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.

(The New York Times)   Living wage group in the tomato industry approaches Walmart. Naturally, Walmart tells them to get lost.. wait, strike that... actually, Walmart agrees and expands the program to other states   (nytimes.com) divider line 39
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

1098 clicks; posted to Business » on 26 Apr 2014 at 4:11 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-26 02:48:38 PM  
"In order to access our Web site, your Web browser must accept cookies from NYTimes.com. More information »"

Um, no.
 
2014-04-26 04:19:50 PM  
Great WalMart, now do that with your other employees as well...

/I already know the answer to that one *sigh*
 
2014-04-26 04:36:08 PM  
My job is to scrape gum off the floors at walmart and I believe that I deserve to be paid a living wage to do this because it really doesn't matter what the job is, if you work 40 32 hours per week doing it, you should certainly be able to support yourself and at least 2 kids.  Every job in murica needs to be capable of making you a head-of-household type income.
 
2014-04-26 04:44:33 PM  
Amazing how if you don't call it a union, organized labor can actually still succeed in this country.
 
2014-04-26 04:47:11 PM  

reprobate1125: My job is to scrape gum off the floors at walmart and I believe that I deserve to be paid a living wage to do this because it really doesn't matter what the job is, if you work 40 32 hours per week doing it, you should certainly be able to support yourself and at least 2 kids.  Every job in murica needs to be capable of making you a head-of-household type income.


You stick it to those starving millions, hoss. I knew I had you ignored with a note of "coont" for a reason.
 
2014-04-26 05:04:19 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: reprobate1125: My job is to scrape gum off the floors at walmart and I believe that I deserve to be paid a living wage to do this because it really doesn't matter what the job is, if you work 40 32 hours per week doing it, you should certainly be able to support yourself and at least 2 kids.  Every job in murica needs to be capable of making you a head-of-household type income.

You stick it to those starving millions, hoss. I knew I had you ignored with a note of "coont" for a reason.


I was obviously trolling, but I really do wonder where we got the notion that EVERY job is a head of household type job. When I was a teenager I worked at a fast food restaurant...then I got older and got a different job.  This has nothing to do with tomatoes btw.  Fully admit that I DNRTFA.

Hmm. "Will block Calvinists, Far-Right Radical Republicans and other beings incapable of rational thought who dare to have an opinion that differs with mine."  Enjoy your sanitized farktopia.  But you'll never read this because you blocked me.  Dang. My night is ruined.

I wish you well.  If you do want to have a rational discussion about living wages, I'm up for it if you are.
 
2014-04-26 05:20:20 PM  

reprobate1125: Anonymous Bosch: reprobate1125: My job is to scrape gum off the floors at walmart and I believe that I deserve to be paid a living wage to do this because it really doesn't matter what the job is, if you work 40 32 hours per week doing it, you should certainly be able to support yourself and at least 2 kids.  Every job in murica needs to be capable of making you a head-of-household type income.

You stick it to those starving millions, hoss. I knew I had you ignored with a note of "coont" for a reason.

I was obviously trolling, but I really do wonder where we got the notion that EVERY job is a head of household type job. When I was a teenager I worked at a fast food restaurant...then I got older and got a different job.  This has nothing to do with tomatoes btw.  Fully admit that I DNRTFA.

Hmm. "Will block Calvinists, Far-Right Radical Republicans and other beings incapable of rational thought who dare to have an opinion that differs with mine."  Enjoy your sanitized farktopia.  But you'll never read this because you blocked me.  Dang. My night is ruined.

I wish you well.  If you do want to have a rational discussion about living wages, I'm up for it if you are.


how much are you willing to pay me to have a rational discussion with you?
 
2014-04-26 05:39:15 PM  

reprobate1125: Anonymous Bosch: reprobate1125: My job is to scrape gum off the floors at walmart and I believe that I deserve to be paid a living wage to do this because it really doesn't matter what the job is, if you work 40 32 hours per week doing it, you should certainly be able to support yourself and at least 2 kids.  Every job in murica needs to be capable of making you a head-of-household type income.

