."

Your blog sucks!

/Maybe Salon shouldn't recruit writers at Wally World. Just sayin'.
 
2012-12-02 09:22:54 AM  

Snarfangel: Unlike industrial jobs, these can't be outsourced abroad. Nor are they likely to be replaced by automated machinery and computers.

[www.extremetech.com image 850x518]


Call me when this costs less in maintenance than paying four or five workers minimum wage.
 
2012-12-02 09:23:17 AM  
Snarfangel

Unlike industrial jobs, these can't be outsourced abroad. Nor are they likely to be replaced by automated machinery and computers.

[www.extremetech.com]

Wobbly Bloke got funding? Cool!
 
2012-12-02 09:25:29 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: I am capitalist. Don't buy this Fark fascism or socialism of means of production.

BUT! There should be a measure of companies profit and tax benefits versus the percentage of that company employees on government assistance.

I am sick of seeing Sam Walton heirs ranked among the richest in America,while a great percentage of their employees are on food stamps or Section 8.

As a Capitalist. I do not want the government subsides ( Tax funded safety nets) offsetting Walmart's finical obligation to their employees.

Why should the public have to carry the cost of labor to a company that makes billions.


That's why I've said for awhile that I fear Corporatism more than I fear Socialism. The only real difference between the two is that corporatism is controlled by private entities that answer to no one but shareholders (and even then, only the ones that could eventually buy controlling interest), while Socialism (at least, in theory; I know the practice is lacking) answers to everyone.
 
2012-12-02 09:26:24 AM  
How about we (the govt) stop incentivizing part time employees over full time? Health care should be paid as the percentage of a 40 hr week worked. And, the employer's portion should be, at the employee's option, just be added to the paycheck directly for those who work several part-time jobs.

Also, stop shopping at Walmart.
 
2012-12-02 09:26:55 AM  

SockMonkeyHolocaust: I think people assuming that unskilled McJobs/retail work should sustain a middle-class lifestyle and that somewhere there is a social contract saying they deserve a 60" TV is what is wrong, but hey, that's just what GRINDS MY GEARS


Poe's law? If not...

We value our fast food and retail locations enough as Americans to go there often, and they are providing a valuable service. Why shouldn't they be paid a middle class wage? It's not even that the money isn't there; it's that the money is being moved from those that do things to those that don't. And yeah the social contract is that we live in the richest country that has ever existed on earth so we should be able to afford for everyone to live a middle class life style instead of a few reaping gains that are in such excess they can ever use it.

Your attitude is even highly destructive to the capitalism I can only assume you support.
 
2012-12-02 09:31:31 AM  

edmo: Honest Bender: It hasn't been that way for a LONG time.

I disagree. It was still that way in smaller towns until just a a decades or so ago. Probably true for bigger cities though.

This is just one little example of why people vote so differently in flyover land versus cities. They have such different problems.

Of course there is no explaining why people would vote for a party that is represents the interests actively screwing them over except that Walmart is the only place they can afford to shop.


The problems for low income Americans in different parts of the coontry are not hugely different. Making $7.25-9 a hour in Anamosa, IA at Wal-Mart versus $8.25-9 a hour at a Target in DC though just shows how badly these companies take advantage of wage laws in this country.
 
2012-12-02 09:33:58 AM  
Hey, small towns: You've voted against your own self interest now for 20 years or more.

You've voted in favor of all the stuff big Republican interests have told you to.

Those of us horrified by this left our home towns because we had brains and knew where to find work -- in big cities usually on the coasts.

What you all are was "left behind."

Til you stop being asswits voting cause you hate gays more than voting to protect your own towns, the hell with you. We saw what you were about and we left and we never looked back.

Except to point and laugh, or shake our heads and have a sad.

And in person I won't say sh*t to you, because of your dumbass need to keep believing you were right all these years, and because you probably have more guns.
 
2012-12-02 09:37:03 AM  
Companies still haven't figured out that Americans who don't make any decent money can't afford to buy things.
 
2012-12-02 09:37:24 AM  

MayoSlather: A federal law mandating progressive profit sharing would solve a lot of problems. Employees would see more money as companies grew and it would temper the size of larger companies and not allow them to run roughshod over their industry, thus increasing competition. Foreign outsourcing for cheap labor would become a larger problem, but that needs addressed anyways, as the ethics are shady at best.


This.

There are companies out west where I live that quietly have done this all these years, I'll name two: Costco, who pays its workers what they deserve, and WinCo, who has employee ownership. Both businesses are thriving, and both so far have managed to avoid the Wall St. criminal class from coming in and messing them up.
 
2012-12-02 09:41:33 AM  
discount sushi:
The problems for low income Americans in different parts of the coontry are not hugely different. Making $7.25-9 a hour in Anamosa, IA at Wal-Mart versus $8.25-9 a hour at a Target in DC though just shows how badly these companies take advantage of wage laws in this country prepared a lot of people are for the job market, and how little they're worth to an employer.

FTFY 

/better idea: relax the housing laws so you can build really low-income-but-decent housing that will give people a room for a price low enough to live on while only making minimum wage... crappy place to live, but cheap
//most cities have rules against really high density housing
 
2012-12-02 09:41:57 AM  
In a just society, Wal Mart would be broken up and required to pay its employees what they're worth. But in a just society, 60% of the population of where Wal Mart has done the most damage for the last 30 years would not keep voting against people who would reform enough to do this.

