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.

(Forbes)   California to fine WalMart for promoting socialized medicine   (forbes.com) divider line 289
    More: Sick, Wal-Mart, national academies, subsidized housing, senior management  
•       •       •

3894 clicks; posted to Business » on 04 Jun 2013 at 9:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-04 01:18:33 AM
Oddly enough, if Wal*Mart and these other companies did anything else, they would be liable in a shareholder lawsuit and fines by the SEC. It is unethical from a business sense to engage in profit-reducing activities, and publicly-traded companies that do get in a lot of trouble in a hurry.
 
2013-06-04 01:40:39 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Oddly enough, if Wal*Mart and these other companies did anything else, they would be liable in a shareholder lawsuit and fines by the SEC. It is unethical from a business sense to engage in profit-reducing activities, and publicly-traded companies that do get in a lot of trouble in a hurry.


Let's say WalMart employs 1.5 million people. And because I'm bendy enough to reach up my own keister and extract numbers, let's also say 1/2 of them receive some form of socialized medicine. I'll bet WalMart would risk the shareholder suit rather than face an annual $6k fine for 750,000 people. $4.5 Billion per year has a way of focusing your attention.
 
2013-06-04 02:06:25 AM
I had no idea that Walmart was run by socialists.
 
2013-06-04 09:29:55 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Oddly enough, if Wal*Mart and these other companies did anything else, they would be liable in a shareholder lawsuit and fines by the SEC. It is unethical from a business sense to engage in profit-reducing activities, and publicly-traded companies that do get in a lot of trouble in a hurry.


What lawsuits have been filed against a company for raising wages? What fines have been levied by the SEC? What trouble does one get into for paying above slave labor wage?

Why does any company offer health insurance, 401k's, vacation, sick time or any other benefits? That is just wasted money that should be turned over to shareholders in dividends. Surely the SEC will be handing out fines to just about every public traded company in the country and the court system will overwhelmed with shareholder lawsuits.
 
2013-06-04 09:35:24 AM
Yet every restaurant in existance can get away offering less pay and the same benefits package.

Serious question: Do Target and K-Mart offer more full-time employment and/or insurance to part-timers?
 
2013-06-04 09:36:58 AM
Damn pinko, hippie, Jerry Brown Commieforia! Trying to make businesses responsible for their harm to taxpayers. Watch, Wal-Mart will pull all it's business out of that state.
 
2013-06-04 09:41:10 AM
FlyingLizardOfDoom: Oddly enough, if Wal*Mart and these other companies did anything else, they would be liable in a shareholder lawsuit and fines by the SEC. It is unethical from a business sense to engage in profit-reducing activities, and publicly-traded companies that do get in a lot of trouble in a hurry.

That's the biggest load of crap I've seen since about 8 last night. It's not profit reduction. It's an investment in employee health, morale, and reduction of turnover.
 
2013-06-04 09:41:53 AM
Wow.  I've been calling for this for some time.  Minimum wage should be tied to the local/regional poverty line level.  IE: no employer should pay low enough that if you were working full-time hours, you'd still qualify for government assistance, which essentially means the government is subsidizing your inadequate paycheck.

Either raise the minimum wage or invoice companies for the government assistance spent on each full-time equivalent employee.
 
2013-06-04 09:45:30 AM

Billified: Yet every restaurant in existance can get away offering less pay and the same benefits package.

Serious question: Do Target and K-Mart offer more full-time employment and/or insurance to part-timers?


Yeah, that is stupid.  Give servers real wages and drop tips.  Damn near ever other service job pays a regular wage and doesn't rely on tips to make sure they give you 'good' service.  Just do like any other place, if the employees suck, don't go back and tell management why.
 
2013-06-04 09:46:38 AM
Once again the law of unintended consequences will kick in. The proposed legislation affects fines against "full time" employees. Walmart's natural response will be to cut hours and make most employees temps. This will eliminate the risk of fines and worsen the situation. Great job guys and gals.
 