You stick it to those starving millions, hoss. I knew I had you ignored with a note of "coont" for a reason.

I was obviously trolling, but I really do wonder where we got the notion that EVERY job is a head of household type job. When I was a teenager I worked at a fast food restaurant...then I got older and got a different job.  This has nothing to do with tomatoes btw.  Fully admit that I DNRTFA.

Hmm. "Will block Calvinists, Far-Right Radical Republicans and other beings incapable of rational thought who dare to have an opinion that differs with mine."  Enjoy your sanitized farktopia.  But you'll never read this because you blocked me.  Dang. My night is ruined.

I wish you well.  If you do want to have a rational discussion about living wages, I'm up for it if you are.


The question for corporations is this: is having a bunch of kids making minimum wage better for the stock price and dividends than paying higher wages for older folks who may fit the "head of household" profile? Add to that the Friedman Doctrine that not doing everything you can do to maximize profits is tantamount to theft from the stockholders and it's an easy decision.
 
2014-04-26 06:42:24 PM  

CruiserTwelve: "In order to access our Web site, your Web browser must accept cookies from NYTimes.com. More information »"

Um, no.


But it *must* be a good article if it's behind some sort of paywall.

/I can't read it either...
 
2014-04-26 06:47:46 PM  

Hyjamon: reprobate1125: Anonymous Bosch: reprobate1125: My job is to scrape gum off the floors at walmart and I believe that I deserve to be paid a living wage to do this because it really doesn't matter what the job is, if you work 40 32 hours per week doing it, you should certainly be able to support yourself and at least 2 kids.  Every job in murica needs to be capable of making you a head-of-household type income.

You stick it to those starving millions, hoss. I knew I had you ignored with a note of "coont" for a reason.

I was obviously trolling, but I really do wonder where we got the notion that EVERY job is a head of household type job. When I was a teenager I worked at a fast food restaurant...then I got older and got a different job.  This has nothing to do with tomatoes btw.  Fully admit that I DNRTFA.

Hmm. "Will block Calvinists, Far-Right Radical Republicans and other beings incapable of rational thought who dare to have an opinion that differs with mine."  Enjoy your sanitized farktopia.  But you'll never read this because you blocked me.  Dang. My night is ruined.

I wish you well.  If you do want to have a rational discussion about living wages, I'm up for it if you are.

how much are you willing to pay me to have a rational discussion with you?


I'd have to see how good you are at presenting rational thoughts to see if it's worth a living wage. :)
 
2014-04-26 07:11:58 PM  

CruiserTwelve: "In order to access our Web site, your Web browser must accept cookies from NYTimes.com. More information »"

Um, no.


How else will they know when you've leeched enough "freemium" content, and should then have to subscribe, without cookies?

You parasite.
 
2014-04-26 07:16:36 PM  

reprobate1125: I really do wonder where we got the notion that EVERY job is a head of household type job.


When we decided to economically support our society using capitalism.

Another alternative is our government paying everyone enough money to live, but for some reason this seems to have lots of opposition.

A third alternative is to just accept that some people will starve.  We can even say that they deserve to.

That alternative isn't really viable, either.
 
2014-04-26 07:57:26 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: Amazing how if you don't call it a union, organized labor can actually still succeed in this country.


If you don't try to intimidate a company and present a sound argument most companies will listen.

A buddy went to a union meeting and the reps spoke of the outrage of how companies were fighting in Georgia to ban picketing and shows of pro union protests.

What the law really stated was that unions couldn't stage sit ins inside main business headquarters like they were doing and that picketers had to actually be union members instead of hiring temp workers to walk picket lines.
 
2014-04-26 08:44:35 PM  
steamingpile:....If you don't try to intimidate a company and present a sound argument most companies will listen....

