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.

(BusinessWeek)   Old and Busted: Most Wal-Mart workers rely on public assistance. New Hotness: One third of all bank tellers rely on public assistance   (businessweek.com) divider line 87
    More: Obvious, wage earners, call centers  
•       •       •

1162 clicks; posted to Business » on 05 Dec 2013 at 4:14 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-05 12:46:00 AM
This explains my bank account.
 
2013-12-05 02:27:30 AM
I love the fact that Americans are starting to at least be made aware of the shiatty wage jobs people have to take, and no matter how much money they're making their employers, in the end it's they that are getting the shiat sandwich.
 
2013-12-05 02:40:49 AM
Consider it an additional fee. No big deal
 
2013-12-05 04:16:01 AM
Three words: Automated Teller Machines.

I'm sure someone cried over the lost jobs in buggy whip manufacturing too.
 
2013-12-05 05:12:32 AM
I was told that banks are the problem, and that everyone who works there - from the tellers to the IT crew to the CEO - are responsible for keeping me down
 
2013-12-05 05:13:44 AM
employee subsidies

recap

if a company's employees - have to be suported by your taxes

(shorter form)

wtf is wrong with your head that you would allow that
 
2013-12-05 05:38:44 AM
As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government
 
2013-12-05 05:43:11 AM

lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government


That will ensure that teenagers from middle class families and above will get all these entry level jobs, and poor people will be left completely on the street. Unless you want to make MORE laws and mandates to correct for the obvious consequences of your feel-good policies.

Which politicians usually do, instead of questioning the soundness of their original intervention.
 
2013-12-05 05:45:17 AM
greed is rampant in america and the lack of competition exacerbates the problem.
 
2013-12-05 05:51:13 AM
I think the bigger issue is how is it that people with jobs can qualify for public assistance? It's not for people with jobs. It's for people who are too lazy to GET jobs.
 
2013-12-05 06:24:57 AM

soakitincider: greed is rampant in america and the lack of competition exacerbates the problem.


Done.

Greed in a capitalist society drives innovation.  However, your second part is what the real problem is.  The megacorps in all industries are strangling the country.
 
2013-12-05 06:49:29 AM

untaken_name: I think the bigger issue is how is it that people with jobs can qualify for public assistance? It's not for people with jobs. It's for people who are too lazy to GET jobs.


Well, having worked in many branches of a national bank I can say that there was a disproportionately large portion of bank tellers who were also single mothers. It was quite odd, but it could explain how so many qualify for some sort of government assistance. That and the pay was crap. Usually around $10-$11 an hour to start, and there were a ton of part timers too.

/anecdote
 
2013-12-05 07:01:44 AM

AngryDragon: soakitincider: greed is rampant in america and the lack of competition exacerbates the problem.

Done.

Greed in a capitalist society drives innovation.  However, your second part is what the real problem is.  The megacorps in all industries are strangling the country.


What? There are dozens of banks you can choose from. Also credit unions, which according to fark are the shiat. Where's the lack of competition?
 
2013-12-05 07:02:22 AM

lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government


Why?
 
2013-12-05 07:05:42 AM
Banks are only open like 20 hours a week, aren't they?  I would imagine it's rough getting by on just as part time job.
 
2013-12-05 07:10:18 AM
It's a great place for cute chicks to find a guy with money to marry. Their not in it for the pay.
 
2013-12-05 07:12:23 AM

dfenstrate: lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government

That will ensure that teenagers from middle class families and above will get all these entry level jobs, and poor people will be left completely on the street. Unless you want to make MORE laws and mandates to correct for the obvious consequences of your feel-good policies.

Which politicians usually do, instead of questioning the soundness of their original intervention.


That's kind of a knee-jerk response - in reality, there are many situations where government "intervention" is both appropriate and necessary - the "private sector" cannot govern itself any better than a short bus full of retarded toddlers.
Why not simply point out that what lucksi proposes is absurd and unworkable, and leave it at that?
There is no way that such costs can be fairly or justly ascribed for penalty to any particular actor.
In the long run, in a bad job market it is probably cheaper and more market-efficient for the State to simply pay the costs of underemployment than to attempt to demand better compensation for workers absent demand pressure, and fight and scratch and wrassle with companies to try to get them to provide it.
It would be the corporate equivalent of drug testing welfare clients - you would waste more time ascribing blame and costs to particular companies (and fighting them over it) than you would collect in compensation.
It's a well-intentioned, but dumb idea.
 
