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.

(Huffington Post)   Walmart CEO says that Walmart does pay a living wage. And by 'living wage' he means 'enough money for a cardboard box and a can of Alpo'   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 269
    More: Unlikely, CEO, Mario Draghi, U.S. Federal Reserve, Melinda Gates, bulk box, Politics of Italy, average wage, Communist Party of China  
•       •       •

2551 clicks; posted to Business » on 14 Dec 2012 at 9:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-13 11:40:03 PM  
Might be true if you work in management or on the corporate side.

/unfortunately that's not the vast majority of their employees
 
2012-12-13 11:54:36 PM  
I say, I give all of my loyal courtiers a hogshead of mead, six boar shanks, and a bushel each of gruit and barley every fortnight to distribute to the peasantry that they might share in a taste of the crown's good fortune.
 
2012-12-13 11:58:14 PM  
Alpo? They can afford brand name dog food? Luxury!
 
2012-12-14 12:08:02 AM  
As a former WalMart worker, may I say: You are 1000% full of shiat, Mr. Duke, and you know it. Piss off.
 
2012-12-14 12:17:41 AM  
Maybe 10 bucks an hour is a living wage in Benton, Arkansas, but in the rest of the US, that's a wage for part-time high school students.
 
2012-12-14 12:36:08 AM  
He said "competitive" wage, as in "it's about what everyone else in the industry pays". I don't think even $18.7 million would be enough for him to keep a straight face while calling it a "living wage".

When you ARE the industry, you are setting the standard, and everyone else competes against you. If they were to raise their wages, other retail stores would follow suit. But that extra $0.03 /share each quarter nets him another $2 million bonus*, so why bother? The people will work for crap.

This is the biggest problem with Capitalism - there is absolutely no incentive to make others' lives better, and every incentive to take advantage of your position to make others' lives worse, even when it is for a comparatively tiny benefit to yourself. (I'm sure I would notice the difference between $16 million / year and $18 million, but not NEARLY as much as I would notice the difference between $18K and $25K.)

*these numbers have been pulled out of my ass. Please feel free to substitute real numbers I don't feel like looking up right now and I guarantee that my point will still stand
 
2012-12-14 02:09:42 AM  

ox45tallboy: Please feel free to substitute real numbers I don't feel like looking up right now


Okay, fine, I'll look up the real numbers.

Michael Duke's compensation package details:

Compensation for 2011
Salary $1,232,670
Restricted stock awards $12,652,363
All other compensation $476,567
Non-equity incentive plan compensation $3,852,059
Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings $499,062
Total Compensation $18,712,721

Wal-Mart (WMT) Earnings per share:

FY 2011: $4.47
FY 2010: $3.71

Why is that important?

Mike Duke, 61, received a base salary of about $1.2 million and a performance-based bonus of nearly $3.9 million for the [2010] fiscal year that ended Jan. 31.

In other words, $0.76 / share didn't increase his bonus. He could have paid people more, increasing earnings per share by a lesser amount, and still (theoretically) received the same bonus as the previous year.
 
2012-12-14 04:12:50 AM  
No, Walmart does not pay a living wage. My wife worked there for 13 years, and when she quit she was making a little over $13/hour. I asked her to quit because the job was horrible, and we didn't need her to work, since my employer actually pays a living wage. I make not quite $29/hour plus benefits, and can pay all of our bills on my income alone. That is a living wage in my area. $13/hour is a crap wage, but significantly better than most Walmart workers get, which is around $9/hour at best.
 
2012-12-14 08:49:21 AM  

bingethinker: Alpo? They can afford brand name dog food? Luxury!


And they probably keep it in their refrigerator!
 
2012-12-14 09:22:34 AM  

ox45tallboy: He said "competitive" wage, as in "it's about what everyone else in the industry pays". I don't think even $18.7 million would be enough for him to keep a straight face while calling it a "living wage".

When you ARE the industry, you are setting the standard, and everyone else competes against you. If they were to raise their wages, other retail stores would follow suit. But that extra $0.03 /share each quarter nets him another $2 million bonus*, so why bother? The people will work for crap.

This is the biggest problem with Capitalism - there is absolutely no incentive to make others' lives better, and every incentive to take advantage of your position to make others' lives worse, even when it is for a comparatively tiny benefit to yourself. (I'm sure I would notice the difference between $16 million / year and $18 million, but not NEARLY as much as I would notice the difference between $18K and $25K.)

*these numbers have been pulled out of my ass. Please feel free to substitute real numbers I don't feel like looking up right now and I guarantee that my point will still stand


Paying your workers well enough to afford your own products is a huge incentive.

Henry Ford figured that out a hundred years ago with the Model T.
 
2012-12-14 09:44:17 AM  

Sgt Otter: Paying your workers well enough to afford your own products is a huge incentive.


He's paying them $7+/hour. That's enough to afford a Chipotle burrito EVERY WORKING HOUR!! The Ghanian who mined the rare-earth metals in your cell phone could live for a YEAR on a single Chipotle burrito! Without guac!
 
2012-12-14 09:48:21 AM  
Stop shopping there.
 
2012-12-14 09:51:24 AM  
If it's good enough for Lorne Greene, it's good enough for me. That man was healthy as a horse.

bjdwsm.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-14 09:51:46 AM  
So there are no Walmart employees on government assistance?
 
2012-12-14 09:51:56 AM  

ox45tallboy: This is the biggest problem with Capitalism - there is absolutely no incentive to make others' lives better, and every incentive to take advantage of your position to make others' lives worse, even when it is for a comparatively tiny benefit to yourself. (I'm sure I would notice the difference between $16 million / year and $18 million, but not NEARLY as much as I would notice the difference between $18K and $25K.)


It used to work when employers had some shred of social obligations to the society that made their businesses possible. But that seems to have faded in the last 20-30 years when they installed the idea that SOCIALIZMZ BAD among the red-state peasantry. Something's gotta give.
 
2012-12-14 09:53:20 AM  
Working at Walmart is a career choice?

Really?
 
2012-12-14 09:53:41 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Stop shopping there.


This.
 
2012-12-14 09:55:15 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Stop shopping there.


Done. What's the next step?
 
2012-12-14 09:55:17 AM  
I give it about 10 more years before they start paying in WalMart Buxx so their employees will have the privilege of shopping exclusively at the company store.
 
2012-12-14 09:56:01 AM  
That's because in America the common man who used to root for this guy...
i.imgur.com

..now does everything he can to vote for and support this guy...
i.imgur.com 

You reap what you sow.
 
2012-12-14 09:57:33 AM  

Free Radical: Working at Walmart is a career choice?

Really?


You do realize that the huge segment of society well suited to solo assembly line jobs with little social interaction (and, previously, isolated farm work) has been thrust into the service sector and is, expectedly, failing at it, right?
 
2012-12-14 09:58:55 AM  

Free Radical: career choice


You can't have a life if 40 hours a week doesn't pay you enough for food and shelter with some left over because you will die.

At $7 an hour, you're losing money each minute you spend at Walmart because pan handling pays better and it's not taxed.
 
2012-12-14 09:59:21 AM  
Wal-Mart's job as a business is to pay its employees a fair market rate for their labor, not to be a conduit to fulfill the lifestyle expectations of its employees.
 
2012-12-14 10:00:17 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: I give it about 10 more years before they start paying in WalMart Buxx so their employees will have the privilege of shopping exclusively at the company store.


You know, if they were given some kind of discount at the company store (do they do this already? I used to get 20% off at Nordstrom when I worked there) on top of their salary, of if they were paid in company scrip (basically, "store credit", assuming it was a 1:1 $:Walbux trade) ON TOP OF regular wages, I could live with that (if they got $2-5/hour extra in Walbux, I can live with them making $1 less per hour).

The people get more purchasing power (even if it is somewhat limited) and they're not getting fleeced on pay for it. They're also still able to purchase as they choose with the bulk of their salary.

There are probably legal reasons why this can't be done.
 
2012-12-14 10:02:22 AM  
As someone who makes 13.50, I am amused.
 
2012-12-14 10:02:38 AM  

o5iiawah: Wal-Mart's job as a business is to pay its employees a fair market rate for their labor, not to be a conduit to fulfill the lifestyle expectations of its employees.


"Lifestyle expectations" like being able to eat, sleep indoors and see a doctor.
 
2012-12-14 10:04:39 AM  

Dr Dreidel: There are probably legal reasons why this can't be done.


Legal, moral, ethical, and principle reasons, yes.

There's a whole lot of good reasons why that's a shiat idea. But with pure capitalism there's no incentive for ethics.
 
2012-12-14 10:19:01 AM  
If it weren't true, he wouldn't have to get on TV and deny it.
 
2012-12-14 10:20:54 AM  
Instead of using some arbitrary term like living wage why doesn;t anyone calculate what living expenses should be......


Should Walmart be paying a low skilled laborer enough money to buy a 300k$ house on a 30 year mortgage?

In all honesty shouldn't someone be looking for a job that pays them enough to buy that 300k house instead of expecting their walmart job to bump them up to that level?
 
2012-12-14 10:23:34 AM  

Giltric: Instead of using some arbitrary term like living wage why doesn;t anyone calculate what living expenses should be......


Should Walmart be paying a low skilled laborer enough money to buy a 300k$ house on a 30 year mortgage?

In all honesty shouldn't someone be looking for a job that pays them enough to buy that 300k house instead of expecting their walmart job to bump them up to that level?


How many chigger bites did you get building that strawman?
 
2012-12-14 10:24:09 AM  
Take away the taxpayer paid subsides for WalMart workers and see how much of a living wage that is. They are nothing but socialists, sucking off the government teat by having their workers rely on government handouts to stay alive.
 
2012-12-14 10:24:21 AM  
If it is a good wage, let him live off of it for a year
 
2012-12-14 10:25:13 AM  

theurge14: It used to work when employers had some shred of social obligations to the society that made their businesses possible. But that seems to have faded in the last 20-30 years when they installed the idea that SOCIALIZMZ BAD among the red-state peasantry. Something's gotta give.


I don't see the people that make up "society" rushing to pay extra for goods from retailers that pay their employees more or for goods made in the U.S..
 
2012-12-14 10:25:16 AM  

Giltric: Instead of using some arbitrary term like living wage why doesn;t anyone calculate what living expenses should be......


Should Walmart be paying a low skilled laborer enough money to buy a 300k$ house on a 30 year mortgage?

In all honesty shouldn't someone be looking for a job that pays them enough to buy that 300k house instead of expecting their walmart job to bump them up to that level?


It'd be nice if they paid them enough that they didn't qualify for gov't assistance.
 
2012-12-14 10:25:52 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: o5iiawah: Wal-Mart's job as a business is to pay its employees a fair market rate for their labor, not to be a conduit to fulfill the lifestyle expectations of its employees.

"Lifestyle expectations" like being able to eat, sleep indoors and see a doctor.


An individual can eat, sleep, pay utilities and participate in the employee benefits plan.
If said individual chooses to take on more life responsibilities, they incur a personal burden to acquire market skills to pay for them.

Democrats will call this being heartless, cold and 'fending for yourself'
or as everyone else calls it, being an adult.
 
2012-12-14 10:26:27 AM  

o5iiawah: Wal-Mart's job as a business is to pay its employees a fair market rate for their labor, not to be a conduit to fulfill the lifestyle expectations of its employees.


And by fair market you mean a revolving door of minimum wage automatons who have no other choice in their town because Walmart ran off all the other stores and they need (not want) to buy from the same store because their lifestyle expectations of paying rent and eating ramen noodles require it. In short, elimination of a middle class.
 
2012-12-14 10:28:08 AM  

DrewCurtisJr: theurge14: It used to work when employers had some shred of social obligations to the society that made their businesses possible. But that seems to have faded in the last 20-30 years when they installed the idea that SOCIALIZMZ BAD among the red-state peasantry. Something's gotta give.

I don't see the people that make up "society" rushing to pay extra for goods from retailers that pay their employees more or for goods made in the U.S..


So you've never heard of Whole Foods?
 
2012-12-14 10:28:29 AM  

o5iiawah: An individual can eat, sleep, pay utilities and participate in the employee benefits plan.


By "employee benefits plan" you mean "Food stamps" right?
 
2012-12-14 10:29:27 AM  

o5iiawah: An individual can eat, sleep, pay utilities and participate in the employee benefits plan.go on welfare on the taxpayer's dime.


FTFY

o5iiawah: If said individual chooses to take on more life responsibilities, they incur a personal burden to acquire market skills to pay for them.


It's a Catch 22. Wal-Mart doesn't pay you enough to live comfortably by itself, let alone having extra to acquire new skills and education.
 
2012-12-14 10:31:11 AM  

theurge14: o5iiawah: Wal-Mart's job as a business is to pay its employees a fair market rate for their labor, not to be a conduit to fulfill the lifestyle expectations of its employees.

And by fair market you mean a revolving door of minimum wage automatons who have no other choice in their town because Walmart ran off all the other stores and they need (not want) to buy from the same store because their lifestyle expectations of paying rent and eating ramen noodles require it. In short, elimination of a middle class.


Wal-Mart didn't run the jobs out. People willingly shopped there versus smaller stores. Dont like it? Take it up with your county executive who approved the permit.

As far as the minimum wage job goes, thank the minimum wage. Wal-Mart might be willing to pay employees on a skill scale but those who do have skills are making the same wage as those who dont thanks to the price floor of labor. The guy who unloads trucks or prepares returns for processing has more market skills than the guy who stands at the front door and says, "Welcome to Wal-Mart, I love you" yet both are paid the same because heaven forbid one be paid $5/hr and the other $10. You'll both be paid $7.50 and like it.
 
2012-12-14 10:33:04 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: o5iiawah: An individual can eat, sleep, pay utilities and participate in the employee benefits plan.go on welfare on the taxpayer's dime.

FTFY

o5iiawah: If said individual chooses to take on more life responsibilities, they incur a personal burden to acquire market skills to pay for them.

It's a Catch 22. Wal-Mart doesn't pay you enough to live comfortably by itself, let alone having extra to acquire new skills and education.


I agree that Wal-mart is beneficiary of welfare and it should stop but I think people have unreasonable expectations that wal-mart should pay according to need versus wage value. If Social programs were amended to the temporarily unfortunate and infirmed then I'd support workers demanding better wages from wal-mart - and they might actually have to comply if they dont want an empty store and nobody to man the registers.
 
2012-12-14 10:33:50 AM  

theurge14: So you've never heard of Whole Foods?


Your example proves my point. How many U.S. employees does Whole Foods have compared to Walmart? And the 2 don't exactly compete for the same market.
 
2012-12-14 10:35:12 AM  
Why can't he just be honest and say it isn't Wal-Mart's job to pay a "living wage."
 
2012-12-14 10:35:26 AM  

o5iiawah: As far as the minimum wage job goes, thank the minimum wage. Wal-Mart might be willing to pay employees on a skill scale but those who do have skills are making the same wage as those who dont thanks to the price floor of labor. The guy who unloads trucks or prepares returns for processing has more market skills than the guy who stands at the front door and says, "Welcome to Wal-Mart, I love you" yet both are paid the same because heaven forbid one be paid $5/hr and the other $10. You'll both be paid $7.50 and like it.


This in no way resembles reality in theory or practice. You have made the world a worse place by thinking it and typing it.
Removing minimum wage will not introduce a skill scale that wasn't already there. It will just let the scale start at 0.
 
2012-12-14 10:35:27 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: It's a Catch 22. Wal-Mart doesn't pay you enough to live comfortably by itself, let alone having extra to acquire new skills and education.


How comfortable is some shelf stocking drone supposed to be?

People either go out and get a 2nd job to pay for classes that might increase their skillset or they sit around waiting for someone else to make that happen for them.

It all depends on how motivated or hungry someone is.....
 
2012-12-14 10:37:07 AM  

theurge14: And by fair market you mean a revolving door of minimum wage automatons who have no other choice in their town because Walmart ran off all the other stores and they need (not want) to buy from the same store because their lifestyle expectations of paying rent and eating ramen noodles require it. In short, elimination of a middle class.


"Ran off" all the other stores? How exactly did that happen?
 
2012-12-14 10:37:12 AM  
I detest WalMart in almost every single way but how much should a zero skill position pay? If you ignore health care I could probably "live" on about $8/hr. That means keeping myself alive, getting to work and going home. And that's about it.

Somewhere between that and "Walmart needs to pay their cashiers enough to support a family of 4 in a middle class lifestyle" is the problem.
 
2012-12-14 10:38:33 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: o5iiawah: As far as the minimum wage job goes, thank the minimum wage. Wal-Mart might be willing to pay employees on a skill scale but those who do have skills are making the same wage as those who dont thanks to the price floor of labor. The guy who unloads trucks or prepares returns for processing has more market skills than the guy who stands at the front door and says, "Welcome to Wal-Mart, I love you" yet both are paid the same because heaven forbid one be paid $5/hr and the other $10. You'll both be paid $7.50 and like it.

This in no way resembles reality in theory or practice. You have made the world a worse place by thinking it and typing it.
Removing minimum wage will not introduce a skill scale that wasn't already there. It will just let the scale start at 0.


You've disagreed but you havent broken my argument.

Minimum wage sets a floor for labor such that a company who has a $6/hr position either has to deduct pay from others to fill the need for the position or not hire the person altogether.

If wal-Mart started everyone at $1/hr, nobody would work there.
If wal-mart paid cart wranglers $6/hr instead of $7.25, they might be able to hire a few more of them and some high school kids and low income individuals would gain market skills otherwise.
 
2012-12-14 10:39:13 AM  

o5iiawah: theurge14: o5iiawah: Wal-Mart's job as a business is to pay its employees a fair market rate for their labor, not to be a conduit to fulfill the lifestyle expectations of its employees.

And by fair market you mean a revolving door of minimum wage automatons who have no other choice in their town because Walmart ran off all the other stores and they need (not want) to buy from the same store because their lifestyle expectations of paying rent and eating ramen noodles require it. In short, elimination of a middle class.

Wal-Mart didn't run the jobs out. People willingly shopped there versus smaller stores. Dont like it? Take it up with your county executive who approved the permit.