Sure they will, little guy. Sure they will.
 
2014-04-26 08:46:44 PM  

sendtodave: reprobate1125: I really do wonder where we got the notion that EVERY job is a head of household type job.

When we decided to economically support our society using capitalism.

Another alternative is our government paying everyone enough money to live, but for some reason this seems to have lots of opposition.

A third alternative is to just accept that some people will starve.  We can even say that they deserve to.

That alternative isn't really viable, either.


Because we're capitalist, every job has to pay well enough to be enough for a single earner head of household to be able to support their family?  No room for entry level, no skills having kids with next to zero living expenses to get some experience working?  No room for jobs that pay well enough that two adults working could support their combined family?
 
2014-04-26 09:05:50 PM  
Think about it this way.

If we assume for example that a living wage is $20 per hour.

That's what someone needs to make to pay for all the necessities for their household.

If we start paying everyone $20 minimum, all of the basic goods we need to survive will be MUCH more expensive because we have to pay EVERYONE from top to bottom that wage so you won't be able to survive on $20 per hour anymore.

Varied salaries are a good thing. The world doesn't work how many (insert political party) would like you to think it does.
 
2014-04-26 09:12:29 PM  
If employers want to get really sleazy, they can always hire 14-16 year olds and pay the 'training wage' which is, IIRC, under $5 per hour.  The only drawback, is that after 90 days, the pay must be increased to minimum wage.  The tradeoff seems to be the numerous restrictions on hazardous work conditions for teen workers.  Somehow, the fryolator becomes perfectly safe once a kid turns 17.
 
2014-04-26 09:18:22 PM  

reprobate1125: Think about it this way.

If we assume for example that a living wage is $20 per hour.

That's what someone needs to make to pay for all the necessities for their household.

If we start paying everyone $20 minimum, all of the basic goods we need to survive will be MUCH more expensive because we have to pay EVERYONE from top to bottom that wage so you won't be able to survive on $20 per hour anymore.

Varied salaries are a good thing. The world doesn't work how many (insert political party) would like you to think it does.


Are you really that stupid?  Is the world a zero sum game for you? So what happens to workers wages when there is competition from slavery?

think it out.
 
2014-04-26 09:20:01 PM  

ricbach229: sendtodave: reprobate1125: I really do wonder where we got the notion that EVERY job is a head of household type job.

When we decided to economically support our society using capitalism.

Another alternative is our government paying everyone enough money to live, but for some reason this seems to have lots of opposition.

A third alternative is to just accept that some people will starve.  We can even say that they deserve to.

That alternative isn't really viable, either.

Because we're capitalist, every job has to pay well enough to be enough for a single earner head of household to be able to support their family?  No room for entry level, no skills having kids with next to zero living expenses to get some experience working?  No room for jobs that pay well enough that two adults working could support their combined family?


Ignorant or troll?

The average fast food worker is over thirty. We either pay living wages to these folks, support them with welfare, sterilize them, or let their kids starve.

Those really are the options.
 
2014-04-26 09:22:22 PM  
When you have children, you learn:

One smile erases a thousand hardships.
 
2014-04-26 09:29:20 PM  

Smackledorfer: ricbach229: sendtodave: reprobate1125: I really do wonder where we got the notion that EVERY job is a head of household type job.

When we decided to economically support our society using capitalism.

Another alternative is our government paying everyone enough money to live, but for some reason this seems to have lots of opposition.

A third alternative is to just accept that some people will starve.  We can even say that they deserve to.

That alternative isn't really viable, either.

Because we're capitalist, every job has to pay well enough to be enough for a single earner head of household to be able to support their family?  No room for entry level, no skills having kids with next to zero living expenses to get some experience working?  No room for jobs that pay well enough that two adults working could support their combined family?

Ignorant or troll?

The average fast food worker is over thirty. We either pay living wages to these folks, support them with welfare, sterilize them, or let their kids starve.