2013-12-05 07:13:11 AM

AngryDragon: Greed in a capitalist society drives innovation


If this is the case, then where the fark are the jetpacks and flying cars?
 
2013-12-05 07:16:21 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government

Why?


Yes, we know we know: You're under no obligation to provide anyone a meaningful job with a decent wage. And if that's the case, then so be it: Society is under no obligation to provide your business with cheap labor. So if you really think that it's not your responsibility to provide a living wage for your employees, then it's not their responsibility to provide one for you either.
 
2013-12-05 07:17:37 AM

AngryDragon: soakitincider: greed is rampant in america and the lack of competition exacerbates the problem.

Done.

Greed in a capitalist society drives innovation.  However, your second part is what the real problem is.  The megacorps in all industries are strangling the country.


Innovators drive innovation; greed is not a primary factor in the creation of new goods and services.
 
2013-12-05 07:18:58 AM
dfenstrate: lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government

That will ensure that teenagers from middle class families and above will get all these entry level jobs, and poor people will be left completely on the street. Unless you want to make MORE laws and mandates to correct for the obvious consequences of your feel-good policies.

Which politicians usually do, instead of questioning the soundness of their original intervention.
 I am so  stupid I think all minimum wage jobs are only staffed by teenagers with rich mommies and daddies

Don't pay much attention to what's really happening in the world, huh?
 
2013-12-05 07:19:05 AM
What's a bank teller, and what do they tell?
 
2013-12-05 07:29:43 AM

Tax Boy: What's a bank teller, and what do they tell?


A sharp-dressed mouthpiece for insane policies.
They tell her "Your account is overdrawn."
 
2013-12-05 07:29:46 AM

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government

Why?

Yes, we know we know: You're under no obligation to provide anyone a meaningful job with a decent wage. And if that's the case, then so be it: Society is under no obligation to provide your business with cheap labor. So if you really think that it's not your responsibility to provide a living wage for your employees, then it's not their responsibility to provide one for you either.


Agreed. If it is true that we are subsidizing companies rather than individuals with public assistance, then by all means lets cut the public assistance.
 
2013-12-05 07:32:13 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government

Why?


The company is hiring people to work at a rate that is considered, even by the pathetic standards or the US, below the level of a 'living wage.'

The employees, in order not to starve in the streets, are turning to the government for assistance, using money that comes from everyone, for example, you.

Banks, in particular, are incredible conduits for the concentration of wealth in the hands of an extremely few mega-rich people.

The bank is offsetting its costs using government receipts, so by the communitative nature of addition and subtraction, the governmnent is paying the rich to get richer.

/But you already knew that.
//'America - It's a race to the bottom!"
 
2013-12-05 07:37:46 AM
Bank tellers can all be replaced by a single, well supplied ATM at all banking locations. Tech for the win!
 
2013-12-05 07:39:49 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Agreed. If it is true that we are subsidizing companies rather than individuals with public assistance, then by all means lets cut the public assistance.


So no more tax breaks, subsidies, and loopholes for corporations. I'm down with that.
 
2013-12-05 07:48:14 AM

KeatingFive: Don't pay much attention to what's really happening in the world, huh?


Can't read, eh? I made no statement about the current state of affairs, only the obvious result if this particular "well intentioned" but utterly idiotic policy was enacted.
 
2013-12-05 07:52:10 AM
Another job that was never supposed to be anything but extra pocket change.  Look folks you cant make a living on retail clerk, bank teller, or any other job designed for a high school student.  I understand that real jobs are not available; but, that does not mean that non-real jobs now must pay real wages.
 
2013-12-05 07:57:59 AM

KWess: Debeo Summa Credo: lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government

Why?

The company is hiring people to work at a rate that is considered, even by the pathetic standards or the US, below the level of a 'living wage.'

The employees, in order not to starve in the streets, are turning to the government for assistance, using money that comes from everyone, for example, you.

Banks, in particular, are incredible conduits for the concentration of wealth in the hands of an extremely few mega-rich people.

The bank is offsetting its costs using government receipts, so by the communitative nature of addition and subtraction, the governmnent is paying the rich to get richer.