Yes Walmart did run the jobs and businesses out, they've been doing it in towns across the country for years. They achieve this by dumping cheaply manufactured goods imported from a workforce-abusing China. Local businesses do not have legions of Chinese peasants at their disposal and therefore raise prices to make up the difference or close up shop. Chinese peasants are willingly abused because they have no other choice but to compete for a terrible job. American peasants are willingly abused because they have no other choice but to buy their Faded Glory blue jeans and Great Value milk there. There are actually towns and counties who refuse to let Walmart in to exploit their communities.

As far as the minimum wage job goes, thank the minimum wage. Wal-Mart might be willing to pay employees on a skill scale but those who do have skills are making the same wage as those who dont thanks to the price floor of labor.

Wow. That's a laugh. Walmart may also be willing to employ schoolchildren if it weren't for those pesky child labor laws.
 
2012-12-14 10:39:44 AM  

o5iiawah: An individual can eat, sleep, pay utilities and participate in the employee benefits plan.


Sleep is free everywhere. The Man might hassle you about sleeping in the park, but that's because he's a fascist pig.

I've also known people to be trash-pickers when it comes to eating. You'd be surprised what people have to do to stay alive. That can be "free" if you lower your standards enough.

If you wear lots of coats (you can get 'em from Goodwill if you don't keep hitting the same one week after week), there's no need to pay heating bills; board games and decks of cards (also from goodwill) don't require electricity and provide endless hours of entertainment. Utilities are clearly a luxury.

In order to participate in Walmart's employee benefits plan, don't you have to work a full 40-hour week? Haven't they made a habit out of scheduling 35-hour weeks so that employees aren't eligible?

There's a stripe of belief that stamps its feet at the "lazy, shiftless" welfare leeches, then derides their choice of job as "menial", or "known to be low-end" and supports the low wages, works to cut public assistance and further derides the choices they make in trying to make a better life (like, by having a cell phone, or not living in crime-infested areas). Those are the worst kind of people - the kind that are one short burst of logical thinking away from realizing how horrible a world they wish on everyone who wasn't handed the invisible opportunities inherent in NOT living hand-to-mouth through adulthood.

So to sum up - you can probably live a frugal lifestyle on $2/day, but is that what we want to subject people who WANT TO WORK FOR A LIVING to?
 
2012-12-14 10:39:55 AM  

Fizpez: I detest WalMart in almost every single way but how much should a zero skill position pay? If you ignore health care I could probably "live" on about $8/hr. That means keeping myself alive, getting to work and going home. And that's about it.

Somewhere between that and "Walmart needs to pay their cashiers enough to support a family of 4 in a middle class lifestyle" is the problem.


No that is not the problem, nobody is claiming Walmart should be required to pay an income that can support a family of four in a middle class life style. People would like to see Walmart pay their employees a wage that does not require them to depend on government assistance for basic needs.
 
2012-12-14 10:41:18 AM  

doczoidberg: As someone who makes 13.50, I am amused.


Just for the sake of knowing, what is it that you do? And do you feel that 13.5/hr is worth it (at least to you)?
 
2012-12-14 10:43:17 AM  

Giltric: It all depends on how motivated or hungry someone is.....


You've never been hungry.
That's the only way you can speak with such ignorance.

Retail and fast food job schedules often don't allow second jobs. Even then, the wages won't pay for an education, or even leave time to attend classes/training.
"Comfortable" should be a one-bedroom apartment, enough for food and utilities, and enough extra to pay for bettering yourself. It is the very least someone working a full time job deserves, and easily doable in the richest country in the world.

There are two options.
1) Wages
2) Taxes

Unless you'll allow the poor to die in the street, they must either be given wages to survive by employers, or social services paid for via taxes. For everyone like yourself who asks "Why should Wal-Mart pay more?" ask yourself why you're paying for Wal-Mart's employees' healthcare.
 
2012-12-14 10:45:33 AM  

o5iiawah: Minimum wage sets a floor for labor such that a company who has a $6/hr position either has to deduct pay from others to fill the need for the position or not hire the person altogether.


No. That is not how wages work. That is not how business works. That is not how reality works.
If a person does not bring more value to the company than they cost, they don't get hired. They don't takes wages away from everyone else to hire someone new.
Stop being stupid.
 
2012-12-14 10:46:39 AM  

Dr Dreidel: o5iiawah: An individual can eat, sleep, pay utilities and participate in the employee benefits plan.

Sleep is free everywhere. The Man might hassle you about sleeping in the park, but that's because he's a fascist pig.

I've also known people to be trash-pickers when it comes to eating. You'd be surprised what people have to do to stay alive. That can be "free" if you lower your standards enough.

If you wear lots of coats (you can get 'em from Goodwill if you don't keep hitting the same one week after week), there's no need to pay heating bills; board games and decks of cards (also from goodwill) don't require electricity and provide endless hours of entertainment. Utilities are clearly a luxury.

In order to participate in Walmart's employee benefits plan, don't you have to work a full 40-hour week? Haven't they made a habit out of scheduling 35-hour weeks so that employees aren't eligible?

There's a stripe of belief that stamps its feet at the "lazy, shiftless" welfare leeches, then derides their choice of job as "menial", or "known to be low-end" and supports the low wages, works to cut public assistance and further derides the choices they make in trying to make a better life (like, by having a cell phone, or not living in crime-infested areas). Those are the worst kind of people - the kind that are one short burst of logical thinking away from realizing how horrible a world they wish on everyone who wasn't handed the invisible opportunities inherent in NOT living hand-to-mouth through adulthood.

So to sum up - you can probably live a frugal lifestyle on $2/day, but is that what we want to subject people who WANT TO WORK FOR A LIVING to?


A question that i like to ask (well, used to ask. I've since given up FB conversations with these people i'm going to refer to) is simply : "Do you think that someone that works 35+ hours a week deserves basic healthcare?"

The responses, quite literally, made me sad enough to just about cry. Or throw the computer out the window. Or stop talking to them.
 
2012-12-14 10:47:03 AM  

o5iiawah: If wal-mart paid cart wranglers $6/hr instead of $7.25, they might be able to hire a few more of them and some high school kids and low income individuals would gain market skills otherwise.


You hire enough cart wranglers to wrangle the carts. Salary has nothing to do with it.

What would you do with extra cart wranglers?
 
2012-12-14 10:48:29 AM  

Giltric: People either go out and get a 2nd job to pay for classes that might increase their skillset or they sit around waiting for someone else to make that happen for them.


At some point people need to be personally responsible for themselves. It's not the government's job to give them more money (despite what some may think), nor is it a company's responsibility to pay them a "living wage." If you can make more money compliments of minimum wage hikes without obtaining a valuable skill or improving your education, where is the incentive to better yourself?

The minimum wage is a crutch, not an incentive.
 
2012-12-14 10:48:52 AM  

theurge14: It used to work when employers had some shred of social obligations to the society that made their businesses possible. But that seems to have faded in the last 20-30 years when they installed the idea that SOCIALIZMZ BAD among the red-state peasantry. Something's gotta give


I don't think it was a "socialism is bad" that caused that (although that is used to propagate it today).

It worked when there was something at stake for the owners (major shareholders) to keep the company going. With the advent of venture vulturecapatalists this isn't the case.

Giltric: People either go out and get a 2nd job to pay for classes that might increase their skillset or they sit around waiting for someone else to make that happen for them.


Are you one of those bootstrappy folks who worked two full-time jobs while going to school?

Because I am guessing you aren't, and that it is a lot harder than you think. Especially if you came fromt he background that a lot of these peopel do. They don't have the skills to knwo which "classes" will really help them and which will just rip them off. And peopel like you are proably against congress going after for profit colleges that prey on people who are in that shiatty situation and are trying to better themselves.

I paid for college myself and was lucky enough to not have to work through much of it (but I did graduate with abotu 40k in debt).
 
2012-12-14 10:53:13 AM  
So I was in the liquidation store and saw these big bags of quality dog food for sale - cheap. I checked the label to make sure it wasn't made in China & bought one.
The dog LOVED it - so much so that he'd gobble it down too quickly then barf it all up 10 minutes later.
Mrs. Henry & the kids kept feeding the dog this stuff & he kept blowing chunks in the hallway.
After a week of barfing it finally dawned on them to stop feeding the dog this kibble.

I'm now getting lectures on being a cheap bastard.
 
2012-12-14 10:53:20 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Giltric: It all depends on how motivated or hungry someone is.....

You've never been hungry.
That's the only way you can speak with such ignorance.

Retail and fast food job schedules often don't allow second jobs. Even then, the wages won't pay for an education, or even leave time to attend classes/training.
"Comfortable" should be a one-bedroom apartment, enough for food and utilities, and enough extra to pay for bettering yourself. It is the very least someone working a full time job deserves, and easily doable in the richest country in the world.

There are two options.
1) Wages
2) Taxes

Unless you'll allow the poor to die in the street, they must either be given wages to survive by employers, or social services paid for via taxes. For everyone like yourself who asks "Why should Wal-Mart pay more?" ask yourself why you're paying for Wal-Mart's employees' healthcare.


Okay so lets say you are right.....walmart now bumps every skill less drone up to 10$ an hour......now what do you do about all the people with minor skills who are making 10$ an hour....their skill just became worth more if skill less people are getting paid 10.....where do you bump them up to.. 15?,,,now what about all the people making 15$ an hour?

Don't t give me the bullscat about schedules, people have been making it happen for decades.....you either make it happen or you wait for someone to make it happen for you....which person do you think succeeds?


If a wal mart employee makes so little that they qualify for public assistance wouldn;t they also make so little that they qualify for grants and financial aid in order to go to school and better their skillset?
 
2012-12-14 10:53:31 AM  

Dr Dreidel: In order to participate in Walmart's employee benefits plan, don't you have to work a full 40-hour week? Haven't they made a habit out of scheduling 35-hour weeks so that employees aren't eligible?


I have been thinking how you can fix the "35" hour part time trick.

Only thing I can come up with is defining anyone who works more than 20hours a week as full time.
 
2012-12-14 10:56:45 AM  

o5iiawah: You've disagreed but you havent broken my argument.


Your argument is always the same. The free market is always the answer. Workers have no one to blame for their lot in life but themselves.

It's people like you who made me into a Marxist. Thanks :)
 
2012-12-14 10:57:02 AM  
I am all for being paid a living wage, but not for doing a job that requires almost zero in the way of skills. Those jobs should pay shiat wages. shiat wages fuels the desire to not work shiat jobs.

Stay in school, kids. Stay in school.
 
2012-12-14 10:57:39 AM  

slayer199: Giltric: People either go out and get a 2nd job to pay for classes that might increase their skillset or they sit around waiting for someone else to make that happen for them.

At some point people need to be personally responsible for themselves. It's not the government's job to give them more money (despite what some may think), nor is it a company's responsibility to pay them a "living wage." If you can make more money compliments of minimum wage hikes without obtaining a valuable skill or improving your education, where is the incentive to better yourself?

The minimum wage is a crutch, not an incentive.


And what do you suggest for people that have little skills, have had little to no exposure to a decent education (or are well below average IQ), have been laid off and need work to live?
 
2012-12-14 10:59:06 AM  

kregh99: I am all for being paid a living wage, but not for doing a job that requires almost zero in the way of skills. Those jobs should pay shiat wages. shiat wages fuels the desire to not work shiat jobs.

Stay in school, kids. Stay in school.


Stay in school, incur massive amounts of debt.... and maybe.... just maybe you'll get a decent job, but probably not! Ahhhh capitalism it's so refreshingly retarded.
 
2012-12-14 11:00:10 AM  
The term living wage is idiotic.

You can live off $6/hr working only 40 hours a week unless you make stupid life decisions... yes even in the city.
 
2012-12-14 11:00:12 AM  

kregh99: I am all for being paid a living wage, but not for doing a job that requires almost zero in the way of skills. Those jobs should pay shiat wages. shiat wages fuels the desire to not work shiat jobs.

Stay in school, kids. Stay in school.


Of course any job you have done deserve better than shiat wages. shiat wages are for the little people who do jobs that serve your needs.
 
2012-12-14 11:01:15 AM  

MugzyBrown: The term living wage is idiotic.

You can live off $6/hr working only 40 hours a week unless you make stupid life decisions... yes even in the city.


The name of that city is New Delhi, India.
 
2012-12-14 11:02:12 AM  

FarkedOver: It's people like you who made me into a Marxist. Thanks :)


So you only take a minimum amount to live off of that your ability generates for you and you give the rest away to people who need it?
 
2012-12-14 11:03:12 AM  

Giltric: FarkedOver: It's people like you who made me into a Marxist. Thanks :)

So you only take a minimum amount to live off of that your ability generates for you and you give the rest away to people who need it?


Do we live in a Marxist society? Don't ask shiatty questions.
 
2012-12-14 11:05:09 AM  

DirkValentine: A question that i like to ask (well, used to ask. I've since given up FB conversations with these people i'm going to refer to) is simply : "Do you think that someone that works 35+ hours a week deserves basic healthcare?"

The responses, quite literally, made me sad enough to just about cry. Or throw the computer out the window. Or stop talking to them.


I finished a contract with a nonprofit research effort in NoVA back in February. They have a 7-hour workday (35-hour work week), and their employer still finds it in his heart to provide these subhuman scum with health benefits, a 401(k) (with matching), and a host of other employee perks.

The guy who founded the concern is a (multi)billionaire - I think he knows how to run a profitable business. If giving people benefits was as dumb an expenditure as some people think, savvy businessmen wouldn't offer them, especially when they have no requirement to. It's simply a question of "How much do you want your employees to like where they work/the work they do?"
 
2012-12-14 11:05:28 AM  
MugzyBrown

The term living wage is idiotic.

You can live off $6/hr working only 40 hours a week unless you make stupid life decisions... yes even in the city.


If you have a second job and sell drugs on the side.

A cheap one bedroom is $500-600/month here in fly over country
 
2012-12-14 11:05:51 AM  

FarkedOver: Giltric: FarkedOver: It's people like you who made me into a Marxist. Thanks :)

So you only take a minimum amount to live off of that your ability generates for you and you give the rest away to people who need it?

Do we live in a Marxist society? Don't ask shiatty questions.


Oh so society has to be marxist for you to do that?

sounds more like "fark them I got mine"......some marxist you are.
 
2012-12-14 11:06:15 AM  
Globalization truly farked us. Until the race to the bottom in terms of wages finishes on a global scale (companies had there factories in mexico, then mexicans became to expensive so they moved to china, then when the chinese become too expensive they're going to move to africa) wages for labor are going to continue to decrease, while the already wealthy will continue to gain more and more of the pie.
 
2012-12-14 11:06:17 AM  
If you don't feel you get paid enough to push buttons of move boxes around....GET A BETTER JOB OR MAYBE A SKILL
 
2012-12-14 11:06:42 AM  

DirkValentine: And what do you suggest for people that have little skills, have had little to no exposure to a decent education (or are well below average IQ), have been laid off and need work to live?


Are you suggesting that a majority of people making minimum wage are incapable of doing better?
 
2012-12-14 11:06:43 AM  

Giltric: FarkedOver: Giltric: FarkedOver: It's people like you who made me into a Marxist. Thanks :)

So you only take a minimum amount to live off of that your ability generates for you and you give the rest away to people who need it?

Do we live in a Marxist society? Don't ask shiatty questions.

Oh so society has to be marxist for you to do that?

sounds more like "fark them I got mine"......some marxist you are.


Riiiiighhhhttt... Marxism/Socialism is a international struggle. You should read up on it some time.
 
2012-12-14 11:06:52 AM  

MugzyBrown: The term living wage is idiotic.

You can live off $6/hr working only 40 hours a week unless you make stupid life decisions... yes even in the city.


Like getting sick.

Like having to help a sick family member.

Like being the victim of a crime.

Etc.
 
2012-12-14 11:06:54 AM  
i64.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-14 11:09:31 AM  
I say make WalMart responsible for covering the cost of their employees food stamps etc with interest. Basically stop them from being able to use public funds from subsidizing their business.
 
2012-12-14 11:09:32 AM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: If you have a second job and sell drugs on the side.

A cheap one bedroom is $500-600/month here in fly over country


You can get a 2 bedroom apt in Philly for $800 per month.

When I was in school and making just over minimum wage I had 3 roomates in a 2 bedroom apartment. Splitting rent and utilities and basic food 4 ways makes it pretty damn cheap.
 
2012-12-14 11:10:02 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Retail and fast food job schedules often don't allow second jobs.


THIS RIGHT HERE.

I worked as a cashier in nationwide hardware store chain in the summers when I was in college.

The first year I worked there I was getting just under 40 hours a week, enough to bankroll some cash. The second year they started cutting my hours halfway thru the summer, but there was no rhyme or reason to when I would be scheduled or not. Some weeks I'd work afternoons Tues-Thurs, some weeks I'd be on all weekend+Monday morning.

I wanted to get a second job somewhere, but I was warned if I cut my availability hours down, I would lose hours from the already crap ones I was getting. Instead of a second job, I would have to get a replacement job.

In the end I did not return the next two summers, and instead ran a small eBay business. Made about the same money in the end.
 
2012-12-14 11:10:24 AM  

MugzyBrown: Splitting rent and utilities and basic food 4 ways makes it pretty damn cheap.


Which is great unless you happen to have kids or any of a number of other issues.
 
2012-12-14 11:11:29 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Which is great unless you happen to have kids


Sounds like a poor life decision to have kids if you're making $6 per hour
 
2012-12-14 11:12:16 AM  

MugzyBrown: Random Anonymous Blackmail: If you have a second job and sell drugs on the side.

A cheap one bedroom is $500-600/month here in fly over country

You can get a 2 bedroom apt in Philly for $800 per month.

When I was in school and making just over minimum wage I had 3 roomates in a 2 bedroom apartment. Splitting rent and utilities and basic food 4 ways makes it pretty damn cheap.


So you suggest living in a commune?
 
2012-12-14 11:12:16 AM  

MugzyBrown: Random Anonymous Blackmail: If you have a second job and sell drugs on the side.

A cheap one bedroom is $500-600/month here in fly over country

You can get a 2 bedroom apt in Philly for $800 per month.

When I was in school and making just over minimum wage I had 3 roomates in a 2 bedroom apartment. Splitting rent and utilities and basic food 4 ways makes it pretty damn cheap.


Of course foodis cheaper if 4 people share a meal for one.
 