Those really are the options.


Pretty much this.

Someone needs to pay for them.

Why not their employer?
 
2014-04-26 09:31:21 PM  

reprobate1125: Think about it this way.

If we assume for example that a living wage is $20 per hour.

That's what someone needs to make to pay for all the necessities for their household.

If we start paying everyone $20 minimum, all of the basic goods we need to survive will be MUCH more expensive because we have to pay EVERYONE from top to bottom that wage so you won't be able to survive on $20 per hour anymore.

Varied salaries are a good thing. The world doesn't work how many (insert political party) would like you to think it does.


Ah, yes, the old "if we don't have poor people, everyone will be poor" argument.
 
2014-04-26 09:41:17 PM  
Ha! I just realized something.

If we argue that the rich have too big a slice of the riches, the argument is always "it's not a zero sum game! The rich can get richer, and the poor can get richer!"

But if we argue that the poor all need a certain, basic income, all of a sudden it is.

We should stop wasting time with people that really just want there to be poor people.
 
2014-04-26 09:48:23 PM  

Smackledorfer: ricbach229: sendtodave: reprobate1125: I really do wonder where we got the notion that EVERY job is a head of household type job.

When we decided to economically support our society using capitalism.

Another alternative is our government paying everyone enough money to live, but for some reason this seems to have lots of opposition.

A third alternative is to just accept that some people will starve.  We can even say that they deserve to.

That alternative isn't really viable, either.

Because we're capitalist, every job has to pay well enough to be enough for a single earner head of household to be able to support their family?  No room for entry level, no skills having kids with next to zero living expenses to get some experience working?  No room for jobs that pay well enough that two adults working could support their combined family?

Ignorant or troll?

The average fast food worker is over thirty. We either pay living wages to these folks, support them with welfare, sterilize them, or let their kids starve.

Those really are the options.


The quick google search I did said the average age is under 30 (29.5) and I couldn't find any wage by age cross section data or wage by experience data.  When I worked fast food the store managers were all in their upper 40's, shift managers were upper 20's.  Store managers tended to make low 50's with nice benefits.  Almost all the older low level minions were doing it as side work on weekends (which reduces pay because they aren't as likely to be around long term) or were idiots you shouldn't let use real knives.  Area coaches and store/shift managers will really drag that age average up.

Average age combined with minimum wage is a really misleading metric because it's comparing starting wage level with employees ages at all points of their career. You're also using the argument that a 30yo needs to support a family to justify a minimum wage raise that would sweep up younger people who are in drastically different life stages.  Does a college freshman working in the bookstore for beer and book money need to make as much as a 30 year old trying to support a family?  Does a 16 year old wanting gas money for the weekend?
 
2014-04-26 09:48:49 PM  
"In order for me to be rich, you must remain, comparatively, poor."
 
2014-04-26 09:50:03 PM  

ricbach229: Smackledorfer: ricbach229: sendtodave: reprobate1125: I really do wonder where we got the notion that EVERY job is a head of household type job.

When we decided to economically support our society using capitalism.

Another alternative is our government paying everyone enough money to live, but for some reason this seems to have lots of opposition.

A third alternative is to just accept that some people will starve.  We can even say that they deserve to.

That alternative isn't really viable, either.

Because we're capitalist, every job has to pay well enough to be enough for a single earner head of household to be able to support their family?  No room for entry level, no skills having kids with next to zero living expenses to get some experience working?  No room for jobs that pay well enough that two adults working could support their combined family?

Ignorant or troll?

The average fast food worker is over thirty. We either pay living wages to these folks, support them with welfare, sterilize them, or let their kids starve.

Those really are the options.

The quick google search I did said the average age is under 30 (29.5) and I couldn't find any wage by age cross section data or wage by experience data.  When I worked fast food the store managers were all in their upper 40's, shift managers were upper 20's.  Store managers tended to make low 50's with nice benefits.  Almost all the older low level minions were doing it as side work on weekends (which reduces pay because they aren't as likely to be around long term) or were idiots you shouldn't let use real knives.  Area coaches and store/shift managers will really drag that age average up.