/But you already knew that.
//'America - It's a race to the bottom!"


Okay, so lets get rid of the government assistance that goes to these workers. If your view is correct, when this assistance disappears, companies will need to raise their wages.

Of course, if the elimination of such assistance doesn't result in increased wages, then your theory is bullshiat.
 
2013-12-05 07:58:36 AM

Ishkur: then it's not their responsibility to provide one for you either.


Uh, it's not...until they sign an employment agreement. If they want to not provide anything to that company, they don't have to take a job there. See how that works? If you agree to work for the company at the offered wage, then there's no one else to blame but yourself if you're unhappy with your pay.
 
2013-12-05 07:59:06 AM

jso2897: That's kind of a knee-jerk response - in reality, there are many situations where government "intervention" is both appropriate and necessary - the "private sector" cannot govern itself any better than a short bus full of retarded toddlers.
Why not simply point out that what lucksi proposes is absurd and unworkable, and leave it at that?
There is no way that such costs can be fairly or justly ascribed for penalty to any particular actor.
In the long run, in a bad job market it is probably cheaper and more market-efficient for the State to simply pay the costs of underemployment than to attempt to demand better compensation for workers absent demand pressure, and fight and scratch and wrassle with companies to try to get them to provide it.
It would be the corporate equivalent of drug testing welfare clients - you would waste more time ascribing blame and costs to particular companies (and fighting them over it) than you would collect in compensation.
It's a well-intentioned, but dumb idea.


Thank you for your reasonable response, instead of a frothing at the mouth variety.

Now, I agree with you, insofar as a certain amount of regulation/government intervention is necessary for a well-functioning society.

I just want to be clear that 'good intentions' aren't really enough, given that they pave the road to hell and all.

When a policy does more harm then good, cancellation of that policy ought to be one of the first things considered, instead of piling on more and more 'well intentioned, but dumb' solutions.

Government is a unique racket because you can set the rules of the playing field, give people clear (but oft unintented) incentives to behave one way or another, and then be held blameless when it all goes to sh*t because the legislators didn't act directly in a detrimental fashion.

The fact that they made the rules that made a new type of detrimental behavoir attractive is usually glossed over, and those legislators or regulators get to pile on more rules to fix problems they created in the first place.

At some point in that spiral you ought to consider whether the original behavoir the regulators/legislators were trying to correct is really such a big deal after all.
 
2013-12-05 08:08:46 AM

dfenstrate: KeatingFive: Don't pay much attention to what's really happening in the world, huh?

Can't read, eh? I made no statement about the current state of affairs, only the obvious result if this particular "well intentioned" but utterly idiotic policy was enacted.


Don't want to argue with you, but what you stated isn't an 'obvious result'. It's just what you guess might happen.
 
2013-12-05 08:09:28 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Three words: Automated Teller Machines.

I'm sure someone cried over the lost jobs in buggy whip manufacturing too.


With the rise of BDSM in the last 20+ years, shouldn't that market be back in full swing?  Or were these outsourced overseas?  Sorry, I'm not an aficionado in this area.  Missionary or bust.  Or no bust rather...
 
2013-12-05 08:11:31 AM

dfenstrate: lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government

That will ensure that teenagers from middle class families and above will get all these entry level jobs, and poor people will be left completely on the street. Unless you want to make MORE laws and mandates to correct for the obvious consequences of your feel-good policies.

Which politicians usually do, instead of questioning the soundness of their original intervention.


Yeah, usually we have to nail down unethical douchebag businessmen who can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own with multiple laws.  Put in a cap on hours and forbid them from discriminating against somebody based upon receiving public assistance or even inquiring about their status pre-hire.  Or we could do it all at once.
 
2013-12-05 08:12:35 AM

pueblonative: Put in a cap on hours for workers under the age of 19 and forbid businesses from discriminating against somebody based upon receiving public assistance or even inquiring about their status pre-hire.



FTFM
 
2013-12-05 08:14:29 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: KWess: Debeo Summa Credo: lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government

Why?

The company is hiring people to work at a rate that is considered, even by the pathetic standards or the US, below the level of a 'living wage.'

The employees, in order not to starve in the streets, are turning to the government for assistance, using money that comes from everyone, for example, you.

Banks, in particular, are incredible conduits for the concentration of wealth in the hands of an extremely few mega-rich people.