2012-12-14 11:12:26 AM  

FarkedOver: Giltric: FarkedOver: Giltric: FarkedOver: It's people like you who made me into a Marxist. Thanks :)

So you only take a minimum amount to live off of that your ability generates for you and you give the rest away to people who need it?

Do we live in a Marxist society? Don't ask shiatty questions.

Oh so society has to be marxist for you to do that?

sounds more like "fark them I got mine"......some marxist you are.

Riiiiighhhhttt... Marxism/Socialism is a international struggle. You should read up on it some time.




I don't have to live in a buddhist society to act all buddhist and treat people the way a buddhist does....why do you need society to be marxist in order for you to practice marxism?

Why do you cockblock for your own ideology?
 
2012-12-14 11:13:01 AM  

FarkedOver: MugzyBrown: Random Anonymous Blackmail: If you have a second job and sell drugs on the side.

A cheap one bedroom is $500-600/month here in fly over country

You can get a 2 bedroom apt in Philly for $800 per month.

When I was in school and making just over minimum wage I had 3 roomates in a 2 bedroom apartment. Splitting rent and utilities and basic food 4 ways makes it pretty damn cheap.

So you suggest living in a commune?


If you can't heat the place with the body warmth of your roommates, you just aren't doing it right.
 
2012-12-14 11:13:23 AM  

MugzyBrown: WhyteRaven74: Which is great unless you happen to have kids

Sounds like a poor life decision to have kids if you're making $6 per hour


People never have their circumstances change after having children. Life is a continual path upwards.
 
2012-12-14 11:15:46 AM  

Sgt Otter: ox45tallboy: He said "competitive" wage, as in "it's about what everyone else in the industry pays". I don't think even $18.7 million would be enough for him to keep a straight face while calling it a "living wage".

When you ARE the industry, you are setting the standard, and everyone else competes against you. If they were to raise their wages, other retail stores would follow suit. But that extra $0.03 /share each quarter nets him another $2 million bonus*, so why bother? The people will work for crap.

This is the biggest problem with Capitalism - there is absolutely no incentive to make others' lives better, and every incentive to take advantage of your position to make others' lives worse, even when it is for a comparatively tiny benefit to yourself. (I'm sure I would notice the difference between $16 million / year and $18 million, but not NEARLY as much as I would notice the difference between $18K and $25K.)

*these numbers have been pulled out of my ass. Please feel free to substitute real numbers I don't feel like looking up right now and I guarantee that my point will still stand

Paying your workers well enough to afford your own products is a huge incentive.

Henry Ford figured that out a hundred years ago with the Model T.


Not this shiat again. Paying your employees more specifically so they can afford to buy your product makes absolutely zero business sense, as the vast majority of the increased wages will go to other uses.

That's why no business people today pay wages based on that theory, and also why Henry ford didn't (he raised wages for other reasons).
 
2012-12-14 11:15:59 AM  

Giltric: Instead of using some arbitrary term like living wage why doesn;t anyone calculate what living expenses should be.....


That has already happened, it's not arbitrary. Though the number will be different depending on where you live.
 
2012-12-14 11:16:34 AM  
MugzyBrown, is it that you love corporations so much, or that you love humanity so little?
 
2012-12-14 11:16:35 AM  

Giltric: FarkedOver: Giltric: FarkedOver: Giltric: FarkedOver: It's people like you who made me into a Marxist. Thanks :)

So you only take a minimum amount to live off of that your ability generates for you and you give the rest away to people who need it?

Do we live in a Marxist society? Don't ask shiatty questions.

Oh so society has to be marxist for you to do that?

sounds more like "fark them I got mine"......some marxist you are.

Riiiiighhhhttt... Marxism/Socialism is a international struggle. You should read up on it some time.



I don't have to live in a buddhist society to act all buddhist and treat people the way a buddhist does....why do you need society to be marxist in order for you to practice marxism?

Why do you cockblock for your own ideology?


Clearly, you've never studied Marxism, socialism, communism or revolutionary politics at all.

Why doesn't it work? It's called the USSR. Stalin tried socialism in one country. It failed. Why? Because Socialism is a worldwide revolutionary movement. If you cannot ignite the world in revolution the capitalist will come back. I'd love to give you more of a radical left lesson, but you should just go to www.marxists.org. Have fun champ!
 
2012-12-14 11:17:44 AM  
oh great, here comes Feed Ussum Crap to enlighten the thread.
 
2012-12-14 11:18:15 AM  
We can discuss all day long what Wal Mart should or could pay their employees. The bottom line is that they are going to pay them the absolute minimum they can get away with. As long as they aren't violating and labor laws (or aren't getting caught violating any) and people are still willing to fill out an application and work there, wages will not go up. Period.

There are really only 3 ways to get them to increase wages and benefits. One is through legislation which, in my opinion, is the worst way to go about it. Legislation tends to be very broad and comes with a host of unintended consequences. That's not to mention the fact that it would be nearly impossible to pass anything meaningful in today's political climate, and whatever you could get passed would be so watered-down by corporate bribing lobbying as to be virtually worthless.

The second is through increased competition or an improved economy. If Wal Mart can't find people to work $8.50/hr. because everyone else is paying $10, their wages will go up. That's not likely to happen because, as someone else mentioned earlier, Wal Mart pretty much sets the bar here. If there were some sort of vast economic expansion and people were no longer trapped between taking a slave wage or living under a bridge, that would also do the trick. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

The last way would be for the workers to unionize. That's going to be nearly impossible to accomplish as well. They could pull it off in some states, but in many states there are few protections for workers who choose to unionize. Right-to-work laws and an economy in the toilet will ensure that for every worker who decides to join the union and strike, there will be 3 people willing to take their place. The striking workers will simply be replaced by people too desperate to do anything other than play by Wal Mart's rules. They are simply too big, with too many employees spread over all 50 states.

The cold, hard truth is that for a company like Wal Mart, workers are just cogs in a machine - cheap and easily replaceable. If a cog can't afford to get its impacted tooth fixed and can't go to work because it's in too much pain, you simply replace it with another cog. If a light bulb burns out at your house, you don't spend resources trying to fix it or figure out how to improve the conditions the light bulb operated in and make investments to make sure that the next light bulb lasts longer. You go to Wal Mart, buy a package of cheap bulbs assembled in China, toss the old one in the trash and move on with life.

tl;dr - Wal Mart's pay and benefit levels aren't going anywhere for the foreseeable future. Enjoy your $5.00 pallet of lead-coated toilet paper.
 
2012-12-14 11:19:09 AM  

max_pooper: So there are no Walmart employees on government assistance?


No more by volume than target, best buy, Kroger, wholefoods...or any other basic job in America
 
2012-12-14 11:20:25 AM  
I love how we used to be all about prosperity for all Americans. Now prosperity is making minimum wage and using food stamps. Why do you people think this is the best we can do? How is this good? Walmart would be making exactly 0$ if it weren't for its employees, but god forbid they pay them what they're worth. That money is for the owners of the stock, not the people who actually do the work and provide their labor! You want to start a revolution, take away the ability of people to feel like they can live a decent life.
 
2012-12-14 11:22:53 AM  

MugzyBrown: WhyteRaven74: Which is great unless you happen to have kids

Sounds like a poor life decision to have kids if you're making $6 per hour


Because every child is planned, and there are no social pressures against getting/using contraception or pressure to carry a pregnancy to term. Nope, no social pressure and no political/legal consequences of it.

// you may personally be pro-bortion, but these facts are very real
 
2012-12-14 11:24:35 AM  

FarkedOver: Do we live in a Marxist society? Don't ask shiatty questions. I only support charity when compelled at the point of a gun.


We get it.

That said, Wal-Mart does a shiatty thing to people when it comes to health insurance. At least provide them with something basic on your own dime!
 
2012-12-14 11:29:04 AM  

FarkedOver: Why doesn't it work? It's called the USSR. Stalin tried socialism in one country. It failed. Why? Because Socialism is a worldwide revolutionary movement. If you cannot ignite the world in revolution the capitalist will come back. I'd love to give you more of a radical left lesson, but you should just go to www.marxists.org. Have fun champ!


It fails because it directly contradicts the most basic competitive drive to succeed that exists in every living thing.
 
2012-12-14 11:32:07 AM  

DirkValentine: slayer199: Giltric: People either go out and get a 2nd job to pay for classes that might increase their skillset or they sit around waiting for someone else to make that happen for them.

At some point people need to be personally responsible for themselves. It's not the government's job to give them more money (despite what some may think), nor is it a company's responsibility to pay them a "living wage." If you can make more money compliments of minimum wage hikes without obtaining a valuable skill or improving your education, where is the incentive to better yourself?

The minimum wage is a crutch, not an incentive.

And what do you suggest for people that have little skills, have had little to no exposure to a decent education (or are well below average IQ), have been laid off and need work to live?


Costco pays benefits and $17 an hour. WalMart could pay benefits if it wanted. And stop shoving their employees health care costs out onto the public to cover, i.e. to us. But it won't, cause Walmart is run by a bunch of cheap Republican asshat bastards.
 
2012-12-14 11:36:34 AM  
What you people are shrieking about Wal-Mart not paying is not a "living wage." It is a "comfort wage."

I've worked full time at Wal-Mart three times in my (younger) life, on a couple of floor positions (including cashier). They paid more than numbers given to me from every other grocery store (Kroger, Target, Publix) and every fast food place I applied to (too many to list). Where is the outrage for all of those places?

Have you considered what happens when there aren't any cheap groceries or cheap food because labor costs raises prices? Everyone loses money. Not "cash", but "purchasing power" -- it goes down because you $30k/yr buys half as many burgers as it used to, and that goes for the poor people, too. They get poorer, not richer.
 
2012-12-14 11:36:34 AM  
The really sad thing is that the cost increases that would result from paying a decent wage and providing benefits is miniscule.

Papa John's has been refusing to give their employees healthcare to increase profits by $0.11 to $0.14 per pizza by their own admission.
 
2012-12-14 11:37:02 AM  
Hey, you can live pretty cheap outdoors.
media.peopleofwalmart.com
 
2012-12-14 11:38:41 AM  

MugzyBrown: making just over minimum wage I had 3 roomates in a 2 bedroom apartment. Splitting rent and utilities and basic food 4 ways makes i


My first year in grad school I rented a room in a four-bedroom apartment for $350 with all utilties included. I lived on Ramen and Totino's Pizza and probably lived on less than $500/month.

That said, had I not been on my parents' health insurance I would have been struggling a bit. I think fixing the health care issues would go a long way to making crappy paying jobs a little more bearable.
 
2012-12-14 11:38:50 AM  

Giltric: Okay so lets say you are right.....walmart now bumps every skill less drone up to 10$ an hour......now what do you do about all the people with minor skills who are making 10$ an hour....their skill just became worth more if skill less people are getting paid 10.....where do you bump them up to.. 15?,,,now what about all the people making 15$ an hour?


People can negotiate for wages based on the new minimum. No further thought required.

Giltric: Don't t give me the bullscat about schedules, people have been making it happen for decades.....you either make it happen or you wait for someone to make it happen for you....which person do you think succeeds?


You'll get schedules because it's the truth. Wal-Mart is notorious for bad scheduling. I've seen it in other retailers. You're available 24/7 or you simply don't get hours. If your second job tries to pull the same shiat, there's no point to having a second job. There's the ever popular "Work someplace else." but that doesn't work when A) We're talking about Wal-Mart to begin with and B) Wal-Mart is the nation's largest employer.
The whole point is that it's made much more difficult than it should be. There is no "day shift". you can pick up leaving your nights free. You work for Wal-Mart. 24/7. If they want you Tuesday night, Sunday morning, and Wednesday afternoon, you're there or you're out of a job, and it changes every week with no rhyme or reason.

Giltric: If a wal mart employee makes so little that they qualify for public assistance wouldn;t they also make so little that they qualify for grants and financial aid in order to go to school and better their skillset?


Perhaps. Grants didn't come close to paying for my schooling, however, and again you run into problems with school conflicting with work. You still need to make enough money to survive while going to school. This becomes increasingly impossible for people with dependents, without transportation, etc. It's not as simple as "Just go to college, dumbass. Stop being lazy."
 
2012-12-14 11:40:40 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Because every child is planned, and there are no social pressures against getting/using contraception or pressure to carry a pregnancy to term. Nope, no social pressure and no political/legal consequences of it.


And no one with kids ever loses their good job and still has to make ends meet.
 
2012-12-14 11:43:24 AM  

Dokushin:
Have you considered what happens when there aren't any cheap groceries or cheap food because labor costs raises prices? Everyone loses money. Not "cash", but "purchasing power" -- it goes down because you $30k/yr buys half as many burgers as it used to, and that goes for the poor people, too. They get poorer, not richer.


So are you willing to work for minimum wage at your current job so people can better afford your company's good and services?
 
2012-12-14 11:44:15 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Because every child is planned, and there are no social pressures against getting/using contraception or pressure to carry a pregnancy to term. Nope, no social pressure and no political/legal consequences of it.


You're going with the "social/political pressure" excuse? That's amusing.
 
2012-12-14 11:48:06 AM  

tbhouston: If you don't feel you get paid enough to push buttons of move boxes around....GET A BETTER JOB OR MAYBE A SKILL


When working at the busiest store in your town means you're in an idiot for working a terrible job then your country is in trouble.
 
2012-12-14 11:50:42 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: And no one with kids ever loses their good job and still has to make ends meet.


Yes about 18 years ago, I had to make a career change and I had no idea what I was going to do. I worked 2 jobs (bartending and pizza delivery) and averaged about 70 hours a week. I rented a house with a roommate and was paying child support while I interviewed for a number of tech-based jobs. I did that for 2 years. Once I got my first IT job (at $12/hr), I kept moving up...learning new skills, changing jobs fairly frequently, and finishing my college degree.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it damn hard? Yes. Point is that there are many people that are willing to settle....and way too many people willing to let people settle. As for those with lesser IQs or physical ailments, we already have government programs designed to help them. For those that aren't willing to do what's necessary to get ahead...that's not my problem. Yes, I got mine so screw them...because I farking earned it.
 
2012-12-14 11:51:26 AM  

GoldSpider: Dr Dreidel: Because every child is planned, and there are no social pressures against getting/using contraception or pressure to carry a pregnancy to term. Nope, no social pressure and no political/legal consequences of it.

You're going with the "social/political pressure" excuse? That's amusing.


You're free to go with the other stated "excuse" from the thread (that people with kids are not insulated against losing a job, having an investment fail, or the like). Or make one up for yourself. That's the beauty in the stupidity of the original claim - there are tens or hundreds or even thousands of scenarios in which someone with a kid or expecting a kid can go from "financial stability" to "financial laughingstock" absent poor decision-making on their part.
 
2012-12-14 11:51:48 AM  

slayer199: DirkValentine: And what do you suggest for people that have little skills, have had little to no exposure to a decent education (or are well below average IQ), have been laid off and need work to live?

Are you suggesting that a majority of people making minimum wage are incapable of doing better?


Is that what my question implied, asshat? How about you try giving an honest answer without obfuscation so we can move forward?
 
2012-12-14 11:53:18 AM  

Dr Dreidel: You're free to go with the other stated "excuse" from the thread (that people with kids are not insulated against losing a job, having an investment fail, or the like).


"I'm unemployed with kids because I lost my job" is perfectly valid. "I'm unemployed with kids because there are social/political pressures against abortion and contraception" is not.
 
2012-12-14 11:54:20 AM  

slayer199: Sergeant Grumbles: And no one with kids ever loses their good job and still has to make ends meet.

Yes about 18 years ago, I had to make a career change and I had no idea what I was going to do. I worked 2 jobs (bartending and pizza delivery) and averaged about 70 hours a week. I rented a house with a roommate and was paying child support while I interviewed for a number of tech-based jobs. I did that for 2 years. Once I got my first IT job (at $12/hr), I kept moving up...learning new skills, changing jobs fairly frequently, and finishing my college degree.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it damn hard? Yes. Point is that there are many people that are willing to settle....and way too many people willing to let people settle. As for those with lesser IQs or physical ailments, we already have government programs designed to help them. For those that aren't willing to do what's necessary to get ahead...that's not my problem. Yes, I got mine so screw them...because I farking earned it.


Tell, us do you spit on the guy who delivers your Pizza so he knows what a loser you think he is? Do you tell all the people at the stores you shop at how superior you are and what pathetic scum they are.? It seems it's the responsibility of an elite like you to make sure that the low lifes who labor to serve your needs know how unworthy they are.
 
2012-12-14 11:57:43 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Tell, us do you spit on the guy who delivers your Pizza so he knows what a loser you think he is? Do you tell all the people at the stores you shop at how superior you are and what pathetic scum they are.? It seems it's the responsibility of an elite like you to make sure that the low lifes who labor to serve your needs know how unworthy they are.


I took the complete opposite from his post, so I don't know wtf you were reading...
 
2012-12-14 11:59:06 AM  

GoldSpider: Dr Dreidel: You're free to go with the other stated "excuse" from the thread (that people with kids are not insulated against losing a job, having an investment fail, or the like).

"I'm unemployed with kids because I lost my job" is perfectly valid. "I'm unemployed with kids because there are social/political pressures against abortion and contraception" is not.

WhyteRaven74: Which is great unless you happen to have kids
MugzyBrown: Sounds like a poor life decision to have kids if you're making $6 per hour


"I had a kid because when I got pregnant, there was no safe and legal way for me to get an abortion, absent abandoning my home, my job and my family to cross state lines (300 miles away) to make the initial appointment and then again to get there 3 days later to have the procedure. I got pregnant in the first place because the Catholic who owns the butcher shop where I work refused to pay for BC, the Muslim who owns the chain of pharmacies in my town refused to stock or sell condoms, and 'the rhythm method' (suggested to me by my Baptist doctor) is only 50% effective."

Not valid?

// no one is claiming that's the only scenario, though - just that it's possible
 
2012-12-14 12:01:22 PM  

Dr Dreidel: "I had a kid because when I got pregnant, there was no safe and legal way for me to get an abortion, absent abandoning my home, my job and my family to cross state lines (300 miles away) to make the initial appointment and then again to get there 3 days later to have the procedure. I got pregnant in the first place because the Catholic who owns the butcher shop where I work refused to pay for BC, the Muslim who owns the chain of pharmacies in my town refused to stock or sell condoms, and 'the rhythm method' (suggested to me by my Baptist doctor) is only 50% effective."