2013-06-04 09:50:24 AM
But in that new Walmart television commercial, a well-spoken African-American man assures me that he's on a real career path.
 
2013-06-04 09:51:14 AM

Inyego: Once again the law of unintended consequences will kick in. The proposed legislation affects fines against "full time" employees. Walmart's natural response will be to cut hours and make most employees temps. This will eliminate the risk of fines and worsen the situation. Great job guys and gals.


Is it full-time employees, or full-time equivalents?  4 part timers at 10 hours a week equals one full time employee at 40 hours.
 
2013-06-04 09:58:14 AM

Lexx: Either raise the minimum wage or invoice companies for the government assistance spent on each full-time equivalent employee.


I could get behind the first but the latter no way.  I dont see why the govt has to fine companies because the govt is too incompetent to tighten up legislation and lessen unintended consiquences.
 
2013-06-04 10:01:08 AM
Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?
 
2013-06-04 10:02:05 AM

Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?


You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.
 
2013-06-04 10:09:34 AM

wingnut396: Billified: Yet every restaurant in existance can get away offering less pay and the same benefits package.

Serious question: Do Target and K-Mart offer more full-time employment and/or insurance to part-timers?

Yeah, that is stupid.  Give servers real wages and drop tips.  Damn near ever other service job pays a regular wage and doesn't rely on tips to make sure they give you 'good' service.  Just do like any other place, if the employees suck, don't go back and tell management why.


They do this in many parts of Europe. I just got back from the Netherlands and being a waiter / waitress is a full-time job there. Tips are rare, and usually just people rounding up the bill to the nearest euro. To be server usually has them with a trade degree, but that's due to other factors like multiple language certification.

Prices at the restaraunts isn't that far from ours. Locally, i.e. where I was, prices for fish were lower than beef, pork and chicken were reasonable as well.
 
2013-06-04 10:11:35 AM
Rick Ungar, Contributor
I write from the left on politics and policy.



No need to read any further. Just trolling leftwing rambling.

Any cost to taxpayers for Walmart employees would be even higher if they were not working at all.

Walmart is saving tax payer money and paying a huge tax burden itself. But don't let that stop the low-brows from going into typical ignorant "This is an outrage!" mode.
 
2013-06-04 10:14:05 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Oddly enough, if Wal*Mart and these other companies did anything else, they would be liable in a shareholder lawsuit and fines by the SEC. It is unethical from a business sense to engage in profit-reducing activities, and publicly-traded companies that do get in a lot of trouble in a hurry.


Fiduciary responsibility does not work that way.  Or, at least it's rare that it gets very far.  They'd put 'need to retain higher quality workers' in their 10-K (the recent articles about understaffing should cover any question of need).  Half the shares are owned by the family trust still. 60% of the remaining shares are owned by the big mutual/index/institutional funds who aren't known for activism.
 
2013-06-04 10:15:58 AM

Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?


Actually, running a ski area and a summer camp we hire several hundred of them, and we are gearing up to fully comply with the ACA without any shenanigans.  If you don't treat your lower tier employees like dog meat, they don't act like dog meat.

As for cutting employee hours to make them no longer qualify as full time, that may be suicidal if
Walmart went down that path.  Even when unemployment is high you can't keep good employees with that kind of plan,and as unemployment shrinks they will become the employer of last resort. Wal-Mart is already taking a revenue hit because their staffing levels are so low that it has hurt their ability to stock their stores, and if they reduce their staff pool further to include only those who can't get a better job anywhere else and are fine with a 20 hour work week, well you connect the dots...
 
2013-06-04 10:16:53 AM

Lexx: Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.


The response to this will be trotting out some hypothetical or anecdotal "small business", which is exactly what Wal-Mart, one of the nation's largest employers, is perfectly comparable to.  Because, you know, there's  no difference and clearly you want to hurt "small business".
 