The bank is offsetting its costs using government receipts, so by the communitative nature of addition and subtraction, the governmnent is paying the rich to get richer.

/But you already knew that.
//'America - It's a race to the bottom!"

Okay, so lets get rid of the government assistance that goes to these workers. If your view is correct, when this assistance disappears, companies will need to raise their wages.

Of course, if the elimination of such assistance doesn't result in increased wages, then your theory is bullshiat.


I don't think you can necessarily conclude that.  More likely if you eliminated government assistance for low wage workers then eventually these people would vote in enough government representatives to enact programs that would institute either wage regulations or assistance for people below a certain income level.  I know this, because that's what the situation actually, you know, is.

In any case, I like the fact that your instinct is to cut the government assistance to the struggling employee, rather than take a small portion out of the unbelievably profitable business so that they aren't actively stealing from the middle class taxpayer.  It's amazing to find people so willing to act against their actual self-interest because of an abstract concept that only serves to enrich others - others who will move against them as soon as they find a way to do it.

I wish you, of course, all luck.
 
2013-12-05 08:31:37 AM
Fark this. How long are we going to let this shiat go on? The profits of banks is staggering!

Great, so I have to pay for it instead? If you agree with this and you ever have complaints about how much your taxes are you deserve a motherfarking kick in the teeth.
 
2013-12-05 08:34:08 AM
dfenstrate:
Government is a unique racket because you can set the rules of the playing field, give people clear (but oft unintented) incentives to behave one way or another, and then be held blameless when it all goes to sh*t because the legislators didn't act directly in a detrimental fashion.


...this is the exact point, I think, where your argument breaks down a bit.  Any large, powerful (in this context, read: wealthy) actor can effectively set the rules of a playing field via incentives.  And leaders being held effectively blameless when it all goes to shiat, absent individual malfeasance...  that's a pretty decent thumbnail definition of the benefits of corporate personhood.

Government is by no means a "unique racket" in that regard.
 
2013-12-05 08:44:44 AM

AngryDragon: soakitincider: greed is rampant in america and the lack of competition exacerbates the problem.

Done.

Greed in a capitalist society drives innovation.  However, your second part is what the real problem is.  The megacorps in all industries are strangling the country.


Greed in a capitalist society is what drives corporations to merge with each other and create monopolistic situations where innovation isn't needed. R&D just eats into profits.
 
2013-12-05 08:46:51 AM

Night Night Cream Puff: untaken_name: I think the bigger issue is how is it that people with jobs can qualify for public assistance? It's not for people with jobs. It's for people who are too lazy to GET jobs.

Well, having worked in many branches of a national bank I can say that there was a disproportionately large portion of bank tellers who were also single mothers. It was quite odd, but it could explain how so many qualify for some sort of government assistance. That and the pay was crap. Usually around $10-$11 an hour to start, and there were a ton of part timers too.

/anecdote


I've known bank tellers too and it's basically better than a lot of what's out there. Bank teller isn't much different than a cashier. So if you are a single mother without much work experience and your options are cashier at minimum wage or bank teller at $10-$11 an hour then bank teller looks like a good option.

Still, the issue isn't even really if workers are or are not happy with their pay. The problem is that low wage work is subsidized by my tax dollars. We're essentially already paying them a wage higher than the minimum wage but in a more complicated manner.
 
2013-12-05 08:48:14 AM
Hey Libertarians.. just think how much LOWER your taxes would be if there was a living wage and how many more jobs there would be out there thanks to people being able to be more bootstrappy. Just a thought.
 
2013-12-05 09:05:46 AM

KWess: Debeo Summa Credo: KWess: Debeo Summa Credo: lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government

Why?

The company is hiring people to work at a rate that is considered, even by the pathetic standards or the US, below the level of a 'living wage.'

The employees, in order not to starve in the streets, are turning to the government for assistance, using money that comes from everyone, for example, you.

Banks, in particular, are incredible conduits for the concentration of wealth in the hands of an extremely few mega-rich people.

The bank is offsetting its costs using government receipts, so by the communitative nature of addition and subtraction, the governmnent is paying the rich to get richer.

/But you already knew that.
//'America - It's a race to the bottom!"

Okay, so lets get rid of the government assistance that goes to these workers. If your view is correct, when this assistance disappears, companies will need to raise their wages.