Not valid?


Yeah, I bet that happens like four-dozen times an hour.
 
2012-12-14 12:07:31 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Tell, us do you spit on the guy who delivers your Pizza so he knows what a loser you think he is? Do you tell all the people at the stores you shop at how superior you are and what pathetic scum they are.? It seems it's the responsibility of an elite like you to make sure that the low lifes who labor to serve your needs know how unworthy they are.


Actually, no. I've helped some people I've run into while shopping get into the field (most recently a guy I met last year that was working at Best Buy that explained he couldn't get a foot in the door in IT). I've helped plenty of people get better jobs through my network...it's up to them to run with it. I'm MORE than willing and able to help those that will help themselves...but I have zero pity for people that will sit around and feel sorry for themselves rather than taking responsibility for their lives.
 
2012-12-14 12:09:08 PM  

slayer199: Sergeant Grumbles: And no one with kids ever loses their good job and still has to make ends meet.

Yes about 18 years ago, I had to make a career change and I had no idea what I was going to do. I worked 2 jobs (bartending and pizza delivery) and averaged about 70 hours a week. I rented a house with a roommate and was paying child support while I interviewed for a number of tech-based jobs. I did that for 2 years. Once I got my first IT job (at $12/hr), I kept moving up...learning new skills, changing jobs fairly frequently, and finishing my college degree.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it damn hard? Yes. Point is that there are many people that are willing to settle....and way too many people willing to let people settle. As for those with lesser IQs or physical ailments, we already have government programs designed to help them. For those that aren't willing to do what's necessary to get ahead...that's not my problem. Yes, I got mine so screw them...because I farking earned it.


Oh, really? name a couple of these programs and then let me know how to live a decent life on them.

Also - you are LUCKY to have made it through the bar/pizza thing to IT and then continue to move up. I guess you didn't have any sort of medical emergency (or did you have insurance?). Like you said, it only took two years of working 70 hours a week. Surely everyone is capable of that, right?

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't mean shiat and the fact that you are using your life story as a reason that people that don't "make it" are lazy, shiftless losers only speaks to your own selfish, ignorant mindset.
 
2012-12-14 12:09:27 PM  

slayer199: Is it possible? Yes. Is it damn hard? Yes. Point is that there are many people that are willing to settle....and way too many people willing to let people settle.


You started so well, and then you blamed the poor for being poor.
It it possible? Yes. Is it hard? Yes. Is the difficulty justified? No.

And it's harder today. Don't give me this 18 years ago crap. 1994 was a golden age compared to today.
 
2012-12-14 12:11:14 PM  

slayer199: Philip Francis Queeg: Tell, us do you spit on the guy who delivers your Pizza so he knows what a loser you think he is? Do you tell all the people at the stores you shop at how superior you are and what pathetic scum they are.? It seems it's the responsibility of an elite like you to make sure that the low lifes who labor to serve your needs know how unworthy they are.

Actually, no. I've helped some people I've run into while shopping get into the field (most recently a guy I met last year that was working at Best Buy that explained he couldn't get a foot in the door in IT). I've helped plenty of people get better jobs through my network...it's up to them to run with it. I'm MORE than willing and able to help those that will help themselves...but I have zero pity for people that will sit around and feel sorry for themselves rather than taking responsibility for their lives.


Your just unwilling for those people to have decent pay and benefits for the labor they do for you.
 
2012-12-14 12:18:34 PM  

jchic: bingethinker: Alpo? They can afford brand name dog food? Luxury!

And they probably keep it in their refrigerator!


Nice
 
2012-12-14 12:20:12 PM  

o5iiawah: If wal-mart paid cart wranglers $6/hr instead of $7.25, they might be able to hire a few more of them and some high school kids and low income individuals would gain market skills otherwise.


As others have said, that's just plain-old stupid right there.

Walmart is perfectly able to hire more high school kids right now. Millions and millions in profits to do it with.

They won't hire a single high school kid they don't have to. Just like they don't now. A WMT store manager is in fact supposed to cut headcount every single year, unless same-store sales are growing by over 10%.

If they can pay some positions at $6, they are about a billion times more likely to raise their quarterly dividend by 2 cents, raise some C-suite pay, and call it a day.
 
2012-12-14 12:23:51 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: slayer199: Is it possible? Yes. Is it damn hard? Yes. Point is that there are many people that are willing to settle....and way too many people willing to let people settle.

You started so well, and then you blamed the poor for being poor.
It it possible? Yes. Is it hard? Yes. Is the difficulty justified? No.

And it's harder today. Don't give me this 18 years ago crap. 1994 was a golden age compared to today.


a57.foxnews.com

And here's his Fark handle.
 
2012-12-14 12:26:00 PM  

GoldSpider: I only support charity when compelled at the point of a gun.

We get it.


Not what I was getting at but nice try. Socialism/Marxism is a macroeconomic model. It's ridiculous to apply to an individual. Marxism deals with economics of society as a whole and not the individual profit/greed motive.

GoldSpider: It fails because it directly contradicts the most basic competitive drive to succeed that exists in every living thing.


The competitive drive to "succeed" is a joke. Its the drive for survival. The fact that you think the top tier of Wal Mart suits absolutely NEEDS millions and billions of dollars to survive is pretty farked up though.
 
2012-12-14 12:26:30 PM  

o5iiawah: Wal-Mart's job as a business is to pay its employees a fair market rate for their labor, not to be a conduit to fulfill the lifestyle expectations of its employees.


Huh. To have a fair market rate for anything, you have to have people in a roughly equal bargaining position. An unemployed person who has a desperate, immediate need to pay rent is not in an equal bargaining position with the plutocrats who own Walmart. Maybe a fair market rate could be negotiated if the employees could somehow join to together for bargaining. I'm pretty sure the advocates of "free markets" are always in favor of that approach.
 
2012-12-14 12:30:55 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: I love how we used to be all about prosperity for all Americans. Now prosperity is making minimum wage and using food stamps. Why do you people think this is the best we can do? How is this good? Walmart would be making exactly 0$ if it weren't for its employees, but god forbid they pay them what they're worth. That money is for the owners of the stock, not the people who actually do the work and provide their labor! You want to start a revolution, take away the ability of people to feel like they can live a decent life.


People still believe:
1 Supply side economics
2 They will be millionaires one day
3 You can just snap out of it and do better
 
2012-12-14 12:40:59 PM  

FarkedOver: Stalin tried socialism in one country. It failed. Why? Because Socialism is a worldwide revolutionary movement. If you cannot ignite the world in revolution the capitalist will come back.


Stalin failed because of Capatilists?

I woudl love this history lesson.
 
2012-12-14 12:42:23 PM  

Raoul Eaton: o5iiawah: Wal-Mart's job as a business is to pay its employees a fair market rate for their labor, not to be a conduit to fulfill the lifestyle expectations of its employees.

Huh. To have a fair market rate for anything, you have to have people in a roughly equal bargaining position. An unemployed person who has a desperate, immediate need to pay rent is not in an equal bargaining position with the plutocrats who own Walmart. Maybe a fair market rate could be negotiated if the employees could somehow join to together for bargaining. I'm pretty sure the advocates of "free markets" are always in favor of that approach.


I remember the first time I read a job application that stated "if you belong to a union we will not hire you". This was in an at-will state so it was no surprise that the employer was terrible.
 
2012-12-14 12:51:39 PM  

liam76: FarkedOver: Stalin tried socialism in one country. It failed. Why? Because Socialism is a worldwide revolutionary movement. If you cannot ignite the world in revolution the capitalist will come back.

Stalin failed because of Capatilists?

I woudl love this history lesson.


He failed because he wasn't a Marxist at all really. Socialism is a world wide revolution. This revolution is aimed at destroying the capitalist class. Stalin basically said.... well we can coexist with the capitalists. In my opinion this bit him in the ass. If he was a Marxists or a Leninist he would have tried for more revolutions the world over. He did not. He only support regimes that were tyrannical rather than Marxist. Take for instance the Spanish Civil War. He only supplied the "communist party" in Spain (aka Stalinists). He did not lend support to anarchists or Trotskyist groups.
 
2012-12-14 12:55:08 PM  

slayer199: Sergeant Grumbles: And no one with kids ever loses their good job and still has to make ends meet.

Yes about 18 years ago, I had to make a career change and I had no idea what I was going to do. I worked 2 jobs (bartending and pizza delivery) and averaged about 70 hours a week. I rented a house with a roommate and was paying child support while I interviewed for a number of tech-based jobs. I did that for 2 years. Once I got my first IT job (at $12/hr), I kept moving up...learning new skills, changing jobs fairly frequently, and finishing my college degree.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it damn hard? Yes. Point is that there are many people that are willing to settle....and way too many people willing to let people settle.


Would it have been possible if you got sick?

Would it have been possible if your child support was 2x,3x as much?

Would it have been possible if you were the sole caretaker?

For those that aren't willing to do what's necessary to get ahead...that's not my problem. Yes, I got mine so screw them...because I farking earned it.

You "earned it" by being lucky. Lucky not to have the things I mentioned above and by having parents that pointed you in the right direction.

I say this as someone who worked full time before going to college, paid for college myslef, paid off my college loans a few years out (and was making about 120k 3 years out of college, have since switched careers for a better quality of life), and knows I did that because I had a fair amoutn of luck.

I say this as someone who has their eyes open and knows how much more difficult that is to do today then it was 17 years agoe when I started college.
 
2012-12-14 12:58:03 PM  

FarkedOver: liam76: FarkedOver: Stalin tried socialism in one country. It failed. Why? Because Socialism is a worldwide revolutionary movement. If you cannot ignite the world in revolution the capitalist will come back.

Stalin failed because of Capatilists?

I woudl love this history lesson.

He failed because he wasn't a Marxist at all really. Socialism is a world wide revolution. This revolution is aimed at destroying the capitalist class. Stalin basically said.... well we can coexist with the capitalists. In my opinion this bit him in the ass. If he was a Marxists or a Leninist he would have tried for more revolutions the world over. He did not. He only support regimes that were tyrannical rather than Marxist. Take for instance the Spanish Civil War. He only supplied the "communist party" in Spain (aka Stalinists). He did not lend support to anarchists or Trotskyist groups.


If he did what he did worldwide it would have been plagued with the exact same problems purges, famines, etc except ona much greater scale.
 
2012-12-14 01:00:35 PM  

DirkValentine: Oh, really? name a couple of these programs and then let me know how to live a decent life on them.

Also - you are LUCKY to have made it through the bar/pizza thing to IT and then continue to move up. I guess you didn't have any sort of medical emergency (or did you have insurance?). Like you said, it only took two years of working 70 hours a week. Surely everyone is capable of that, right?

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't mean shiat and the fact that you are using your life story as a reason that people that don't "make it" are lazy, shiftless losers only speaks to your own selfish, ignorant mindset.


No medical.

Yes, there are plenty of people that are lazy and shiftless losers. I've worked with them, I've bumped into them, and I know more people like me...that worked overtime without pay...just for the experience and to build our reputations. I like to think everyone is capable...not as many willing.

Sergeant Grumbles: You started so well, and then you blamed the poor for being poor.
It it possible? Yes. Is it hard? Yes. Is the difficulty justified? No.

And it's harder today. Don't give me this 18 years ago crap. 1994 was a golden age compared to today.


I didn't start so well...working 2 minimum wage jobs and paying child support....was not fun.

I don't blame the poor for being poor. I blame them for ACCEPTING it. At some point the poor need to take responsibility for their situation. They accept it...and people like you are willing to give them excuses.

Where is society's responsibility? To help those that are physically and mentally incapable of helping themselves AND providing them with an education. That means ending social promotion. That means teaching critical thinking...challenging students. That means NOT teaching to a standardized test. That means every student should be able to read and write at grade level upon graduation.

It is harder today. Harder for college graduates to get experience.

Philip Francis Queeg: Your just unwilling for those people to have decent pay and benefits for the labor they do for you.


They can EARN it. Stop giving the poor a pass by saying, "Aww, they're poor...feel sorry for them...damn you Wal-Mart, raise their wages!" If you really want to help the poor, educate them...give them a skill that they can use in the marketplace. But stop making excuses for them.

But you guys are right...it is "The Man" keeping them down...but it isn't guys like me...it's guys like you that want to make excuses and blame people like me for working hard to be successful...but you won't lift a finger to help them get a better job, better education, or more skills. Unlike you enablers, I actually help some of these people by finding them entry-level work in my field...and give them technical and career advice. Some of them take it, some of them don't...and I'm proud of those that do. Those that piss away their opportunity (not calling in to work, calling in sick frequently, being late to work, not doing their jobs)...can suffer the consequences on their own. It's no longer my problem.
 
2012-12-14 01:01:16 PM  

liam76: FarkedOver: liam76: FarkedOver: Stalin tried socialism in one country. It failed. Why? Because Socialism is a worldwide revolutionary movement. If you cannot ignite the world in revolution the capitalist will come back.

Stalin failed because of Capatilists?

I woudl love this history lesson.

He failed because he wasn't a Marxist at all really. Socialism is a world wide revolution. This revolution is aimed at destroying the capitalist class. Stalin basically said.... well we can coexist with the capitalists. In my opinion this bit him in the ass. If he was a Marxists or a Leninist he would have tried for more revolutions the world over. He did not. He only support regimes that were tyrannical rather than Marxist. Take for instance the Spanish Civil War. He only supplied the "communist party" in Spain (aka Stalinists). He did not lend support to anarchists or Trotskyist groups.

If he did what he did worldwide it would have been plagued with the exact same problems purges, famines, etc except ona much greater scale.


Stalin was a terrible leader and a terrible Marxist. Had Lenin survived he could have done the job much better.
 
2012-12-14 01:05:00 PM  

theurge14: ox45tallboy: This is the biggest problem with Capitalism - there is absolutely no incentive to make others' lives better, and every incentive to take advantage of your position to make others' lives worse, even when it is for a comparatively tiny benefit to yourself. (I'm sure I would notice the difference between $16 million / year and $18 million, but not NEARLY as much as I would notice the difference between $18K and $25K.)

It used to work when employers had some shred of social obligations to the society that made their businesses possible. But that seems to have faded in the last 20-30 years when they installed the idea that SOCIALIZMZ BAD among the red-state peasantry. Something's gotta give.


And short-term profits have been placed above long-term viability. This has also brought about the vulture capitalists, who "maximize shareholder value" by blatantly robbing the pension funds and the like.

Doesn't Wal-Mart realize that these people will just turn around and spend the extra money they're earning at Wal-Mart? It's not like $15 /hr will sudden;y bring them into the fold of the middle class,but it will keep them off food stamps and Medicaid assistance that the rich Republicans are having to pay for.
 
2012-12-14 01:06:53 PM  

slayer199: Philip Francis Queeg: Your just unwilling for those people to have decent pay and benefits for the labor they do for you.

They can EARN it. Stop giving the poor a pass by saying, "Aww, they're poor...feel sorry for them...damn you Wal-Mart, raise their wages!" If you really want to help the poor, educate them...give them a skill that they can use in the marketplace. But stop making excuses for them.


Right, laboring to serve your needs does not earn you decent pay and benefits. People should be eager to sacrifice for the honor of serving the needs of an elite like you. If this was a just nation the little people would pay for the honor of checking out a great man like you in the store. I mean what kind of nonsense is it that people think you should pay an extra $0.11 per pizza so that the guy who makes it can have health insurance.
 
2012-12-14 01:07:26 PM  

Free Radical: Working at Walmart is a career choice?

Really?


Of course it's not.

When it's the only thing available, it's not much of a choice.
 
2012-12-14 01:09:18 PM  

o5iiawah: Wal-Mart's job as a business is to pay its employees a fair market rate for their labor, not to be a conduit to fulfill the lifestyle expectations of its employees.


You're technically correct (the best kind, of course). However, when they control such a huge segment of the workforce that they decide the fair market rate, do you think they're going to decide higher or lower?
 
2012-12-14 01:09:49 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Stop shopping there.


Revenue and profits fall, costs get cut some more. Wages decline, people are laid off.
 
2012-12-14 01:15:48 PM  

FarkedOver: liam76: FarkedOver: liam76: FarkedOver: Stalin tried socialism in one country. It failed. Why? Because Socialism is a worldwide revolutionary movement. If you cannot ignite the world in revolution the capitalist will come back.

Stalin failed because of Capatilists?

I woudl love this history lesson.

He failed because he wasn't a Marxist at all really. Socialism is a world wide revolution. This revolution is aimed at destroying the capitalist class. Stalin basically said.... well we can coexist with the capitalists. In my opinion this bit him in the ass. If he was a Marxists or a Leninist he would have tried for more revolutions the world over. He did not. He only support regimes that were tyrannical rather than Marxist. Take for instance the Spanish Civil War. He only supplied the "communist party" in Spain (aka Stalinists). He did not lend support to anarchists or Trotskyist groups.

If he did what he did worldwide it would have been plagued with the exact same problems purges, famines, etc except ona much greater scale.

Stalin was a terrible leader and a terrible Marxist. Had Lenin survived he could have done the job much better.


Do you have an example of Socialism that has worked, or any real-world evidence to support the assertion that simultaneous global adoption would generate some superior global market?
 
2012-12-14 01:16:41 PM  

Giltric: Instead of using some arbitrary term like living wage why doesn;t anyone calculate what living expenses should be......


Should Walmart be paying a low skilled laborer enough money to buy a 300k$ house on a 30 year mortgage?

In all honesty shouldn't someone be looking for a job that pays them enough to buy that 300k house instead of expecting their walmart job to bump them up to that level?


Of course not! Therefore the alternative is to pay them such substandard wages that they must rely on government assistance for food and medical care.

You have posted a rather silly thought.
 
2012-12-14 01:18:37 PM  

FarkedOver: The competitive drive to "succeed" is a joke. Its the drive for survival. The fact that you think the top tier of Wal Mart suits absolutely NEEDS millions and billions of dollars to survive is pretty farked up though.


No, I don't think the suits NEED to be so rich, and generally agree with you that executives are grossly overpaid. Just saying it's a natural drive, that in our opinion, could use a little restraint.
 