2013-06-04 10:17:13 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Oddly enough, if Wal*Mart and these other companies did anything else, they would be liable in a shareholder lawsuit and fines by the SEC. It is unethical from a business sense to engage in profit-reducing activities, and publicly-traded companies that do get in a lot of trouble in a hurry.


Done in one.

We are locked in a downward financial spiral. The way the system is set up is ludicrous.

Invest in the business infrastructure? R&D? If it impacts share profit, thats a suing!
Stand up for retaining employee pensions?  If it impacts share profit, thats a suing!
If the new CEO finds a tax loophole and demands a 400% increase in salary? More share profit? Hells Yeah!
 
2013-06-04 10:21:46 AM

Heraclitus: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Oddly enough, if Wal*Mart and these other companies did anything else, they would be liable in a shareholder lawsuit and fines by the SEC. It is unethical from a business sense to engage in profit-reducing activities, and publicly-traded companies that do get in a lot of trouble in a hurry.

Done in one.

We are locked in a downward financial spiral. The way the system is set up is ludicrous.

Invest in the business infrastructure? R&D? If it impacts share profit, thats a suing!
Stand up for retaining employee pensions?  If it impacts share profit, thats a suing!
If the new CEO finds a tax loophole and demands a 400% increase in salary? More share profit? Hells Yeah!


The only you listed that happens is the last one. Shareholders rarely sue publicly traded companies. It's a weak ass excuse for looking the other direction when corporation do incredibly unethical things, "What can we do? They'll just get sued so we should just let the corporations to continue to rape and pillage the middle class."
 
2013-06-04 10:22:37 AM

Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?


If I was a retail store? Stock shelves, clean up any messes (spilled product), face shelves, assist customers, ring register, etc.

If I wasn't a retail store, and I had to hire them? I'd train them. Pay 'em a lower training wage until the training is complete, then full wage when they're up to speed to whatever task I need 'em doing, benefits at 6 months in, 401K matching with gradual vestment over a few years to try to entice them to stay.

(Oddly enough, exactly what my current employer does).

If I was running my 'ideal' business (Multi-level aquaponics farm in an urban setting, ignoring the attached market for now), that requires some specific skills ... most of those could be trained for. Water testing, feeding fish, following generated procedures for cleaning equipment, harvesting vegetables, performing minor spot-tests on various points in the system - all can be trained and be brought up to "New employee" speed in about a week's worth of time, give them a full month to see if they get up to the speed needed, then either hire them on full time or let 'em go at the month point.

The key would be motivating them and developing them. I want good employees, and if someone is willing to work and do the job, then I'm willing to train them regardless of prior background.

/Hired to do cellphone network optimization stuff, knew nothing of cellphone tech at time of hire
//Know far more than I did, still learning.
 
2013-06-04 10:24:05 AM
Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.


You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!
 
2013-06-04 10:29:50 AM

Billified: Serious question: Do Target and K-Mart offer more full-time employment and/or insurance to part-timers?


I wondered that too.  "The unions are fixated on Wal-Mart, but that's not the issue here."  If that's true, and this bill would only affect Wal-Mart, perhaps the company ought to examine why it offers their workers uniquely inadequate compensation.  If it's not true, and other companies engage in this sort of thing as well, the bill will affect them equally.

In other words:

www.newsfiber.com
 
2013-06-04 10:30:20 AM

CMYK and PMS: Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.

You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!


Those jobs should not exist in a wealthy first world country.
 
2013-06-04 10:33:38 AM
The fines only apply to "full-time" employees.  Wal-Mart will simply reduce hours and add extras to avoiud having any full-time employees under the act.   The better bet is to raise the local minimum wage to a decent level or impose some type of state controlled socialized medicine.
 
2013-06-04 10:34:02 AM

CMYK and PMS: Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.

You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!


Your post angered me enough that I think I need to respond more strongly.  If your business model is only viable because you pay sub-poverty wages to your employees, that business should not exist / should fail.
 
2013-06-04 10:34:24 AM

CMYK and PMS: Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!


Once upon a time, that used to be the entire reason for having minimum wage laws in the first place.