Average age combined with minimum wage is a really misleading metric because it's comparing starting wage level with employees ages at all points of their career. You're also using the argument that a 30yo needs to support a family to justify a minimum wage raise that would sweep up younger people who are in drastically different life stages.  Does a college freshman working in the bookstore for beer and book money need to make as much as a 30 year old trying to support a family?  Does a 16 year old wanting gas money for the weekend?


You sound old.

It's typically single moms now. It's not really a teenager job anymore.
 
2014-04-26 09:52:07 PM  
How's this, then.

A minimum wage raise for 30 year olds with kids. Teenagers and students can still make less.
 
2014-04-26 10:25:11 PM  

sendtodave: ricbach229: Smackledorfer: ricbach229: sendtodave: reprobate1125: I really do wonder where we got the notion that EVERY job is a head of household type job.

When we decided to economically support our society using capitalism.

Another alternative is our government paying everyone enough money to live, but for some reason this seems to have lots of opposition.

A third alternative is to just accept that some people will starve.  We can even say that they deserve to.

That alternative isn't really viable, either.

Because we're capitalist, every job has to pay well enough to be enough for a single earner head of household to be able to support their family?  No room for entry level, no skills having kids with next to zero living expenses to get some experience working?  No room for jobs that pay well enough that two adults working could support their combined family?

Ignorant or troll?

The average fast food worker is over thirty. We either pay living wages to these folks, support them with welfare, sterilize them, or let their kids starve.

Those really are the options.

The quick google search I did said the average age is under 30 (29.5) and I couldn't find any wage by age cross section data or wage by experience data.  When I worked fast food the store managers were all in their upper 40's, shift managers were upper 20's.  Store managers tended to make low 50's with nice benefits.  Almost all the older low level minions were doing it as side work on weekends (which reduces pay because they aren't as likely to be around long term) or were idiots you shouldn't let use real knives.  Area coaches and store/shift managers will really drag that age average up.

Average age combined with minimum wage is a really misleading metric because it's comparing starting wage level with employees ages at all points of their career. You're also using the argument that a 30yo needs to support a family to justify a minimum wage raise that would sweep up younger people who are in d ...


Where at?  According to thinkprogress's article on a 2010-2012 survey only 36% of workers over 20 have any children.  Only 26% over 16 have a kid (can't tell if 16+ includes those counted in 20+ category but you get the meaning).  Since females only make up a 56% majority of workers in fast food (over 20) then it's not single moms making up the majority of the workforce because not even a majority of workers have children.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/08/2433601/fast-food-worker s- young/

I clicked into the linked report and they didn't give any better breakdown on the data.  My guess is a distribution graph for the age and genders wouldn't have been good for the message of the research so it was left off.

From the research:
Fast-food workers, by age, 2010-2012 (percent of all fast-food workers)
16-19  30.0
20-24 30.7
25-54 36.4

There's no detailed breakdown of wage by demographic or education in the research they linked to. Without knowing the deviations on the brackets the data is an editorial with numbers not real useful research.  I wouldn't be surprised that the spread for 16-19 year olds is a tight range just over minimum wage.  20-24 is going to be widening as lifers start getting experience and full time positions with better hourly wages but a healthy mix of first time jobbers and extended adolescents are added.  25-54 is going to have a huge deviation as it includes everyone from IQ: Potato unable to make the move to shift leader all the way up to area coaches.

Honestly, this is going to sound mean, but if someone is making $8/hr as a 30 year old fry cook with 5 years experience, maybe they've maxed out what they can do and they are functionally handicapped.  If they are at their limits no business can justify employing them.  At that point is it better for them to be employed and getting government assistance to cover the rest, or unemployed and totally reliant on government assistance?
 