2012-12-14 01:22:56 PM  

Dr Dreidel: In order to participate in Walmart's employee benefits plan, don't you have to work a full 40-hour week? Haven't they made a habit out of scheduling 35-hour weeks so that employees aren't eligible?


More than that, they've told employees scheduled for and working 40-hr weeks that they are in a "part-time position" and therefore not eligible for benefits.
 
2012-12-14 01:23:27 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: The competitive drive to "succeed" is a joke. Its the drive for survival. The fact that you think the top tier of Wal Mart suits absolutely NEEDS millions and billions of dollars to survive is pretty farked up though.

No, I don't think the suits NEED to be so rich, and generally agree with you that executives are grossly overpaid. Just saying it's a natural drive, that in our opinion, could use a little restraint.


Restraint? No. It needs to be abolished. It's exploitation.
 
2012-12-14 01:25:38 PM  

Dokushin: Do you have an example of Socialism that has worked, or any real-world evidence to support the assertion that simultaneous global adoption would generate some superior global market?


Sure, look at any employee owned and operated business. There's plenty that have flourished. During the Spanish Civil War whole towns were collectivized on the republican side. Sadly that all came to end when Franco and his capitalist-backed fascists staged a coup because they didn't like the way the vote went.
 
2012-12-14 01:27:16 PM  

FarkedOver: Restraint? No. It needs to be abolished. It's exploitation.


Spoken like an abstinence-only sex education advocate.
 
2012-12-14 01:29:14 PM  

Giltric: Okay so lets say you are right.....walmart now bumps every skill less drone up to 10$ an hour......now what do you do about all the people with minor skills who are making 10$ an hour....their skill just became worth more if skill less people are getting paid 10.....where do you bump them up to.. 15?,,,now what about all the people making 15$ an hour?


I love hearing the argument that Wal-Mart employees are "skill less" from the same people that believe we spend too much educating our population.

Do you really think the Chinese sweatshop workers who make the crap that is sold in Wal-Mart can read and follow written instructions, understand a Material Safety Data Sheet regarding cleaning chemicals, calculate percentage off when labeling product pricing, organize products based on size and weight, and operate the Telzon computer system used for stocking?

IF a person has a high school education and some basic common sense, they can understand being a stock clerk at a Wal-MArt. If not, they will not be able to do the job effectively. Calling them "skill less" because many Americans do share the same skills (but many do not) is rather silly.
 
2012-12-14 01:30:27 PM  

ox45tallboy: Doesn't Wal-Mart realize that these people will just turn around and spend the extra money they're earning at Wal-Mart?


You going to outlaw Amazon.com and other online retailers?
 
2012-12-14 01:32:17 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: Restraint? No. It needs to be abolished. It's exploitation.

Spoken like an abstinence-only sex education advocate.


I'm sorry I don't condone your "Free" markets. Free to screw over the masses that is.

You must make a helluva rapist.
 
2012-12-14 01:32:41 PM  

MugzyBrown: The term living wage is idiotic.

You can live off $6/hr working only 40 hours a week unless you make stupid life decisions... yes even in the city.


You heard it here first, ladies and germs...

A home with heat, and decent food are STUPID LIFE DECISIONS

$6/hr x 40 hrs. = $240/wk, or about $200 after taxes

Hope you don't need a doctor visit from getting sick from living in that cardboard box with no heat!
 
2012-12-14 01:35:51 PM  

slayer199: DirkValentine: Oh, really? name a couple of these programs and then let me know how to live a decent life on them.

Also - you are LUCKY to have made it through the bar/pizza thing to IT and then continue to move up. I guess you didn't have any sort of medical emergency (or did you have insurance?). Like you said, it only took two years of working 70 hours a week. Surely everyone is capable of that, right?

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't mean shiat and the fact that you are using your life story as a reason that people that don't "make it" are lazy, shiftless losers only speaks to your own selfish, ignorant mindset.

No medical.

Yes, there are plenty of people that are lazy and shiftless losers. I've worked with them, I've bumped into them, and I know more people like me...that worked overtime without pay...just for the experience and to build our reputations. I like to think everyone is capable...not as many willing.

Sergeant Grumbles: You started so well, and then you blamed the poor for being poor.
It it possible? Yes. Is it hard? Yes. Is the difficulty justified? No.

And it's harder today. Don't give me this 18 years ago crap. 1994 was a golden age compared to today.

I didn't start so well...working 2 minimum wage jobs and paying child support....was not fun.

I don't blame the poor for being poor. I blame them for ACCEPTING it. At some point the poor need to take responsibility for their situation. They accept it...and people like you are willing to give them excuses.

Where is society's responsibility? To help those that are physically and mentally incapable of helping themselves AND providing them with an education. That means ending social promotion. That means teaching critical thinking...challenging students. That means NOT teaching to a standardized test. That means every student should be able to read and write at grade level upon graduation.

It is harder today. Harder for college graduates to get experience.

Philip Francis Queeg: You ...


Your entire post is filled with fail.

Here's why :

- you posit that people that work at Walmart shouldn't accept it and should better themselves. what if they just aren't that smart? what if working the register and Walmart is at their level of skill - as in, that's it! They aren't farking lazy b/c they are obviously working. And guess what? We need people to work cash registers, deliver pizzas (i did all through college), bartend, sweep floors, pick up the garbage, etc. You are suggesting that all these jobs are shiatty and beneath you and that it's their "laziness" that prevents/stops/impedes/whatever them from "moving up". I hate to break it to you, but that is "up" for some people. A lot of people.

- You are super lucky about having no medical and not getting assaulted by a psychopath and having your face kicked in. That happened to me 3 years ago. Probably about 200K in hospital bills and 3 surgeries on my farking face.

- "But you guys are right...it is "The Man" keeping them down.." I haven't seen anyone saying "The Man". What I have heard people talking about is how companies, Walmart in this instance, are greedy pieces of shiat that leach off our society by not providing their employees with a living wage or provide health benefits. If we had single payer like every other civilized country in the world then *poof!* there's one MAJOR problem solved. And companies that don't pay a full time worker enough to support themselves without food stamps and living in a shiathole substandard apartment with 3 roommates should be brought to task.

No one is giving excuses. As i mentioned up thread - Do you think that American citizens working a full time (35+ hr/wk) deserves access to basic/preventive healthcare?

Do you think that someone that works for a company that can pay it's CEO 20 million dollars a year should have an obligation, be it moral or legal, to pay the people that provide the labor for said company a wage that is, oh, i don't know - twice the poverty level? That's still only about 23K or something a year.

Also - being poor in country and shuns public transit makes life pretty farking difficult.

Good for you on "making it" all by yourself. And now you can look at people who struggle, like you did but don't have the means or wherewithal to make it out of that social strata they exist in, and say, "fark you, work harder. it's your fault you work at a menial job and it's your fault your poor".

Pitiful.

Also, i wish i had the quote by that farker that said something along the lines of "Conservatives are willing to take away ALL social services to make sure that a couple people that are gaming the system don't get a handout they don't deserve. Progressives are willing to take that hit and make sure that the majority of the users of a social program (the ones who need it. THE MAJORITY) have access to them".
 
2012-12-14 01:42:52 PM  

Dokushin: Do you have an example of Socialism that has worked, or any real-world evidence to support the assertion that simultaneous global adoption would generate some superior global market?


See: Europe, almost the entire continent.
 
2012-12-14 01:45:58 PM  

FarkedOver: I'm sorry I don't condone your "Free" markets. Free to screw over the masses that is.

You must make a helluva rapist.


There are ways to regulate and manage a capitalist system that doesn't disproportionately benefit the rich, but you seem more interested in codifying into law a belief system that is at odds with reality and human nature.

True believers of any denomination are amusing for a time, but eventually become insufferable. For now, you still amuse me, so please continue!
 
2012-12-14 01:47:23 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: You going to outlaw Amazon.com and other online retailers?


As of right now, most people I know (I'm staying in Alabama) who work at Wal-Mart are living paycheck-to-paycheck and survive off of their employee discounts. I don't know of any (6 people) who shop online, as most do not even have a home Internet connection.

I realize that extrapolating this to all of Wal-Mart is rather silly, but I think my point stands that Wal-Mart's employee discount makes their products cheaper for their employees than competing stores. After all, low-income people will spend a high percentage of their income on food and basic household goods and necessities. The only reral competition Wal-Mart has around here for the business of their own employees is Dollar General, and that's mostly for cleaning supplies.
 
2012-12-14 01:47:26 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: ox45tallboy: Doesn't Wal-Mart realize that these people will just turn around and spend the extra money they're earning at Wal-Mart?

You going to outlaw Amazon.com and other online retailers?


Is anyone talking about outlawing them?

I think people want to change their busniess practices that hurting Americans.

I heard some stroeis last year about shiatty things amazon was doing at their shipping/sorting facilities, but I believe they have been fixed as I haven't heard anything.
 
2012-12-14 01:48:12 PM  

ox45tallboy: See: Europe, almost the entire continent.


Indeed, a shining example of fiscal sustainability.
 
2012-12-14 01:49:02 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: I'm sorry I don't condone your "Free" markets. Free to screw over the masses that is.

You must make a helluva rapist.

There are ways to regulate and manage a capitalist system that doesn't disproportionately benefit the rich, but you seem more interested in codifying into law a belief system that is at odds with reality and human nature.

True believers of any denomination are amusing for a time, but eventually become insufferable. For now, you still amuse me, so please continue!


There's no such thing as a half-capitalist. You either are one or you are not.
 
2012-12-14 01:50:56 PM  

FarkedOver: There's no such thing as a half-capitalist. You either are one or you are not.


So it's either 100% libertarian-utopia open free market economy, or 100% marxist-utopia government planned economy?
 
2012-12-14 01:57:30 PM  

DirkValentine: Your entire post is filled with fail.

Here's why :

- you posit that people that work at Walmart shouldn't accept it and should better themselves. what if they just aren't that smart? what if working the register and Walmart is at their level of skill - as in, that's it! They aren't farking lazy b/c they are obviously working. And guess what? We need people to work cash registers, deliver pizzas (i did all through college), bartend, sweep floors, pick up the garbage, etc. You are suggesting that all these jobs are shiatty and beneath you and that it's their "laziness" that prevents/stops/impedes/whatever them from "moving up". I hate to break it to you, but that is "up" for some people. A lot of people.


Guess what, if that's their level of skill...that's their level of skill. There are already government and charities that help those that can't help themselves. But you're trying to suggest that the low end is really the majority as a way to justify higher wages for everyone. I'm going to state that I think those are a minority of people...not a majority. People of average intelligence can do well in learning a skill or obtaining an education.

- You are super lucky about having no medical and not getting assaulted by a psychopath and having your face kicked in. That happened to me 3 years ago. Probably about 200K in hospital bills and 3 surgeries on my farking face.

Certainly, I think there should be catastrophic medical care/insurance. I don't think anyone should be forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills. Shocking, right?

- "But you guys are right...it is "The Man" keeping them down.." I haven't seen anyone saying "The Man". What I have heard people talking about is how companies, Walmart in this instance, are greedy pieces of shiat that leach off our society by not providing their employees with a living wage or provide health benefits. If we had single payer like every other civilized country in the world then *poof!* there's one MAJOR problem solved. And companies that don't pay a full time worker enough to support themselves without food stamps and living in a shiathole substandard apartment with 3 roommates should be brought to task.

I'm tired of this living wage bs. It's not the government or an employer's responsibility to pay a living wage. It's up to the individual.

No one is giving excuses. As i mentioned up thread - Do you think that American citizens working a full time (35+ hr/wk) deserves access to basic/preventive healthcare?

Do you think that someone that works for a company that can pay it's CEO 20 million dollars a year should have an obligation, be it moral or legal, to pay the people that provide the labor for said company a wage that is, oh, i don't know - twic ...


I'm not a conservative...and truthfully, I hate the GOP. I'm not in favor of corporate welfare or their farked up social policies. I'm socially liberal, fiscally responsible.

Guess what, since the War on Poverty has begun, has the government done ANYTHING to help these people. Get a clue, you don't help them by giving them more...you help them by giving them less but giving them opportunity. biatching about the CEO of a company doesn't do anything to help people get ahead...it's finger-pointing. It's an excuse. Poor guy doesn't make money because CEO makes too much. The stockholders have a right to complain if they feel the CEO makes too much...the board has a right to complain...anyone else biatching is just wasting their breath.

I'm betting most of you ripping on my posts haven't really helped any poor in the real world...by giving them opportunity. I have...and most of you have no concept of reality. There will always be rich, there will always be poor. It's the people that are poor to lower-middle-class that just need opportunity to be successful that we should be focusing on...those that are poor and accepting you can't really help.
 
2012-12-14 01:58:42 PM  

GoldSpider: ox45tallboy: See: Europe, almost the entire continent.

Indeed, a shining example of fiscal sustainability.


Yeah, because no one's hyperventilating about the US long-term financial stability, either...
 
2012-12-14 01:59:37 PM  

ox45tallboy: As of right now, most people I know (I'm staying in Alabama) who work at Wal-Mart are living paycheck-to-paycheck and survive off of their employee discounts. I don't know of any (6 people) who shop online, as most do not even have a home Internet connection.


The only people I know who work at Walmart are teenagers, they all shop online. If walmart gave them a raise it would in no way be guaranteed to be spent at walmart.

liam76: Is anyone talking about outlawing them?


No. But if you say just give everyone a raise and it causes prices to rise I think it's been established that if people can find lower prices elsewhere they will spend there money there, because they just can't help being exploited by being offered rock bottom prices.

So it's not so simple.
 
2012-12-14 02:00:19 PM  

slayer199: Guess what, since the War on Poverty has begun, has the government done ANYTHING to help these people. Get a clue, you don't help them by giving them more...you help them by giving them less but giving them opportunity. biatching about the CEO of a company doesn't do anything to help people get ahead...it's finger-pointing. It's an excuse. Poor guy doesn't make money because CEO makes too much. The stockholders have a right to complain if they feel the CEO makes too much...the board has a right to complain...anyone else biatching is just wasting their breath.


And yet, here you are biatching about the lower level employees wanting better pay.
 
2012-12-14 02:00:36 PM  

GoldSpider: ox45tallboy: See: Europe, almost the entire continent.

Indeed, a shining example of fiscal sustainability.


Absolutely. It seems the more Socialist countries like Sweden and Finland are doing far better than the less Socialist countries like Greece and Italy.
 
2012-12-14 02:03:59 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg:

Papa John's has been refusing to give their employees healthcare to increase profits by $0.11 to $0.14 per pizza by their own admission.


Not true. PJ has always offered health insurance to 100% of its corporate employees, including those in corporate-owned stores. Schnatter didn't say that's going to change; he just said it's going to cost 11-14 cents/pizza more and PJ will try to pass that added cost on to consumers.

Corporate has no control over franchisees' decisions on health insurance. In response to the question, "Wouldn't some business owners just cut people down (to) like 34 hours a week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance?" Schnatter's answer was, "That's probably what's going to happen. It's common sense. That's what I call lose-lose." Doesn't sound like he approves of the strategy or intends to follow it.

Read the question in its entirety; of course it's common sense to assume that some business owners are idiots.

I'll get outraged when PJ Inc. actually does something worth getting outraged about, or when other people spread falsehoods like yours.
 
2012-12-14 02:05:00 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: There's no such thing as a half-capitalist. You either are one or you are not.

So it's either 100% libertarian-utopia open free market economy, or 100% marxist-utopia government planned economy?


Nope. I'm saying even the liberalist libby that ever libbed is still a capitalist.
 
2012-12-14 02:06:55 PM  

liam76: You "earned it" by being lucky. Lucky not to have the things I mentioned above


Why is he lucky? Why arent those people unlucky?

Are you trying to claim that paying child support, being sole caretaker and getting cancer all at the same time is the norm?
 
2012-12-14 02:17:46 PM  

slayer199: uess what, since the War on Poverty has begun, has the government done ANYTHING to help these people. Get a clue, you don't help them by giving them more...you help them by giving them less but giving them opportunity.


that's b/c our "war" on poverty is pathetic and people like you saying shiat like this poison the well of ideas on how to really solve it with a more aggressive program.
 
2012-12-14 02:25:23 PM  
QFT

Raoul Eaton: Huh. To have a fair market rate for anything, you have to have people in a roughly equal bargaining position. An unemployed person who has a desperate, immediate need to pay rent is not in an equal bargaining position with the plutocrats who own Walmart. Maybe a fair market rate could be negotiated if the employees could somehow join to together for bargaining. I'm pretty sure the advocates of "free markets" are always in favor of that approach.


I only wish I could "Smart" this comment eleventy brazillion times.

/Newsletter &tc.
 
2012-12-14 02:37:14 PM  

slayer199: I'm tired of this living wage bs. It's not the government or an employer's responsibility to pay a living wage. It's up to the individual.


Either you accept that the poor should die in the street, or you accept that you're going to pay for their survival via wages or taxes. Pick one of the three.
I think it should be wages. There's no reason Wal-Mart should get to use Medicaid, Food Stamps, and any other welfare program to subsidize their employees.

Let me just ask you, do you think everyone in the U.S. is capable of providing themselves a living wage, whether through education or whatever else? None of this "It's possible." none of this "I did it.", can everyone do it?
Do you really think the only reason people toil at Wal-Mart is because they refuse to aspire to more?
Do you think the way upwards is as straightforward as "Work harder."?
 
2012-12-14 02:37:52 PM  
Fark me and striking out everyone instead of underlining.
 
2012-12-14 02:46:32 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The really sad thing is that the cost increases that would result from paying a decent wage and providing benefits is miniscule.

Papa John's has been refusing to give their employees healthcare to increase profits by $0.11 to $0.14 per pizza by their own admission.


Nope. Totally wrong.
Can't you people read?


Link

Found that with one Google.
 
2012-12-14 03:05:57 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: slayer199: I'm tired of this living wage bs. It's not the government or an employer's responsibility to pay a living wage. It's up to the individual.

Either you accept that the poor should die in the street, or you accept that you're going to pay for their survival via wages or taxes. Pick one of the three.
I think it should be wages. There's no reason Wal-Mart should get to use Medicaid, Food Stamps, and any other welfare program to subsidize their employees.

