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  
•       •       •

2549 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 19 of 269 comments

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

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