CMYK and PMS: Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where?


This makes me wonder where you think money for medicaid and other welfare programs that Wal-Mart wages necessitate come from.
 
2013-06-04 10:36:42 AM

CMYK and PMS: You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!


Prices don't go up anywhere near as fast as prices when you raise the minimum wage, because minimum wage workers aren't anywhere near 100% of the costs of any business, so the people on minimum wage are better off as their wages go up faster than the cost of living. See most other developed nations for examples.
 
2013-06-04 10:37:06 AM

Offog: As for cutting employee hours to make them no longer qualify as full time, that may be suicidal if
Walmart went down that path. Even when unemployment is high you can't keep good employees with that kind of plan,and as unemployment shrinks they will become the employer of last resort. Wal-Mart is already taking a revenue hit because their staffing levels are so low that it has hurt their ability to stock their stores, and if they reduce their staff pool further to include only those who can't get a better job anywhere else and are fine with a 20 hour work week, well you connect the dots...


.... then the situation is self correcting.  If walmart gets to the point where they need more employees than there are out there than they can attract with their current pay and benifit rates then the workers have the upper hand and they can ask for higher wages and benifits.  If walmart does not cede to the workers demands they are harmed... maybe ultimately to the point where they cease as a company.  So either workers are paid more towards what you think they deserve or the company folds.  The markets work.
 
2013-06-04 10:42:28 AM

Lexx: Wow.  I've been calling for this for some time.  Minimum wage should be tied to the local/regional poverty line level.  IE: no employer should pay low enough that if you were working full-time hours, you'd still qualify for government assistance, which essentially means the government is subsidizing your inadequate paycheck.

Either raise the minimum wage or invoice companies for the government assistance spent on each full-time equivalent employee.


The problem is WalMart is employing as many people as possible for 29.5 hours so they don't have to pay them full time benefits.  They are beating the system and farking the tax payers by making them pay the healthcare costs.  Raising the minimum wage wont change anything if they still dont get the healthcare.

They need to drop the limit to 15 hours for full time.  That way they have to have more people on the pay roll to do the work and thus becomes better business just to pay them the god damn benefits in the first place and give them a full time job.
 
2013-06-04 10:44:28 AM

WireFire2: Lexx: Wow.  I've been calling for this for some time.  Minimum wage should be tied to the local/regional poverty line level.  IE: no employer should pay low enough that if you were working full-time hours, you'd still qualify for government assistance, which essentially means the government is subsidizing your inadequate paycheck.

Either raise the minimum wage or invoice companies for the government assistance spent on each full-time equivalent employee.

The problem is WalMart is employing as many people as possible for 29.5 hours so they don't have to pay them full time benefits.  They are beating the system and farking the tax payers by making them pay the healthcare costs.  Raising the minimum wage wont change anything if they still dont get the healthcare.

They need to drop the limit to 15 hours for full time.  That way they have to have more people on the pay roll to do the work and thus becomes better business just to pay them the god damn benefits in the first place and give them a full time job.


They don't need to do that.  Like I said before, the government just needs to count full-time-equivalents, not full-time-employees.  4 workers times 10 hours a week at a living wage is fine.
 
2013-06-04 10:44:33 AM

Saiga410: Offog: As for cutting employee hours to make them no longer qualify as full time, that may be suicidal if
Walmart went down that path. Even when unemployment is high you can't keep good employees with that kind of plan,and as unemployment shrinks they will become the employer of last resort. Wal-Mart is already taking a revenue hit because their staffing levels are so low that it has hurt their ability to stock their stores, and if they reduce their staff pool further to include only those who can't get a better job anywhere else and are fine with a 20 hour work week, well you connect the dots...

.... then the situation is self correcting.  If walmart gets to the point where they need more employees than there are out there than they can attract with their current pay and benifit rates then the workers have the upper hand and they can ask for higher wages and benifits.  If walmart does not cede to the workers demands they are harmed... maybe ultimately to the point where they cease as a company.  So either workers are paid more towards what you think they deserve or the company folds.  The markets work.