Let me just ask you, do you think everyone in the U.S. is capable of providing themselves a living wage, whether through education or whatever else? None of this "It's possible." none of this "I did it.", can everyone do it?
Do you really think the only reason people toil at Wal-Mart is because they refuse to aspire to more?
Do you think the way upwards is as straightforward as "Work harder."?


My question is how do you define "living wage"? I mean this in all seriousness. Should a living wage allow a person to buy a house? To rent on their own? To support themselves only or to support a spouse or raise a family too?

As I mentioned above, I spent about a year living on roughly $600/month. How? I rented cheaply with multiple roommates and subsisted on Ramen, sandwiches, and Totino's pizza. It wasn't a very fun year (mostly thanks to my roommates), though thankfully my rent included cable and internet so it wasn't as bad as it could have been.

Now here's where it comes to the crux of your question. Is everybody capable of providing themselves a wage to live like I did? Absolutely. That's working at minimum wage for about 20 hours/week. Even figuring in taxes, minimum wage is enough for a single person to live (not live well or even average, but still subsist) outside of maybe the most expensive cities in the country.

And as I said above, none of this counts health care, which is its own particular problem.
 
2012-12-14 03:06:58 PM  

DirkValentine: slayer199: uess what, since the War on Poverty has begun, has the government done ANYTHING to help these people. Get a clue, you don't help them by giving them more...you help them by giving them less but giving them opportunity.

that's b/c our "war" on poverty is pathetic and people like you saying shiat like this poison the well of ideas on how to really solve it with a more aggressive program.


How does extending social welfare create opportunity and an attitude of self-reliance rather than dependence? It doesn't.

Social Programs do nothing to ease poverty. Yet you want to add more?

People advocating more social programs are the problem, not the solution. You enable a self-defeating attitude rather than believing that most people are capable of more.
 
2012-12-14 03:09:11 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: slayer199: Guess what, since the War on Poverty has begun, has the government done ANYTHING to help these people. Get a clue, you don't help them by giving them more...you help them by giving them less but giving them opportunity. biatching about the CEO of a company doesn't do anything to help people get ahead...it's finger-pointing. It's an excuse. Poor guy doesn't make money because CEO makes too much. The stockholders have a right to complain if they feel the CEO makes too much...the board has a right to complain...anyone else biatching is just wasting their breath.

And yet, here you are biatching about the lower level employees wanting better pay.


I'm not biatching. I'm merely stating that people should be paid based on their value to a company, NOT an arbitrary number set by the government.
 
2012-12-14 03:15:42 PM  

slayer199: How does extending social welfare create opportunity and an attitude of self-reliance rather than dependence? It doesn't.

Social Programs do nothing to ease poverty. Yet you want to add more?

People advocating more social programs are the problem, not the solution. You enable a self-defeating attitude rather than believing that most people are capable of more.


Subsistence farming, sweatshops and debtor's prisons for everybody!

/"Detroit" libertardian douchebag.
//Lemme guess: UAW and live in a lily-white Mt Clemens neighborhood.
 
2012-12-14 03:16:51 PM  

Giltric: Why is he lucky? Why arent those people unlucky?

Are you trying to claim that paying child support, being sole caretaker and getting cancer all at the same time is the norm?


Luck is a subjective concept frequently used to avoid responsibility.
 
2012-12-14 03:17:01 PM  
static.prtst.net
 
2012-12-14 03:19:11 PM  

slayer199: Philip Francis Queeg: slayer199: Guess what, since the War on Poverty has begun, has the government done ANYTHING to help these people. Get a clue, you don't help them by giving them more...you help them by giving them less but giving them opportunity. biatching about the CEO of a company doesn't do anything to help people get ahead...it's finger-pointing. It's an excuse. Poor guy doesn't make money because CEO makes too much. The stockholders have a right to complain if they feel the CEO makes too much...the board has a right to complain...anyone else biatching is just wasting their breath.

And yet, here you are biatching about the lower level employees wanting better pay.

I'm not biatching. I'm merely stating that people should be paid based on their value to a company, NOT an arbitrary number set by the government.


Yes, people are just cogs. Easily replaceable parts with no more intrinsic value than a hammer. Elites like you have no qualms about working someone full time and watching them slowly starve as long as it was profitable. We must all keep our eyes on the highest priority at all times. I salute you and your heroic efforts to ensure that those at the bottom are viewed with the cold contempt they deserve, much like a piece of rusting machinery not worthy of maintenance. It is that spirit that makes thi9s country great.
 
2012-12-14 03:19:48 PM  
My apostrophe jumped to the left. Sorry.
 
2012-12-14 03:20:17 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Subsistence farming, sweatshops and debtor's prisons for everybody!

/"Detroit" libertardian douchebag.
//Lemme guess: UAW and live in a lily-white Mt Clemens neighborhood.


Thanks for for the ad hominem and ridiculous assumptions. You win the least intelligent comments in the thread prize. At least the others I've been debating with have attempted to make an argument.
 
2012-12-14 03:23:32 PM  

slayer199: demaL-demaL-yeH: Subsistence farming, sweatshops and debtor's prisons for everybody!

/"Detroit" libertardian douchebag.
//Lemme guess: UAW and live in a lily-white Mt Clemens neighborhood.

Thanks for for the ad hominem and ridiculous assumptions. You win the least intelligent comments in the thread prize. At least the others I've been debating with have attempted to make an argument.


Not even when I attempt to stoop to your level can I win that prize.

/And that stab in the dark hit a little too close for comfort.
//St. Clair Shores, then.
 
2012-12-14 03:23:55 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, people are just cogs. Easily replaceable parts with no more intrinsic value than a hammer. Elites like you have no qualms about working someone full time and watching them slowly starve as long as it was profitable. We must all keep our eyes on the highest priority at all times. I salute you and your heroic efforts to ensure that those at the bottom are viewed with the cold contempt they deserve, much like a piece of rusting machinery not worthy of maintenance. It is that spirit that makes thi9s country great.


Yes, it's just the evil bourgeoisie keeping the proletariat at bay.

Unlike you, I actually contribute more than my taxes to the lower class by giving them opportunity. But please, continue to drone on with comments ripped from Marx.

What made this country great WAS opportunity....not handouts.
 
2012-12-14 03:25:43 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Not even when I attempt to stoop to your level can I win that prize.

/And that stab in the dark hit a little too close for comfort.
//St. Clair Shores, then.


Oh, what level is that? You still haven't made an argument...and logical fallacies (ad hominems) don't count.

And you're not even close to my location.
 
2012-12-14 03:28:15 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Stop sh


But that would require inconvenience and hardship. It' easier to just biatch.
 
2012-12-14 03:29:00 PM  
accidentally the whole thing, I did.
 
2012-12-14 03:29:33 PM  
 
2012-12-14 03:34:07 PM  

slayer199: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, people are just cogs. Easily replaceable parts with no more intrinsic value than a hammer. Elites like you have no qualms about working someone full time and watching them slowly starve as long as it was profitable. We must all keep our eyes on the highest priority at all times. I salute you and your heroic efforts to ensure that those at the bottom are viewed with the cold contempt they deserve, much like a piece of rusting machinery not worthy of maintenance. It is that spirit that makes thi9s country great.

Yes, it's just the evil bourgeoisie keeping the proletariat at bay.

Unlike you, I actually contribute more than my taxes to the lower class by giving them opportunity. But please, continue to drone on with comments ripped from Marx.

What made this country great WAS opportunity....not handouts.


Yes, If we could only return to the golden era of opportunity when the elites like you weren't shackled by having to pay their workers more than they were worth. Giving people "handouts" by adequately paying them for full time labor goes against everything that made this country great.

www.continuetolearn.uiowa.eduupload.wikimedia.orgwww.novanumismatics.comdepts.washington.edulive.drjays.com

Opportunity! Not handouts!
 
2012-12-14 03:35:52 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Either you accept that the poor should die in the street, or you accept that you're going to pay for their survival via wages or taxes. Pick one of the three.
I think it should be wages. There's no reason Wal-Mart should get to use Medicaid, Food Stamps, and any other welfare program to subsidize their employees.

Let me just ask you, do you think everyone in the U.S. is capable of providing themselves a living wage, whether through education or whatever else? None of this "It's possible." none of this "I did it.", can everyone do it?
Do you really think the only reason people toil at Wal-Mart is because they refuse to aspire to more?
Do you think the way upwards is as straightforward as "Work harder."?


An honest answer to that question is yes, I think most people of average intelligence can do it if given a fair opportunity. Can they make six figures? Probably not...but they can earn a "living" wage.

And yes, I think a lot of people "settle" because working a minimum wage job is easy, it's comfortable, there's little responsibility, and it's easier to complain about what you don't have rather than working hard to improve one's station.

I think we should be raising expectations, believing that people are capable of more rather than saying they can't because they're poor. You apparently don't have the same faith in your fellow citizens that I do.
 
2012-12-14 03:36:47 PM  

slayer199: Oh, what level is that? You still haven't made an argument...


That would make us even. Well, except for the parts where you lie through your teeth about social programs not alleviating poverty...

CCC
WPA
GI Bill
SNAP
Rural Electrification
Cooperative Extension

... and that whole stinking pile of "paid for value to the company".

Now where is that chart on productivity vs. pay?

Other than that...
 
2012-12-14 03:37:18 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, If we could only return to the golden era of opportunity when the elites like you weren't shackled by having to pay their workers more than they were worth. Giving people "handouts" by adequately paying them for full time labor goes against everything that made this country great.


Nice strawman.
 
2012-12-14 03:39:33 PM  
There are several misconceptions layered into that article. First, subby he said "competitive' not "living" wage - which means it's in the same range as what 7-11 or K-Mart pays, not that it's sufficient to support a family on.

Second, the presumption that employees qualifying for food stamps is BAD is really confusing - that's what food stamps are FOR - for low-income individuals so they can save money on basic necessities. Food stamps doesn't mean homeless.
 
2012-12-14 03:40:23 PM  

slayer199: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, If we could only return to the golden era of opportunity when the elites like you weren't shackled by having to pay their workers more than they were worth. Giving people "handouts" by adequately paying them for full time labor goes against everything that made this country great.

Nice strawman.


What strawman? The minimum wage is a "hand out" that's destroying the country, right?
 
2012-12-14 03:40:42 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: o5iiawah: Minimum wage sets a floor for labor such that a company who has a $6/hr position either has to deduct pay from others to fill the need for the position or not hire the person altogether.

No. That is not how wages work. That is not how business works. That is not how reality works.
If a person does not bring more value to the company than they cost, they don't get hired. They don't takes wages away from everyone else to hire someone new.
Stop being stupid


If they are an essential employee they do. Wal-Mart needs a guy to come in at midnight and buffer the floor and can only pay him say, $6/hr since 99.5% of the labor pool is equipped to do the job. The value of that wage might be $6.hr but wal-mart is forced to pay them $7.50 due to a minimum wage law. Since they cant operate their store with dirty floors, the solution is to either raise prices or depress wages.

Communist_Manifesto: Walmart would be making exactly 0$ if it weren't for its employees


its employees would be making exactly $0 without wal-mart and since the average greeter, bagger or cart wrangler hasn't invested money in permits, land, equipment and compliance, they are paid a mutually-agreeable wage for their work. Any employee is free to leave wal-mart at any time and start a competing company.

ox45tallboy: However, when they control such a huge segment of the workforce that they decide the fair market rate, do you think they're going to decide higher or lower?


They will decide lower just as the worker will want to make it higher. The problem is when you have a massive pool of labor that is equipped to do the job required of working at wal-mart, then Wal-Mart isn't forced to raise its wages since those who are unhappy with the wages can walk and be replaced by new workers. The solution then if you are a wal-mart employee desiring of a better wage is to set yourself apart from the labor pool by offering services that few others can, thus making yourself marketable and allowing you to demand a better wage.

A bagger making $10/hr can demand $15 but if they cant demonstrate that they add another $5 worth of value to the company, they will be replaced by someone who is unemployed and willing to work for $10. There's a reason economics is called the "dismal science" words like "fairness" "Justice" and "equality" are all well and good but simply dont apply to what we're dealing with.
 
2012-12-14 03:53:17 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: slayer199: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, If we could only return to the golden era of opportunity when the elites like you weren't shackled by having to pay their workers more than they were worth. Giving people "handouts" by adequately paying them for full time labor goes against everything that made this country great.

Nice strawman.

What strawman? The minimum wage is a "hand out" that's destroying the country, right?


It is, because it sets an artificial price on wage and creates a floor whereby if an employee's value doesn't meet the wage, he will more than likely not be hired. "Worth" is an arbitrary term defined by two parties in a private negotiation. The notion that you or anyone else is equipped to decide this is farcical at best, though typical of the progressive mindset.
 
2012-12-14 03:59:48 PM  

o5iiawah: Philip Francis Queeg: slayer199: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, If we could only return to the golden era of opportunity when the elites like you weren't shackled by having to pay their workers more than they were worth. Giving people "handouts" by adequately paying them for full time labor goes against everything that made this country great.

Nice strawman.

What strawman? The minimum wage is a "hand out" that's destroying the country, right?

It is, because it sets an artificial price on wage and creates a floor whereby if an employee's value doesn't meet the wage, he will more than likely not be hired. "Worth" is an arbitrary term defined by two parties in a private negotiation. The notion that you or anyone else is equipped to decide this is farcical at best, though typical of the progressive mindset.


That's right. People are tools without intrinsic value, as I said. Do you care when you throw away a hammer? Of course not. Should you care if one of you human tools dies because they weren't useful enough? Certainly not. If you intervene it might have a bad effect on the other human tools. We need to stop being concerned about the basic needs of human tools.

I truly hope your employer has valued you properly and that you aren't destroying this nation by getting a "hand out" from them because they have overvalued you or considered you as anything worthy of more concern than an office chair.
 
2012-12-14 04:00:41 PM  

o5iiawah: its employees would be making exactly $0 without wal-mart and since the average greeter, bagger or cart wrangler hasn't invested money in permits, land, equipment and compliance, they are paid a mutually-agreeable wage for their work. Any employee is free to leave wal-mart at any time and start a competing company.


How about this: The owners and Corporate officers of Wal Mart would make $0 without their employees. Now let's flip the script. Would employees make more than $0 without owners and corporate officers??

Why YES! YES THEY WOULD!! Imagine that! A worker does not need an owner!! HOLY SHIAT! What a revelation!
 
2012-12-14 04:02:31 PM  

slayer199: Sergeant Grumbles: Either you accept that the poor should die in the street, or you accept that you're going to pay for their survival via wages or taxes. Pick one of the three.
I think it should be wages. There's no reason Wal-Mart should get to use Medicaid, Food Stamps, and any other welfare program to subsidize their employees.

Let me just ask you, do you think everyone in the U.S. is capable of providing themselves a living wage, whether through education or whatever else? None of this "It's possible." none of this "I did it.", can everyone do it?
Do you really think the only reason people toil at Wal-Mart is because they refuse to aspire to more?
Do you think the way upwards is as straightforward as "Work harder."?

An honest answer to that question is yes, I think most people of average intelligence can do it if given a fair opportunity. Can they make six figures? Probably not...but they can earn a "living" wage.

And yes, I think a lot of people "settle" because working a minimum wage job is easy, it's comfortable, there's little responsibility, and it's easier to complain about what you don't have rather than working hard to improve one's station.

I think we should be raising expectations, believing that people are capable of more rather than saying they can't because they're poor. You apparently don't have the same faith in your fellow citizens that I do.


I can agree with some of your statement. You talk about fair opportunity and most people if given an opportunity would climb out of being poor. I would agree. The problem nowadays is that opportunity is not there or available at all. Those who would excel and thrive are met with closed doors instead of open ones. What then I ask?

The problem with your thinking is that in your mind you say "Since I've made it, so can you! You just have to work at it! Look at me! I am living proof!" There are some people who have worked at it most of lives with nothing to show for it, but I'm pretty sure you would think they didn't try hard enough and that was the reason for their failures in life.
 
2012-12-14 04:03:52 PM  
i149.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-14 04:39:31 PM  

MmmmBacon: No, Walmart does not pay a living wage. My wife worked there for 13 years, and when she quit she was making a little over $13/hour. I asked her to quit because the job was horrible, and we didn't need her to work, since my employer actually pays a living wage. I make not quite $29/hour plus benefits, and can pay all of our bills on my income alone. That is a living wage in my area. $13/hour is a crap wage, but significantly better than most Walmart workers get, which is around $9/hour at best.


I make 10 an hour, part time, for prepping cultures for bio classes at Maryland. The idea that a full time worker would get paid less than that is actually offensive. I can barely support me in school on that, let alone a family.
 
2012-12-14 05:08:46 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: theurge14: So you've never heard of Whole Foods?

Your example proves my point. How many U.S. employees does Whole Foods have compared to Walmart? And the 2 don't exactly compete for the same market.


Um, Aldi's does though.

/and the only reason I don't shop Trader Joe's more is because the parking lot is always too full to find a space
 
2012-12-14 05:24:32 PM  
HUSH NOW! If we upset the Job Creator, he'll take his Job Creation Gland and go home to the free market utopia of Somalia to lift Somali children to the moon using only bootstraps.
 
2012-12-14 05:48:42 PM  

K.B.O. Winston: Um, Aldi's does though.


Kind of. Aldi's is small format, has limited selection, and almost exclusively sells its private label brands, and I think they are grocery only. Do Aldi's employees make significantly more money? I went to an Aldi's once and they wanted a quarter to use a shopping cart, and then they wanted me to pay for grocery bags.

Here they are extolling the benefits of not having to hire people.

As an ALDI shopper, you bag your own purchases, eliminating the expense of baggers. With no baggers to pay, we can run each checkout with one employee instead of two. You not only save-you control the weight and content of each bag.
 
2012-12-14 05:57:49 PM  

slayer199: An honest answer to that question is yes, I think most people of average intelligence can do it if given a fair opportunity.


And the half that are below average intelligence?
 
2012-12-14 06:05:48 PM  

rugman11: My question is how do you define "living wage"? I mean this in all seriousness. Should a living wage allow a person to buy a house? To rent on their own? To support themselves only or to support a spouse or raise a family too?


In my perfect world, living wage is enough for one person to have an apartment by themselves, enough money for food and utilities, plus enough extra for one dependent.
The young and dependentless can use the extra to better themselves through education, training, etc, able to afford a modest house, or be happy knowing they won't starve and be good little consumers.
The older and between jobs crowds have should enough of a cushion that their children won't starve in the meantime even if both parents have to work at minimum wage.
Aid will still be available for those who need it, but there will be so many less who do.