Of course, if the elimination of such assistance doesn't result in increased wages, then your theory is bullshiat.

I don't think you can necessarily conclude that.  More likely if you eliminated government assistance for low wage workers then eventually these people would vote in enough government representatives to enact programs that would institute either wage regulations or assistance for people below a certain income level.  I know this, because that's what the situation actually, you know, is.

In any case, I like the fact that your instinct is to cut the government assistance to the struggling employee, rather than take a small portion out of the unbelievably profitable business so that they aren't actively stealing from the middle class taxpayer.  It's amazing to find people so willing to act against their actual self-interest because of an abstract concept that only serves to enrich others - others who will move against them as soon as they find a way to do it.

I wish you, of course, all luck.


My instinct isn't to cut govt assistance, my instinct is to point out the obvious flaws in any argument that govt assistance to low wage workers is a subsidy to their employers.

The free market determines a fair wage (agreed to by both seller and buyer of labor) of X. Society decides that people deserve a lifestyle that costs X+Y, so we give Y to these workers. We are quite obviously subsidizing the workers, not their employers.
 
2013-12-05 09:13:20 AM

whidbey: I love the fact that Americans are starting to at least be made aware of the shiatty wage jobs people have to take, and no matter how much money they're making their employers, in the end it's they that are getting the shiat sandwich.


The US is becoming a neo-feudal society, where there are a small number of plutocrats (often rent-seeking), a mass of poor (often with few skills), and a small "middle class" made up of those that cater to, or are patronized by the plutocrats (i.e. lawyers, accountants, design consultants, PR people, etc.).  Now, instead of military service for the liege, the plutocrat only asks for political, brand or ideological loyalty.
 
2013-12-05 09:15:07 AM

dfenstrate: lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government

That will ensure that teenagers from middle class families and above will get all these entry level jobs, and poor people will be left completely on the street. Unless you want to make MORE laws and mandates to correct for the obvious consequences of your feel-good policies.


There are plenty of teenagers available to work during bank hours in your city, I presume?
 
2013-12-05 09:25:59 AM

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government

Why?

Yes, we know we know: You're under no obligation to provide anyone a meaningful job with a decent wage. And if that's the case, then so be it: Society is under no obligation to provide your business with cheap labor. So if you really think that it's not your responsibility to provide a living wage for your employees, then it's not their responsibility to provide one for you either.


THIS
 
2013-12-05 09:53:00 AM
trialx.com

I was picked as the most overpaid CEO of 2012. I cannot maintain this salary if i pay my workers fairly. You go to hell. You go to hell and you die.
 
2013-12-05 09:54:44 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: KWess: Debeo Summa Credo:
... The free market determines a fair wage (agreed to by both seller and buyer of labor) of X. Society decides that people deserve a lifestyle that costs X+Y, so we give Y to these workers. We are quite obviously subsidizing the workers, not their employers...


ROFLMFAO

Are you saying there are free markets in the U.S. with a straight face? REALLY?
 
2013-12-05 09:57:10 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Another job that was never supposed to be anything but extra pocket change.  Look folks you cant make a living on retail clerk, bank teller, or any other job designed for a high school student.  I understand that real jobs are not available; but, that does not mean that non-real jobs now must pay real wages.


WOW, I'm shocked you feel that I do not deserve a real wage.

/retail slave with an MA
//Every job should pay a real wage, not this pathetic minimum wage bs.
 
2013-12-05 09:57:47 AM

bindlestiff2600: Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: lucksi: As long as a company turns a profit, they should be required by law to pay back the assistance for their workers by the government

Why?

Yes, we know we know: You're under no obligation to provide anyone a meaningful job with a decent wage. And if that's the case, then so be it: Society is under no obligation to provide your business with cheap labor. So if you really think that it's not your responsibility to provide a living wage for your employees, then it's not their responsibility to provide one for you either.

THIS


Yup. People need to organize. There is a chart out there that shows the average take home pay in American with the % of unionized labor. From the 60's, BOTH lines drop on an almost perfect 45 degree angle. There is a reason why the Robber Barons of Yore were so quick to crack skulls when labor went on strike. It was fear. Fear of having to hold off on buying the fourth vacation home so the  workers could put bread on the table. The above point sums it up nicely and really shows that people need to band together and say "Fark you, I ain't got mine".
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report