Absolutely. These idiots think Walmart costs taxpayers money, however absent their Walmart wages, each of the people on public assistance would need more public assistance. Walmart, and every employer, saves taxpayers money in that they reduce the amount of public assistance needed.

If this increases the cost of employees to Walmart, basic economics indicates that they'll reduce the number of employees, putting that many more people on the unemployment line.
 
2013-06-04 10:47:56 AM

Lexx: CMYK and PMS: Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.

You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!

Your post angered me enough that I think I need to respond more strongly.  If your business model is only viable because you pay sub-poverty wages to your employees, that business should not exist / should fail.


And every employee be fired?

Every single person who works for Walmart applied, filled out an application, and willingly agreed to work for the wages/benefits offered. Who are you to tell them their job shouldn't exist?
 
2013-06-04 10:50:26 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Lexx: CMYK and PMS: Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.

You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!

Your post angered me enough that I think I need to respond more strongly.  If your business model is only viable because you pay sub-poverty wages to your employees, that business should not exist / should fail.

And every employee be fired?

Every single person who works for Walmart applied, filled out an application, and willingly agreed to work for the wages/benefits offered. Who are you to tell them their job shouldn't exist?


No, I'm saying incompetent, unethical, or simply immoral people who can't pay their workers a living wage should not own businesses.
 
2013-06-04 10:51:10 AM

Lexx: Debeo Summa Credo: Lexx: CMYK and PMS: Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.

You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!

Your post angered me enough that I think I need to respond more strongly.  If your business model is only viable because you pay sub-poverty wages to your employees, that business should not exist / should fail.

And every employee be fired?

Every single person who works for Walmart applied, filled out an application, and willingly agreed to work for the wages/benefits offered. Who are you to tell them their job shouldn't exist?

No, I'm saying incompetent, unethical, or simply immoral people who can't pay their workers a living wage should not own businesses.


Basically, these employers should quit, and let competent, ethical, moral leadership take over.
 
2013-06-04 10:56:53 AM

Lexx: Lexx: Debeo Summa Credo: Lexx: CMYK and PMS: Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.

You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!

Your post angered me enough that I think I need to respond more strongly.  If your business model is only viable because you pay sub-poverty wages to your employees, that business should not exist / should fail.

And every employee be fired?

Every single person who works for Walmart applied, filled out an application, and willingly agreed to work for the wages/benefits offered. Who are you to tell them their job shouldn't exist?

No, I'm saying incompetent, unethical, or simply immoral people who can't pay their workers a living wage should not own businesses.

Basically, these employers should quit, and let competent, ethical, moral leadership take over.


Why don't you start a competitor and, hire competent managers, and lure all walmarts best employees to your company with your ethical and moral wages?

You could eat walmart's lunch if they are so incompetent.
 
2013-06-04 10:58:55 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Saiga410: Offog: As for cutting employee hours to make them no longer qualify as full time, that may be suicidal if
Walmart went down that path. Even when unemployment is high you can't keep good employees with that kind of plan,and as unemployment shrinks they will become the employer of last resort. Wal-Mart is already taking a revenue hit because their staffing levels are so low that it has hurt their ability to stock their stores, and if they reduce their staff pool further to include only those who can't get a better job anywhere else and are fine with a 20 hour work week, well you connect the dots...

.... then the situation is self correcting.  If walmart gets to the point where they need more employees than there are out there than they can attract with their current pay and benifit rates then the workers have the upper hand and they can ask for higher wages and benifits.  If walmart does not cede to the workers demands they are harmed... maybe ultimately to the point where they cease as a company.  So either workers are paid more towards what you think they deserve or the company folds.  The markets work.

Absolutely. These idiots think Walmart costs taxpayers money, however absent their Walmart wages, each of the people on public assistance would need more public assistance. Walmart, and every employer, saves taxpayers money in that they reduce the amount of public assistance needed.