Anyone willing to scrounge and save, pack their apartments with roomates, eat ramen every day, etc, will still come out ahead, but it should not be a necessity for anyone willing to put in 40 hours of work.
 
2012-12-14 06:29:58 PM  

kregh99: I am all for being paid a living wage, but not for doing a job that requires almost zero in the way of skills. Those jobs should pay shiat wages. shiat wages fuels the desire to not work shiat jobs.

Stay in school, kids. Stay in school.


On the other side of the coin, people really shouldn't expect much from customer service from someone who can't even afford basic healthcare. Or for the stores to be properly cleaned, or anything that would realistically require Wal-mart and others to pay more money. In any case this is NOT a sustainable work force, and unskilled or not they are necessary. So don't be a jerk and tip your waiting person properly, and don't act like a prima donna and complain that they should have more registers open. Who knows, maybe there will be enough people who don't know better to sustain such a work force but I'm not so sure. Hell, I hope not honestly.

Which brings me to education, its obviously important but it isn't like our education system isn't failing us too or built upon a house of cards considering all those who are in serious debt as a result. That is for another thread though I guess.
 
2012-12-14 06:31:39 PM  

liam76: MugzyBrown: The term living wage is idiotic.

You can live off $6/hr working only 40 hours a week unless you make stupid life decisions... yes even in the city.

Like getting sick.

Like having to help a sick family member.

Like being the victim of a crime.

Etc.


Indeed. Wal-Mart will be all too happy to cut your hours until you're forced to quit if something bad like that happens to you.
 
2012-12-14 07:17:54 PM  
I was thinking on the issue further and I really don't think its a sustainable workforce. Those of you saying that they should simply get another job don't seem to realize that the low income work force is growing is already stands at 23.8 percent of the overall work force. That is a lot of people who can't afford basic healthcare, including mental healthcare. That does not bode well for our society on a whole.
 
2012-12-14 07:21:10 PM  

bbfreak: I was thinking on the issue further and I really don't think its a sustainable workforce. Those of you saying that they should simply get another job don't seem to realize that the low income work force is growing is already stands at 23.8 percent of the overall work force. That is a lot of people who can't afford basic healthcare, including mental healthcare. That does not bode well for our society on a whole.


Whoops, my bad. Wrong number, the low income work force stands at 28 percent.
 
2012-12-14 07:27:26 PM  

bbfreak: I was thinking on the issue further and I really don't think its a sustainable workforce. Those of you saying that they should simply get another job don't seem to realize that the low income work force is growing is already stands at 23.8 percent of the overall work force. That is a lot of people who can't afford basic healthcare, including mental healthcare. That does not bode well for our society on a whole.


There are people that think Wal-Mart should only employ teenagers in need of gas money and everyone else who works there any older, for any other reason, made a conscious choice to ruin their own lives and should been punished for it forever.
If you're not willing (or able) to share an apartment with five other people, eat ramen every day, find the time for multiple jobs and/or education, and ever get sick, have an accident, or any costly mishap whatsoever, you obviously don't want to succeed and should be happy with your lot.
 
2012-12-14 09:15:50 PM  

Kimothy: Maybe 10 bucks an hour is a living wage in Benton, Arkansas, but in the rest of the US, that's a wage for part-time high school students.


Actually, 10 bucks an hour on a 40-hour work week is a fine starting wage. Just don't tell me that:

1.) 10 bucks an hour is a fine wage for someone with a college degree and two years experience, and whom you expect to work far more than 40 hours a week for no extra pay.
2.) 10 bucks an hour on a 24-hour work week is a living wage.
 
2012-12-14 09:21:22 PM  
Do people even read the articles before writing headlines? He said they pay people competitive wages, not living wages. How did this troll-tastic headline get green lit?
 
2012-12-14 09:26:34 PM  
Walmart CEO Pay: More in an Hour Than Workers Get All Year?
By Ed Smith's math, the CEO of Walmart earns more in an hour than his employees will earn in a year. Smith, an alderman in Chicago, presented posters at a city council meeting showing that Walmart CEO Michael Duke's $35 million salary, when converted to an hourly wage, worked out to $16,826.92. By comparison, at a Walmart store planned for the Windy City's Pullman neighborhood, new employees to be paid $8.75 an hour would gross $13,650 a year. Smith's numbers could be a bit off.
Link
 
2012-12-14 09:55:23 PM  

cig-mkr: Smith's numbers could be a bit off.

Smith's numbers could be a bit off. Equilar, an executive compensation research firm, calculates that Duke earned just south of $20 million in 2009 and $28 million in 2008, not counting millions of dollars in potential performance awards.


Okay, so two hours. Is that the magical line where it all becomes okay to make what your employees make in a year?
 
2012-12-14 10:19:24 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: That's right. People are tools without intrinsic value, as I said. Do you care when you throw away a hammer? Of course not. Should you care if one of you human tools dies because they weren't useful enough? Certainly not. If you intervene it might have a bad effect on the other human tools. We need to stop being concerned about the basic needs of human tools.

I truly hope your employer has valued you properly and that you aren't destroying this nation by getting a "hand out" from them because they have overvalued you or considered you as anything worthy of more concern than an office chair.


You're adding emotion into an argument of numbers, facts and analysis.

All well and good for you but you should probably leave the adults alone to talk about grownup things.
 
2012-12-14 10:26:36 PM  

o5iiawah: You're adding emotion into an argument of numbers, facts and analysis.

All well and good for you but you should probably leave the adults alone to talk about grownup things.


Your insult was just bursting full of facts and numbers.
 
2012-12-14 10:30:51 PM  

FarkedOver: Now let's flip the script. Would employees make more than $0 without owners and corporate officers??

Why YES! YES THEY WOULD!! Imagine that! A worker does not need an owner!! HOLY SHIAT! What a revelation!


In the absence of a location which was scouted by a surveyor and marketing team, a building which was erected from profits earned by other stores, inventory which was trucked in via vehicles owned by the company and a management team to organize the operation, please explain how a person standing in a vacant lot saying "Welcome to Wal-Mart" can earn a wage.

nekulor: I can barely support me in school on that, let alone a family.


So you should probably get a better job before starting a family.

Sergeant Grumbles: There are people that think Wal-Mart should only employ teenagers in need of gas money and everyone else who works there any older, for any other reason, made a conscious choice to ruin their own lives and should been punished for it forever.


No, we just realize that if a person wants a house in the burbs, a couple of cars, 4 happy, healthy kids with college paid for, a vacation once in a while and top-notch healthcare, they probably arent going to get it at wal-mart and that if they seek those things, they should understand that it probably comes with learning skills in the marketplace. Wipe away your tears and lets talk economics. Sorry i makes you cry but this is the real world. Boo Hoo.
 
2012-12-14 10:31:45 PM  
A&P was hit by trustbusting when they controlled a far far smaller percentage of the American economy than Walmart.
 
2012-12-14 10:36:17 PM  

o5iiawah: FarkedOver: Now let's flip the script. Would employees make more than $0 without owners and corporate officers??

Why YES! YES THEY WOULD!! Imagine that! A worker does not need an owner!! HOLY SHIAT! What a revelation!

In the absence of a location which was scouted by a surveyor and marketing team, a building which was erected from profits earned by other stores, inventory which was trucked in via vehicles owned by the company and a management team to organize the operation, please explain how a person standing in a vacant lot saying "Welcome to Wal-Mart" can earn a wage.

nekulor: I can barely support me in school on that, let alone a family.

So you should probably get a better job before starting a family.

Sergeant Grumbles: There are people that think Wal-Mart should only employ teenagers in need of gas money and everyone else who works there any older, for any other reason, made a conscious choice to ruin their own lives and should been punished for it forever.

No, we just realize that if a person wants a house in the burbs, a couple of cars, 4 happy, healthy kids with college paid for, a vacation once in a while and top-notch healthcare, they probably arent going to get it at wal-mart and that if they seek those things, they should understand that it probably comes with learning skills in the marketplace. Wipe away your tears and lets talk economics. Sorry i makes you cry but this is the real world. Boo Hoo.
fark YOU POORS I GOT MINE


Yes, sweetie, go ahead and hate them. They're not really people, after all. If they were PEOPLE, why they'd be rich! They were all born smart enough to be doctors, they just preferred to be poor. Evidence of their non-humanity, I completely agree, just pure laziness. Can't we sell them somewhere or something? I mean REALLY, they have a lot of nerve.
 
2012-12-14 10:40:17 PM  

ghare: fark YOU POORS I GOT MINE

Yes, sweetie, go ahead and hate them. They're not really people, after all. If they were PEOPLE, why they'd be rich! They were all born smart enough to be doctors, they just preferred to be poor. Evidence of their non-humanity, I completely agree, just pure laziness. Can't we sell them somewhere or something? I mean REALLY, they have a lot of nerve.


One doesn't need to be born with the intelligence of a doctor to become a successful, productive member of society.

If you have any actual facts or arguments to put forth, I'll be happy to debate them with you. Otherwise, your purely emotional, butthurt rant adds nothing to the conversation and pushes this 'Fark you, I've got mine" narrative which isn't true in the slightest.

It is More like "I wasn't born with any either, I did X, Y, and Z and got some, why cant you?"
 
2012-12-14 11:05:40 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: slayer199: Sergeant Grumbles: And no one with kids ever loses their good job and still has to make ends meet.

Yes about 18 years ago, I had to make a career change and I had no idea what I was going to do. I worked 2 jobs (bartending and pizza delivery) and averaged about 70 hours a week. I rented a house with a roommate and was paying child support while I interviewed for a number of tech-based jobs. I did that for 2 years. Once I got my first IT job (at $12/hr), I kept moving up...learning new skills, changing jobs fairly frequently, and finishing my college degree.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it damn hard? Yes. Point is that there are many people that are willing to settle....and way too many people willing to let people settle. As for those with lesser IQs or physical ailments, we already have government programs designed to help them. For those that aren't willing to do what's necessary to get ahead...that's not my problem. Yes, I got mine so screw them...because I farking earned it.

Tell, us do you spit on the guy who delivers your Pizza so he knows what a loser you think he is? Do you tell all the people at the stores you shop at how superior you are and what pathetic scum they are.? It seems it's the responsibility of an elite like you to make sure that the low lifes who labor to serve your needs know how unworthy they are.


People do this. I worked for a department store, the #2 worst employer in the nation, for 5 years.
 
2012-12-14 11:12:47 PM  

o5iiawah: Wipe away your tears and lets talk economics.


I'm not talking economics with anyone who thinks hiring someone new lowers the wages of everyone else. If I'm crying, it's out of pity.
 
2012-12-15 12:14:15 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: cig-mkr: Smith's numbers could be a bit off.

Smith's numbers could be a bit off. Equilar, an executive compensation research firm, calculates that Duke earned just south of $20 million in 2009 and $28 million in 2008, not counting millions of dollars in potential performance awards.

Okay, so two hours. Is that the magical line where it all becomes okay to make what your employees make in a year?


I think about two and a half hours would be about right.
 
2012-12-15 12:16:09 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: And the half that are below average intelligence?


Are you implying that people of less than average intellience, can't learn a trade that pays more than minimum wage? So by your estimation, we need to support half the population because in your mind they're unable to support themselves.
 
2012-12-15 12:19:49 AM  

ltdanman44: I can agree with some of your statement. You talk about fair opportunity and most people if given an opportunity would climb out of being poor. I would agree. The problem nowadays is that opportunity is not there or available at all. Those who would excel and thrive are met with closed doors instead of open ones. What then I ask?

The problem with your thinking is that in your mind you say "Since I've made it, so can you! You just have to work at it! Look at me! I am living proof!" There are some people who have worked at it most of lives with nothing to show for it, but I'm pretty sure you would think they didn't try hard enough and that was the reason for their failures in life.


Actually, there are some people that make decisions that hinder them. I think it's more a mindset...maybe life skills that they don't know or understand. While you may see a closed door, I find an opportunity elsewhere. I believe government is ill-equipped to provide opportunity which is the issue I've been arguing in this thread.
 
2012-12-15 12:22:04 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: What strawman? The minimum wage is a "hand out" that's destroying the country, right?


Labeling minimum wage a "living wage" is destroying the country. You've completely eliminated personal responsibility from the equation and basically told people, "You haven't earned it with your meager skills and you don't need to learn new skills or education, but we're going to throw more money at you because you need money to live on."
 
2012-12-15 12:26:19 AM  
O5iiawah is crushing the debate in this thread, cheers.
 
2012-12-15 12:53:11 AM  

slayer199: Are you implying that people of less than average intellience, can't learn a trade that pays more than minimum wage? So by your estimation, we need to support half the population because in your mind they're unable to support themselves.


Mighty fine strawman. Almost distracted me from those moving goalposts.

slayer199: An honest answer to that question is yes, I think most people of average intelligence can do it if given a fair opportunity.


Your words. Answer the question instead of making up fabricating my position.
 
2012-12-15 01:01:45 AM  

slayer199: You've completely eliminated personal responsibility from the equation and basically told people, "You haven't earned it with your meager skills and you don't need to learn new skills or education, but we're going to throw more money at you because you need money to live on."


You've completely eliminated personal responsibility from the equation by allowing work to pay too little to live on. With neither the means nor ability to move up, anyone of any intelligence rightly stops giving a fark. And yet blowhards troll in and tell people to demean themselves, starve themselves, give every moment of their time to some employer, start a business with the money they don't have, get an education with the money they don't have.
If you want people to take responsibility, you have to give them a reasonable way to do so. Telling people it's possible for someone of average intelligence if they make all the right choices, make no mistakes, and stay healthy long enough just isn't good enough. For the richest country in the world, it's appalling.
 
2012-12-15 01:33:30 AM  

max_pooper: Giltric: Instead of using some arbitrary term like living wage why doesn;t anyone calculate what living expenses should be......


Should Walmart be paying a low skilled laborer enough money to buy a 300k$ house on a 30 year mortgage?

In all honesty shouldn't someone be looking for a job that pays them enough to buy that 300k house instead of expecting their walmart job to bump them up to that level?

How many chigger bites did you get building that strawman?


Give him a break, man. There are Wal-Mart stores in parts of the country where $300k gets you a 120-year-old 2-bedroom semi-detached fixer-upper with severe water damage and termites in gang territory, too.
 
2012-12-15 02:39:16 AM  
People in this thread keep yammering on about how the poor cant afford to get an education. Have you ever heard of jucos? Have you ever heard of student loans?
 
2012-12-15 04:25:31 AM  
Based on a 40-hour work week, Mr Duke made about $8990.00 per hour. Seriously, Mr Duke, do you think 1/1000 of your "wage" is livable? And you would be paying cost-share on benefits like insurance, instead of having them fully paid (with no deductibles or copays) by the company. And you would have to pay for your own car, insurance, bike, bus fare, work shoes, vacation destination, country club membership (NO golfing on company time) and so on. [snark] Yes, you are worth 1000 of those "associates" that you value and admire so much. You ARE better than the 1%, you are the 0.1%! [/snark]
 
2012-12-15 04:27:32 AM  
Oh, and I almost forgot: DUKE SUCKS!

/I bleed Oregon green with a touch of Carolina Blue
 
2012-12-15 04:50:01 AM  
It would be beneficial if all upper management (as part if their initiation into a company) had to work at the lowest paid position for a month or two. Get in the trenches and know what they are expecting of their rank and file. See what it is like when they continuously cut payroll hours while raising customer service expectations/requirements and find ways to make it impossible for their staff to meet goals/make bonuses. To see how their lowest paid is treated by the customers who are also paying the price for those decisions.

There is a real problem when larger retail stores are starting assistant managers at $8.75 an hour...when the same position 10 years ago started at $12+.

Most of those making the decisions aren't making those decisions with a basis in real working experience (whether in their own company or prior work).

Also, those saying to get another job or do something to better yourself have obviously not had to do so in recent years. It is a jungle out there for so-called "non-skilled" workers...competing against those with a higher skill set for the same low wage position has killed any bargaining position (i.e. experience in the field) that once existed.
 
2012-12-15 07:31:36 AM  

Giltric: liam76: You "earned it" by being lucky. Lucky not to have the things I mentioned above

Why is he lucky? Why arent those people unlucky?

Are you trying to claim that paying child support, being sole caretaker and getting cancer all at the same time is the norm?


All the same time, no. But one of those, pretty common.

I also like how you ignored the bit about his parents, and the fact that things like paying for college and getting jobs after college that make paying it off are much harder to come by now.


DrewCurtisJr: liam76: Is anyone talking about outlawing them?

No. But if you say just give everyone a raise and it causes prices to rise I think it's been established that if people can find lower prices elsewhere they will spend there money there, because they just can't help being exploited by being offered rock bottom prices.

So it's not so simple


If everyone was paid more (including their competition) that effect on their prices wouldn't matter.
 
2012-12-15 08:24:22 AM  
What the hell is wrong with people. Walmart pays the minimum wage or higher. Most of the time it's higher.

I've worked a lot of crappy, minimum wage job. Walmart is better than most.
 
2012-12-15 08:31:33 AM  
How can anyone argue for the mega corporations in situations like this and keep a straight face? Do you really believe that the majority of the wealth in this country should be in the hands of very few people? Or, are you still following that carrot on a stick that is the American Dream, thinking one day you will be at the top? No matter how menial you feel their job is, with no one to run the registers or stock the shelves Walmart doesn't make a dime. Therefore, the people who keep the money flowing should get a fair share of the profits, at least enough to live without government assistance and to be able to afford healthcare. America will continue it's downward spiral until we either fix this problem or the poor finally have enough and start a revolution. I doubt the people who are defending the corporations now will be singing the same tune if the poor do rise up against the rich.
 
2012-12-15 09:31:19 AM  

Howlin Mad Murphy: How can anyone argue for the mega corporations in situations like this and keep a straight face? Do you really believe that the majority of the wealth in this country should be in the hands of very few people? Or, are you still following that carrot on a stick that is the American Dream, thinking one day you will be at the top? No matter how menial you feel their job is, with no one to run the registers or stock the shelves Walmart doesn't make a dime. Therefore, the people who keep the money flowing should get a fair share of the profits, at least enough to live without government assistance and to be able to afford healthcare. America will continue it's downward spiral until we either fix this problem or the poor finally have enough and start a revolution. I doubt the people who are defending the corporations now will be singing the same tune if the poor do rise up against the rich are willing to stop shopping on price alone and be more intelligent consumers.