Keep hating your gays, black presidents, and foreigners, dumbasses. You caused your own home towns to die. By electing creeps, weirdos and big business shills. The smart people left, now we're baffled at how to help you because the tools we use to succeed, like "intelligence" and "rational thought" dont work on you. As we've all been observing on our facebook feeds with family members from your end of the political spectrum.

Quit voting against your own self interests guys. Put people in office that would require Wal Mart to treat its people decently. Or better yet zone Wal Mart out of existence because it is a plague on free society. But wait, you can't. We told you Wal Mart was killing small towns 30 years ago, you laughed in our faces and called us commies.

Why is it big cities on the coasts, college towns, and resort towns are all thriving? Cause we put in laws in many cases to protect our small merchants. Cause we're smarter. Cause you asswits told us to eff off, so we did and just went out and made money instead.
 
2012-12-02 09:45:21 AM  
i.imgur.com 


This is why Wal Mart killed your (and my former) town. Because you just spent 30 years being the guy on the left, voting for the guy on the right.
 
2012-12-02 09:48:00 AM  
but you don't have to work there if you don't want to
 
2012-12-02 09:49:02 AM  
Studs Terkel and Barbara Ehrenreich . These books put a human face on workers. I been in their shoes. Studs book should be required reading for every smart ass high school kid who bad mouths anyone below his caste.


Link

Link
 
2012-12-02 09:49:21 AM  
If it wasn't for the government, many businesses and corporations couldn't function.
 
2012-12-02 09:50:19 AM  

Wolfman Johnny: fark you, if you pay my burger flipper $15/hour then you're going to be bringing me my check in a Brinks truck.


You'll be singing a different tune when you're looking for a job at 73.
 
2012-12-02 09:53:59 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: I am capitalist. Don't buy this Fark fascism or socialism of means of production.


You realize that the majority of liberals on Fark are capitalists, too, right? "Liberal" and "capitalist" are not mutually exclusive. We are not against profit. Liberals merely feel that the government has a general responsibility to its citizens and that the government should not be in our personal lives (you know, "small government"). We also tend to believe that employees should not be exploited to pad gains to already wealthy stockholders, regardless of how menial the position.

Anyway, the rest of your post about companies like Wal-Mart passing the responsibility onto government benefits is spot-on. If Republicans are serious about programs like food stamps being evil, perhaps they should look into one of the primary reasons so many of employed people are on them.
 
2012-12-02 09:55:52 AM  

MayoSlather: A federal law mandating progressive profit sharing would solve a lot of problems. Employees would see more money as companies grew and it would temper the size of larger companies and not allow them to run roughshod over their industry, thus increasing competition. Foreign outsourcing for cheap labor would become a larger problem, but that needs addressed anyways, as the ethics are shady at best.


I'd like to see a new law that based tax burden on the gap between the lowest and highest paid employee.

If your CEO is earning 400 million a year and your janitor is earning an hourly wage that places him at 135% the poverty level, tax the crap out of the company. If the split between the janitor and the CEO is much smaller, tax the company less.
 
2012-12-02 09:56:06 AM  

Wolfman Johnny: fark you, if you pay my burger flipper $15/hour then you're going to be bringing me my check in a Brinks truck.


Workers deserve to make a proportional amount of the profit they bring to their employer. This has zero relevance to how much effort the job requires.

At least, that's the argument for CEO's. Is it a different rule set for customer-facing, line employees?
 
2012-12-02 10:06:58 AM  

cirby: Dr.Mxyzptlk.: I am sick of seeing Sam Walton heirs ranked among the richest in America,while a great percentage of their employees are on food stamps or Section 8.

Ignoring, of course, that a lot of those employees are only really capable of part-time work, or take the Wal-Mart job to supplement other jobs they already have. This is on top of the problem that there are a whole bunch of people in the work force that really, honestly, seriously aren't worth much on the labor market.

Merely mandating that large companies have to pay their bottom-end employees more won't make those floor sweepers and cash register operators worth twice as much. If you want to have low-skill employees make more money, get them some skills before they hit the job market. A lot of those $9/hour workers are about as unskilled as you can be while still having the ability to cash a paycheck without assistance. If you force employers to pay their workers more for no particular reason except what you call "fairness," they'll just hire fewer workers. The floor sweepers will be replaced by industrial-sized Roombas, and the cash register operators will be replaced by automated or self-service payment kiosks.

There's one way to do this: make training mandatory for people who are on the public dole. Welfare? Workfare. Unemployment? Unemployed worker training and skills improvement. Long term unemployment? Give them a solid (but mildly unpleasant) city job, like collecting trash from the city parks.


I reject your assertion that the labor market is filled with employees not worth a lot. These are the jobs that no one wants to do. A free market society should then show businesses competing with one another to capture the very hard grunt workers because they're harder to replace.

Instead, we see a system designed to create food service employees. It's almost like a caste system. We start seeing the sorting of people during schools that still employ tracking. Schools that track students design certain students for poverty and hard work while others are designed for white collar employment.

And the odds of the very poor ever climbing to the upper wrongs of socioeconomic status is statistically like winning the lottery. We've designed this system. We like this system because it forces someone else to perform undesirable work. If we let just anyone choose their careers then we might be the ones assigned for fry duty.

So, punishing people for their assigned status is in really poor choice. Instead, we should be forcing all employers to pay employees something equivalent to a living wage reflective of their economic geographic location.
 
2012-12-02 10:09:07 AM  

Wolfman Johnny: fark you, if you pay my burger flipper $15/hour then you're going to be bringing me my check in a Brinks truck.


Do you live in NYC? You have to consider cost of living where you live when you decide what's a fair wage.
 
Displayed 50 of 308 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report