If this increases the cost of employees to Walmart, basic economics indicates that they'll reduce the number of employees, putting that many more people on the unemployment line.


You are paying money, out of your pocket, so Wal-Mart can make $15.7 billion in profits.

Think about that. Not revenue- profits. $15,700,000,000. And you're saying "Yes! It is GOOD that I can pay my own tax money, so my betters in Arkansas can make more money!"

And you like it. You like it so much, you seek out discussions where you can defend those who take your money to pay their employees' benefits.
 
2013-06-04 11:07:55 AM
CMYK and PMS: Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.

You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!

Those jobs should not exist in a wealthy first world country.



It sounds to me as though you just don't understand basic economics. If you don't want to pay $50. for a tomato then we can't pay someone $49 to pick it. Retail is one of the lowest forms of employment. A monkey can do it. We can't afford to pay monkeys high wages. In any society there must be jobs that don't pay well. These are entry jobs into the economy. Not life long careers.
 
2013-06-04 11:10:08 AM
CMYK and PMS: Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.

You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!

Your post angered me enough that I think I need to respond more strongly.  If your business model is only viable because you pay sub-poverty wages to your employees, that business should not exist / should fail.


If you think every job should pay a living wage then I invite you to get in your time machine and go back and live in the USSR. They thought the same thing
 
2013-06-04 11:10:17 AM
Some of you guys are missing a big point.  Wal-Mart would be fined 6K for every FULL TIME worker who ends up in Medicaid (Medi-Cal).  I think Walmart would hire one more person- someone whose sole job was to push every hourly employee out the door before they get 40 hours. Of course, they may have to hire 2 or 3 seeing as they couldn't amass 40 hours a week either.
 
2013-06-04 11:11:43 AM
CMYK and PMS: Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!

Once upon a time, that used to be the entire reason for having minimum wage laws in the first place.

CMYK and PMS: Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where?

This makes me wonder where you think money for medicaid and other welfare programs that Wal-Mart wages necessitate come from.



It comes out of my pocket in the form of taxes. Didn't they cover this in Schoolhouse Rock?
 
2013-06-04 11:13:04 AM
CMYK and PMS: You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!

Prices don't go up anywhere near as fast as prices when you raise the minimum wage, because minimum wage workers aren't anywhere near 100% of the costs of any business, so the people on minimum wage are better off as their wages go up faster than the cost of living. See most other developed nations for examples.


You could not be more wrong. See history for examples
 
2013-06-04 11:14:12 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Lexx: Lexx: Debeo Summa Credo: Lexx: CMYK and PMS: Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.

You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!

Your post angered me enough that I think I need to respond more strongly.  If your business model is only viable because you pay sub-poverty wages to your employees, that business should not exist / should fail.

And every employee be fired?

Every single person who works for Walmart applied, filled out an application, and willingly agreed to work for the wages/benefits offered. Who are you to tell them their job shouldn't exist?

No, I'm saying incompetent, unethical, or simply immoral people who can't pay their workers a living wage should not own businesses.

Basically, these employers should quit, and let competent, ethical, moral leadership take over.

Why don't you start a competitor and, hire competent managers, and lure all walmarts best employees to your company with your ethical and moral wages?

You could eat walmart's lunch if they are so incompetent.


Woah woah woah.  I said competent, ethical, and moral leadership.  Walmart's global leadership is definitely competent.  They're just unethical & immoral.

Is your business not viable if you pay your employees living wages?  You're incompetent.
Could your business be viable if you paid your employees living wages, but you choose not to?  You're unethical/immoral.
 
2013-06-04 11:15:06 AM

CMYK and PMS: CMYK and PMS: Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.

You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!

Those jobs should not exist in a wealthy first world country.


It sounds to me as though you just don't understand basic economics. If you don't want to pay $50. for a tomato then we can't pay someone $49 to pick it. Retail is one of the lowest forms of employment. A monkey can do it. We can't afford to pay monkeys high wages. In any society there must be jobs that don't pay well. These are entry jobs into the economy. Not life long careers.