Hyperbolic much? It isn't that complicated
 
2012-12-15 09:55:21 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: o5iiawah: Wipe away your tears and lets talk economics.

I'm not talking economics with anyone who thinks hiring someone new lowers the wages of everyone else. If I'm crying, it's out of pity.


Again, you're disagreeing and pouting but you cant break the argument.


To further my case, unions work the same way. They inflate the wages of the shop such that $25/hr employees are brought up to $30 in order to keep the doors open. if the shop can afford to pay $300/hr in labor rate and there's 10 employees, the union will demand that all earn an equal wage, thus depressing the wages of those who might otherwise be worth $33/hr. If advancements in technology or a new customer comes on board and it warrants the hiring of an apprentice at $20/hr, the shop owner will not be able to bring that employee on because they cant produce the requisite productivity to meet the wage floor demands of the union.

This means another person on unemployment who doesn't gain skills thanks to an artificial wage floor. Try to debate this without being petulant, cynical or emotional. This should be good.
 
2012-12-15 10:14:25 AM  

Generation_D: Repub


Didn't Hilary Clinton work there in a high-ranking position as they were outsourcing? Didn't the Clintons then make it easier to buy cheap slave-created shiat from China once in office?
 
2012-12-15 10:20:51 AM  

liam76: If everyone was paid more (including their competition) that effect on their prices wouldn't matter.


You think online retailers have the same kinds of staffing costs as traditional retailers?
 
2012-12-15 10:46:44 AM  

SDRR:


Hyperbolic much? It isn't that complicated


Although it may seem unrealistic, the chances of violent revolution are very real. In my opinion revolution is more realistic than people suddenly shopping at more expensive retailers. Especially when you consider that most Americans are making so little that they shop at places like Walmart to make their money go as far as they can.
 
2012-12-15 10:53:13 AM  

DrewCurtisJr: liam76: If everyone was paid more (including their competition) that effect on their prices wouldn't matter.

You think online retailers have the same kinds of staffing costs as traditional retailers?


They don't but a conversation of brick and mortar vs online stores isn't really what we are talking about. They aren't Wal-Mart's big competitor.
 
2012-12-15 11:00:09 AM  
Its funny. Amazon treats their employees in the warehouse horribly too but Fark loves them.
 
2012-12-15 11:14:25 AM  

o5iiawah: Again, you're disagreeing and pouting but you cant break the argument.


You're arguing the sky is green. There's nothing to break that you didn't already do yourself. Wages. Do. Not. Work. That. Way.

You want to say a wage floor affects unemployment, fine. You've stumbled on something true.
But here we're talking about minimum wage and Wal-Mart, where workers bring in value far exceeding their pay, not some hypothetical union shop with 10 employees and a tight budget.
 
2012-12-15 11:16:05 AM  

liam76: They aren't Wal-Mart's big competitor.


They are a growing threat every year.

Amazon's Showrooming Effect And Quick Growth Threaten Wal-Mart
 
2012-12-15 12:10:51 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: slayer199: Are you implying that people of less than average intellience, can't learn a trade that pays more than minimum wage? So by your estimation, we need to support half the population because in your mind they're unable to support themselves.

Mighty fine strawman. Almost distracted me from those moving goalposts.

slayer199: An honest answer to that question is yes, I think most people of average intelligence can do it if given a fair opportunity.

Your words. Answer the question instead of making up fabricating my position.


Not moving the goalposts, you did. I said average intelligence. That makes up the majority of the population like a Bell curve, but you defined it as half that are below average intelligence.

I said earlier, we have programs to take care of those unable to help themselves.
 
2012-12-15 12:32:14 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: You've completely eliminated personal responsibility from the equation by allowing work to pay too little to live on. With neither the means nor ability to move up, anyone of any intelligence rightly stops giving a fark. And yet blowhards troll in and tell people to demean themselves, starve themselves, give every moment of their time to some employer, start a business with the money they don't have, get an education with the money they don't have.
If you want people to take responsibility, you have to give them a reasonable way to do so. Telling people it's possible for someone of average intelligence if they make all the right choices, make no mistakes, and stay healthy long enough just isn't good enough. For the richest country in the world, it's appalling.


Demean themselves? Unless you're talking about working in the sex industry, how is working multiple jobs demeaning oneself? If you are poor, grants and loans can pay for your education...or is filling out that paperwork, too much work for someone? Starve themselves? Very few people in this country are really starving. For those that are, there are plenty of programs in place to assist them.

It's appalling that you're trying to excuse the majority of the poor from their responsibility for their station in life. I believe that's inherently wrong. We have generational poverty...so how do you break it? By creating opportunity, not by making the government responsible for them. It's not a business' job to take care of them. They provide the jobs, people show up and get paid.

How do you create opportunity? By increasing government involvement in lives? By more government handouts? People create opportunity for themselves and business create opportunity.

Humans make mistakes...the key is that they learn from them. There's not a person in this thread that hasn't made mistakes that has cost them. But you're giving the poor a pass on this as well.

There's a huge difference on how we view things. I have faith that a majority of people can rise above if they are given hope and responsibility. Your version of hope is to create a cycle of dependence. If government gave the poor more, then they'll succeed. My version is to remove the dependence and create opportunity...and the government has little to nothing to do with that method.

You have such little faith in people...but your faith in government is unshakeable.
 
2012-12-15 01:01:55 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: But here we're talking about minimum wage and Wal-Mart, where workers bring in value far exceeding their pay


You may feel as though the compensation is unfair, but who are you to actually know what IS a fair wage, or what each position at wal-mart should make according to how much value they deliver to the company? I'll give you the chance though to explain how much value a greeter, bagger or stock person brings to wal-mart and why their wage is unfair. Thus far, all the arguments for wage have been on the side of need-based or that the wage ought to provide a certain lifestyle where the very definition of a wage has nothing to do with fulfilling a lifestyle expectation.
 
2012-12-15 02:01:09 PM  

o5iiawah: Sergeant Grumbles: But here we're talking about minimum wage and Wal-Mart, where workers bring in value far exceeding their pay

You may feel as though the compensation is unfair, but who are you to actually know what IS a fair wage, or what each position at wal-mart should make according to how much value they deliver to the company? I'll give you the chance though to explain how much value a greeter, bagger or stock person brings to wal-mart and why their wage is unfair. Thus far, all the arguments for wage have been on the side of need-based or that the wage ought to provide a certain lifestyle where the very definition of a wage has nothing to do with fulfilling a lifestyle expectation.


Hey, that's fine, Walmart doesn't have to pay its employees a good wage, minimum wage is just fine. But then I don't want to hear how important the "job creators" are since the jobs they are creating are crap.
 
2012-12-15 02:24:45 PM  

slayer199: I have faith that a majority of people can rise above if they are given hope and responsibility.


So do I. The environment we have today provides neither.
 
2012-12-15 02:26:09 PM  

o5iiawah: Thus far, all the arguments for wage have been on the side of need-based


That's the whole point. You shouldn't need to be on government assistance if you work 40 hours a week.
 
2012-12-15 03:42:42 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: liam76: They aren't Wal-Mart's big competitor.

They are a growing threat every year.

Amazon's Showrooming Effect And Quick Growth Threaten Wal-Mart


They are a growing threat, but they still aren't their biggest competitor.

And the reason for going to Amazon over WalMart isn't going to have fark all to do with the $0.10 per item difference paying Walmarts people a living wage would cause.

slayer199: By creating opportunity, not by making the government responsible for them.


You don't think higher wages are going to create opportunity?
 
2012-12-15 05:33:30 PM  

o5iiawah: FarkedOver: Now let's flip the script. Would employees make more than $0 without owners and corporate officers??

Why YES! YES THEY WOULD!! Imagine that! A worker does not need an owner!! HOLY SHIAT! What a revelation!

In the absence of a location which was scouted by a surveyor and marketing team, a building which was erected from profits earned by other stores, inventory which was trucked in via vehicles owned by the company and a management team to organize the operation, please explain how a person standing in a vacant lot saying "Welcome to Wal-Mart" can earn a wage.

nekulor: I can barely support me in school on that, let alone a family.

So you should probably get a better job before starting a family.

Sergeant Grumbles: There are people that think Wal-Mart should only employ teenagers in need of gas money and everyone else who works there any older, for any other reason, made a conscious choice to ruin their own lives and should been punished for it forever.

No, we just realize that if a person wants a house in the burbs, a couple of cars, 4 happy, healthy kids with college paid for, a vacation once in a while and top-notch healthcare, they probably arent going to get it at wal-mart and that if they seek those things, they should understand that it probably comes with learning skills in the marketplace. Wipe away your tears and lets talk economics. Sorry i makes you cry but this is the real world. Boo Hoo.


I'll keep that in mind, chief. Thanks for the totally unsolicited, farking douchey commentary on the job I mentioned was a part time gig to pay my personal expenses at school. Reading is fun. You should try it some time.
 
2012-12-15 05:56:47 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: slayer199: I have faith that a majority of people can rise above if they are given hope and responsibility.

So do I. The environment we have today provides neither.


Hey. We do agree on something!

We just disagree on how to get there.
 
2012-12-15 06:30:15 PM  

liam76: They are a growing threat, but they still aren't their biggest competitor.


They don't have to be, you still have to react to a serious competitive threat until it is your biggest threat?

liam76: And the reason for going to Amazon over WalMart isn't going to have fark all to do with the $0.10 per item difference paying Walmarts people a living wage would cause.


YOu don't have any idea what the cost increases would be.
 
2012-12-15 07:11:35 PM  
Anyone making the argument that the working poor using government programs is a shame and needs to be rectified through mandated high wages is missing the point. Wages are set in a market (minimum wage aside). There is no easy or even economically efficient way to have large scale wage controls as these would cause massive economic distortions and are often, consequently, followed by price controls.

It makes more sense to let the markets operate efficiently (see the Cold War for examples of theoretically "people first" governments/economies being consistently beaten in living standards by "markets first" governments/economies) and have the government pick up the slack through redistributive taxation to the extent that the public wants. In other words, it's more harmful to the economy for governments to impose strict controls on business conduct when they could instead merely take a part of their profits through taxation and use that to assist those whi are considered in need of assistance. In other words, the extent to which we should have benefits for the poor is a valid intellectual debate whereas the idea that we need to start from scratch when we have one of the most succesful economies in the world (in terms of living standards for the average person) is downright stupid and informed by nothing other than a lack of economic knowledge and zealous belief in a failed ideology.

And as a former refugee who spent much of his life envying the AVERAGE American (in many times an "unworthy" WalMart job and this so called unlivable wage would make envious), the argument that 7.50 per hour is unlivable is ridiculous at its core. Oh yeah, to reference a popular trope, no refrigerator growing up. Or running water. And cars (not BMWs, our shiatty native produced ones) were for "the rich", or at least rich from our point of view. I'm not going to claim it was anything other than a terrible way to live (hence, coming to America), but it was far below the life of a WalMart worker and yet perfectly livable in the sense that my family survived and even managed to move up. Oh yeah, throw in nonexistant welfare.
 
2012-12-15 07:25:58 PM  

slayer199: We just disagree on how to get there.


I don't know why you keep saying I'm injecting government into this. The entire idea is to get people off the dole. Yes, it will take government action to alter the minimum wage, but that seems to me to be a much less burdensome government interference than leaving full time workers poor enough to qualify for government aid. A simple wage floor is much less complex than a broad social safety net.

I've said this many times before. If you accept that the poor shouldn't die in the streets, you're going to have to pay for their survival. You can either do so via wages or taxes. Wages so they can pay for their own survival, or taxes paying for government services to provide them with the same. Any business that pays less than a living wage is being subsidized by taxpayers.
 
2012-12-15 09:45:12 PM  
I made $9.25/hr at walmart in 2007. Paid everything with room left over.
I make $4.25 an hour now. still enough. (salary is a biatch)

LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS

I bought a house making $7.50/hr. 50k 1br. 5k down.

i didn't have cable or a phone to do it.

Quit your biatching or move to someplace cheaper.

/looking at 20 acres for 10k in Missouri to hunt. No jobs there though.
 
2012-12-15 09:57:25 PM  

invisbob: Quit your biatching or move to someplace cheaper.


Hear that? Every just pack up and move to invisbob's place.
 
2012-12-15 10:18:21 PM  

invisbob: I made $9.25/hr at walmart in 2007. Paid everything with room left over.
I make $4.25 an hour now. still enough. (salary is a biatch)

LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS

I bought a house making $7.50/hr. 50k 1br. 5k down.

i didn't have cable or a phone to do it.

Quit your biatching or move to someplace cheaper.

/looking at 20 acres for 10k in Missouri to hunt. No jobs there though.


Well, aren't you a bootstrappy corporate lapdog. Perhaps not everyone else has your ability to lack most basic things, Invisibob.

So, stop being a corporate apologist and get off your tiny, bootstrappy soapbox.
 
2012-12-16 02:38:24 AM  

invisbob: I made $9.25/hr at walmart in 2007. Paid everything with room left over.
I make $4.25 an hour now. still enough. (salary is a biatch)

LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS

I bought a house making $7.50/hr. 50k 1br. 5k down.

i didn't have cable or a phone to do it.

Quit your biatching or move to someplace cheaper.

/looking at 20 acres for 10k in Missouri to hunt. No jobs there though.


But most people aren't Ted Kaczynski.
 
2012-12-16 02:51:48 AM  

o5iiawah: Sergeant Grumbles: But here we're talking about minimum wage and Wal-Mart, where workers bring in value far exceeding their pay

You may feel as though the compensation is unfair, but who are you to actually know what IS a fair wage, or what each position at wal-mart should make according to how much value they deliver to the company? I'll give you the chance though to explain how much value a greeter, bagger or stock person brings to wal-mart and why their wage is unfair. Thus far, all the arguments for wage have been on the side of need-based or that the wage ought to provide a certain lifestyle where the very definition of a wage has nothing to do with fulfilling a lifestyle expectation.


My only problem with this, is that Wal-Mart would then be in charge of determining the value of each employee and without minimum wage, I highly doubt that anyone would be valued very highly. The minimum wage is a protection so that corporations cannot under value their employees and given Wal-Mart's proclivity for cutting and slashing prices with its products, how are we to be certain that they will not do the same with their employees?
 
2012-12-16 12:30:54 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: liam76: They are a growing threat, but they still aren't their biggest competitor.

They don't have to be, you still have to react to a serious competitive threat until it is your biggest threat?


You made an argument about wage based on them losing business to their competitor. Amazon is nto who they are going to lose people to if their price goes up (and if wages go up fro all low skill employees their real competitors will be bearing that same cost).

DrewCurtisJr: liam76: And the reason for going to Amazon over WalMart isn't going to have fark all to do with the $0.10 per item difference paying Walmarts people a living wage would cause.

YOu don't have any idea what the cost increases would be



Yeah I do.

If Walmart were to pay its employees a minimum of $12 an hour, what would that wage baseline do to the retail behemoth's famously low prices? According to a new study, probably not much.

Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education argue that such a wage bump for the retailer's lower-paid associates would translate into an extra cost to shoppers of about 46 cents per trip, or $12.49 a year, if the brunt of the increase was passed on to consumers.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/19/walmart-pay-worker-minimum-w a ge_n_851115.html
 
2012-12-16 01:39:05 PM  
Alpo!!

working at MaoMart you could at least afford Tender Vittles. Alpo is for the little people.
 
2012-12-16 08:29:52 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: I don't know why you keep saying I'm injecting government into this. The entire idea is to get people off the dole. Yes, it will take government action to alter the minimum wage, but that seems to me to be a much less burdensome government interference than leaving full time workers poor enough to qualify for government aid. A simple wage floor is much less complex than a broad social safety net.

I've said this many times before. If you accept that the poor shouldn't die in the streets, you're going to have to pay for their survival. You can either do so via wages or taxes. Wages so they can pay for their own survival, or taxes paying for government services to provide them with the same. Any business that pays less than a living wage is being subsidized by taxpayers.


Raising the minimum wage is a government mandated pay hike so that is definitely injecting government into the equation.

The poor are not dying in the streets. You act like everyone that makes minimum wage is homeless and starving...which is not the case.
 
2012-12-16 09:50:49 PM  

slayer199: Raising the minimum wage is a government mandated pay hike so that is definitely injecting government into the equation.
The poor are not dying in the streets. You act like everyone that makes minimum wage is homeless and starving...which is not the case.


*facepalm*
Didn't you say, and I quote, "Social Programs do nothing to ease poverty."?

Good thing those poors don't have any useless social programs like SNAP to help prevent starvation, or Section 8 to help prevent homelessness, right?

/Got to be St Clair Shores. It must steam you up something fierce to drive the Walter P. Reuther.
 
2012-12-17 11:40:35 AM  

FarkedOver: kregh99: I am all for being paid a living wage, but not for doing a job that requires almost zero in the way of skills. Those jobs should pay shiat wages. shiat wages fuels the desire to not work shiat jobs.

Stay in school, kids. Stay in school.

Stay in school, incur massive amounts of debt.... and maybe.... just maybe you'll get a decent job, but probably not! Ahhhh capitalism it's so refreshingly retarded.


Which, you know, isn't always the case. Granted, I graduated from college 15 years ago, but I paid my own way without using debt (my dad paid for my first year, I paid for the other three) while working minimum wage and slightly-more-than-minimum wage jobs. It sucked ass (the four years of coursework took me almost ten, sometimes only able to take a single course at a time), but I was motivated by desire to get out of the trap of sh*tty paying jobs.
 
2012-12-17 12:27:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: *facepalm*
Didn't you say, and I quote, "Social Programs do nothing to ease poverty."?

Good thing those poors don't have any useless social programs like SNAP to help prevent starvation, or Section 8 to help prevent homelessness, right?

/Got to be St Clair Shores. It must steam you up something fierce to drive the Walter P. Reuther.


Adding more people to the dole does nothing to reduce poverty, does it?

Again, not in St. Clair Shores...way west.
 
Displayed 269 of 269 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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