2014-04-26 10:39:48 PM  
The karma bunny really needs to check in on this thread.
 
2014-04-26 11:32:55 PM  
Even if Wal Mart pays all their employees 200 grand a year, we still hate them.
 
2014-04-26 11:49:27 PM  

sendtodave: How's this, then.

A minimum wage raise for 30 year olds with kids. Teenagers and students can still make less.


Good idea.

It could be a sliding scale based on how many dependents the employee claimed on their previous years tax filing.

It might lead to some discrimination in favor of childless workers, but that should play well around here.
 
2014-04-27 12:44:40 AM  

Semper IvXx: Even if Wal Mart pays all their employees 200 grand a year, we still hate them.


Not really, we would still complain that they buy cheap chinese products, but we wouldn't "hate them" (at least not as much as before). Though I would say 35 - 40 thousand a year per employee should be the wage, especially with how much money they make off of their employees backs.
 
2014-04-27 01:25:41 AM  

reprobate1125: I was obviously trolling, but I really do wonder where we got the notion that EVERY job is a head of household type job. When I was a teenager I worked at a fast food restaurant...then I got older and got a different job.  This has nothing to do with tomatoes btw.  Fully admit that I DNRTFA


It's not so much that 'head of household' wages are necessary for all jobs, just that if you are taking me away from my family and other income opportunities for 40-60 hours a week, whether it's scraping gum, mopping jizz, or handling billions of other people's dollars, you'd better pay enough so I can afford to give you that time. To suggest that I should be grateful to have a job at all, and to essentially have the sh*t wages you pay subsidized by the taxpayer (by way of welfare, EBT, DSHS, etc.) is what I find repugnant.


/Of course, I'm white, middle class (almost!) and have never worked for less than what I can live on...so...yeah
 
2014-04-27 01:42:06 AM  
If there are no workers to do the work, how do CEOs get paid?
 
2014-04-27 02:27:59 AM  
Pretty soon (2030+) with automation unemployment is going to skyrocket.  It's time to get away from the idea that people have to work 40+ hours a week just to afford a decent life.


radicalunjobbing.files.wordpress.com

/butbutbut welfare leeches!
 
2014-04-27 09:39:00 AM  

sendtodave: You sound old.

It's typically single moms now. It's not really a teenager job anymore.


True story, I went to a Chinese fast food chain restaurant yesterday, a Saturday, and not one teenager was working. It was all people well over 30. Sad times indeed.
 
2014-04-27 10:48:45 AM  

TomD9938: sendtodave: How's this, then.

A minimum wage raise for 30 year olds with kids. Teenagers and students can still make less.

Good idea.

It could be a sliding scale based on how many dependents the employee claimed on their previous years tax filing.

It might lead to some discrimination in favor of childless workers, but that should play well around here.


This. Farkers want retribution against anyone with a child because they had a bad experience at that restaurant/movie/plane ride that one time.
 
2014-04-27 11:21:01 AM  

ricbach229: At that point is it better for them to be employed and getting government assistance to cover the rest, or unemployed and totally reliant on government assistance?


If I'm going to have to pay for them either way, I'd rather not also be subsidizing their employer. The employer isn't entitled to a cheap worker.

Of course your little dichotomy requires that their labor will never be worth a living wage, but that's a patently false assertion by itself. The relatively paltry rise in prices to give minimum wage workers things like health insurance, and coupled with other states and first world nations that have much higher minimum wages and haven't descended into anarchy, there really is no good argument for it. The same bullshiat gets trotted out every time a min wage hike is proposed and it's taken as gospel, even when every time the wage has been raised, those prophecies never come to pass.
 
2014-04-27 06:49:51 PM  
sendtodave:
A third alternative is to just accept that some people will starve.  We can even say that they deserve to.

That alternative isn't really viable, either.


It's quite viable.  It's been the dominant model of society for most of the last 8,000 years.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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