The cost of labor in the production of food stuffs is not 90%.  It's not even 10%.
 
2013-06-04 11:15:25 AM
Lexx: Debeo Summa Credo: Lexx: CMYK and PMS: Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.

You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!

Your post angered me enough that I think I need to respond more strongly.  If your business model is only viable because you pay sub-poverty wages to your employees, that business should not exist / should fail.

And every employee be fired?

Every single person who works for Walmart applied, filled out an application, and willingly agreed to work for the wages/benefits offered. Who are you to tell them their job shouldn't exist?

No, I'm saying incompetent, unethical, or simply immoral people who can't pay their workers a living wage should not own businesses.

Basically, these employers should quit, and let competent, ethical, moral leadership take over.


No, if the employee is not happy with his wage HE should quit. If enough do so the company should fall of its own weight.
 
2013-06-04 11:17:38 AM
CMYK and PMS: CMYK and PMS: Giltric: Would any of you give these unskilled wal mart workers a full time position with a salary greater than minimum wage in your company or small business?

What would you have them do for your company?

You really don't get it.  Minimum wage *should* be higher, and it's flat-out immoral to pay someone so little that they're literally impoverished and qualify for government assistance.

You really don't get it. When the minimum wage is raised so are prices. That is how companies pay for the raise. So no one makes any forward progress. Where do you think the money comes from? The money fairy? Unicorns? Where? Don't say from the profits because I don't have the time to explain how stupid that is. Why anyone thinks they should be able to support themselves by working at a Wal Mart or Target is beyond me. Some jobs just don't pay enough to support yourself!

Those jobs should not exist in a wealthy first world country.


It sounds to me as though you just don't understand basic economics. If you don't want to pay $50. for a tomato then we can't pay someone $49 to pick it. Retail is one of the lowest forms of employment. A monkey can do it. We can't afford to pay monkeys high wages. In any society there must be jobs that don't pay well. These are entry jobs into the economy. Not life long careers.

The cost of labor in the production of food stuffs is not 90%.  It's not even 10%.


Having owned a business (with happy employees) I can say with all confidence that you sir are a moran. Good Day!
 
2013-06-04 11:18:09 AM
The company actually pays MORE THAN the minimum wage, by default, to start... My solution was posted in a recent thread. Make minimum wage $14/hr with overtime (1.5x base pay) for work performed over 30 hours. The first addresses this problem the second addresses the unemployment problem. It won't fix the unemployment problem entirely but it should help. I spent a long time coming up with those numbers, they're not just pulled from my ass actually. Some states may need to increase the minimum wage due to local costs but, for the most part, those numbers fit the average American.

Also, Wal*Mart tends to hire a lot of women with families who are already poor. Of course they still qualify for assistance, they're often the only one employed or they're single mothers. Do we really want to push them away from this practice?

I am no fan of the company. Some of the best regulations I am able to think of would seriously impact their bottom line. But, I'm also a fan of honesty and I have a dislike for hysterics.
 
2013-06-04 11:25:24 AM
The company actually pays MORE THAN the minimum wage, by default, to start... My solution was posted in a recent thread. Make minimum wage $14/hr with overtime (1.5x base pay) for work performed over 30 hours. The first addresses this problem the second addresses the unemployment problem. It won't fix the unemployment problem entirely but it should help. I spent a long time coming up with those numbers, they're not just pulled from my ass actually. Some states may need to increase the minimum wage due to local costs but, for the most part, those numbers fit the average American.

Also, Wal*Mart tends to hire a lot of women with families who are already poor. Of course they still qualify for assistance, they're often the only one employed or they're single mothers. Do we really want to push them away from this practice?

I am no fan of the company. Some of the best regulations I am able to think of would seriously impact their bottom line. But, I'm also a fan of honesty and I have a dislike for hysterics.


And where will this extra $210/week per employee come from?
 
Displayed 50 of 289 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 »






Report