Users who Dugg This
John Boitnott
15820 Followers
BeShirtHappy
13460 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
7055 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
Robert Wright
7403 Followers
agilosApr 23, 2011
Seems like a marginal adjustment that would really benefit the workforce. Many employees would like to be fully independent and not have to depend on govt assistance.
darrriaApr 23, 2011
I think the marginal adjustment would also benefit the type of customer service you would receive from employees at Wal-Mart as well. Which in turn should make more money for Wal-Mart really. I currently, and unfortunately, work there. It's hard to find a job in general, especially in the small area that I live, so I took what I could so I could pay my bills. The pay at Wal-Mart isn't great, nor the way that you are treated for the most part. But if they were to pay $12 an hour, I would bet my ass that people would be trying and working a lot harder to be friendlier and more knowledgeable to help customers so they could keep their job. Thus weeding out all the crappy employees there now that know if they get fired it's no significantly huge loss, since they could try to get a job just about anywhere else and get the same pay or better.
FPSmotoApr 24, 2011
Yes, but they're a company, not a union. If you don't like what your pay is, either try for a higher paying position or find a different job. It's really that simple.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jorjorblinkedApr 24, 2011
Finding another job is simple? Unemployment in the U.S. is still around 10%, that may be better than it had been but that is still roughly 300,000 without jobs. People are taking what they can get.
FPSmotoApr 24, 2011
Yes, it's simple. You go out, buy a newspaper for 50 cents, look through the classifieds and call every place till you get a job. You can worry about getting a job you want at a later time. What you need to focus on doing is getting up off your ass and actually looking for a job. It's not that difficult, even in this s**t economy. Quit using the economy as an excuse for your laziness.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mortaneousApr 26, 2011
Shut up jackass. My wife has been doing that for 2 years now and, while she's gotten a few dozen interviews, none have offered her a job. Please stop talking authoritatively about things you aren't experiencing.
FPSmotoApr 26, 2011
Lol your wife must suck at finding a job then? Sounds like she's just milking you dry, taking advantage of the fact that you probably have a job. Gold diggers man, gold diggers.
All jokes aside, why hasn't she been able to find a job in 2 f**king years? That's really pathetic if you think about it. I felt like such a loser for being without a job for 4 months(which was due to laziness and lack of motivation, not because the economy sucks). I'd go absolutely ape s**t if I was jobless for 2 years...
Maybe you should go get her an app from McDonalds or something.
A job is better than no job and like I said before, she can worry about getting a job she actually WANTS at a later time.
mortaneousApr 28, 2011
She works part time in a local grocery store bakery, she's been trying to get a better job. Something like an administrative assistant or secretary, or office manager. There are just so many people in this state with more experience and no job that they tend to be hired instead of her even when she does make it to the 3rd round of interviews.
Closed AccountJun 8, 2011
Actually the real unemployment rate is somewhere around 20%. The government uses the lower ~10% figure so they can bulls**t the public. Just like if they used GAAP for their books, the national debt would tally somewhere around $50 trillion.
10452bghfApr 23, 2011
God, if this study is true I am ready to pay 0.92¢ each trip or 24$ in a year for people to get a better pay..
I'm even ready to make it a whole $ and give the remaining 0.08¢ to walmart to put in a fund for better health care for these employees..
Only if it helps the employees....
nickymouseApr 23, 2011
Walmart has better health insurance than most places. My mother used it two years ago for cancer.
MusicManGPApr 23, 2011
If your mother is covered by it, she's lucky. Most wal-mart employees do not receive any kind of health benefits, instead wal-mart encourages employees not covered to seek government assistance.
nickymouseApr 23, 2011
That's true, many don't. That's because they're part-time employees. My mother is a full-time employee, however, it took a year of part-time employment to move up to full-time. Look, I'm not saying their the best company in the world, but they're fair. Wal-mart at least pays 34 cents in taxes for every dollar of profit it made in the past three year. GE was 3.6 cents.
spuy767Apr 24, 2011
That's because GM lobbied the right congressmen.
spuy767Apr 24, 2011
Obviously meant GE, phone autocorrected for some reason.
adaguyApr 23, 2011
'Walmart has better health insurance than most places.'
But it isn't available to part time employees. (Which is the majority of the WalMart staff)
captgarfieldApr 24, 2011
Part time employees are eligible for healthcare after two years employment.
Closed AccountApr 24, 2011
Reality check: The vast majority of employers offer little if any health coverage to part timers. It isn't just wal mart.
adaguyApr 24, 2011
Reality Check:
The vast majority of larger merchants like walmart offer insurance to employees.
Target, Kmart, Sears, Pennys, etd.
Closed AccountApr 24, 2011
I'm talking full health benefits packages like a full-timer would get, not some stupid bs "hey look we pay for 5% of your coverage so we look good for the media because we offer part-time health" plan.
I never once said large employers, I said employers collectively.
you're purposely forgetting about the absolute metric s**t-ton of small businesses in the US as well, which in general offer very little coverage to part-timers (let alone full-timers) due to the large expenses, but employ tens of millions of people. In fact, around 45% of the private payroll in the US is payed by small businesses, which make up 90+% of the businesses in the US.
So my point stands, The vast majority of EMPLOYERS offer little if any health coverage to part timers.
On a side note - target offers s**t part-time coverage (according to three family friends who have worked there 10+ years) and sears holdings (sears + kmart) have been cost cutting so part-time health coverage is virtually nonexistent.
Admittedly Walmart probably offers the best part-time coverage out of all the big-boxers, especially since their redid their system in 2008. However, their part-time coverage is still horrible compared to full time. Personally I think that is bs if the employee has been there for a long time (2+ years).
adaguyApr 24, 2011
'I never once said large employers, I said employers collectively.
you're purposely forgetting about the absolute metric s**t-ton of small businesses in the US as well, '
Hey, Junior! Read the name of the article. It's about WALMART!
I don;'t give a s**t what other topic you wish to sway to, the discussion is about WALMART!
You may wander the conversation aimlessly, but I'll attempt to stay on topic! THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT WALMART!
And my point still stands, the vast majority of large employers offer a decent health plan.
simonjester666Apr 23, 2011
Save your money for a waiter and then while you are at it walk back in the kitchen and tip the cook, they make minimum wage, no benefits and cook your food, Walmart employees have a huge benefits package, part time or not compared to an entire restaurant industry who has none. Even if you are part time at walmart you can still buy in to their affordable and decent insurance program, something a cook can never do. The cook works 10 times as hard and in a much more hostile environment..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shamsaelApr 23, 2011
I've worked as a cook. Cooks do not make minimum wage.
effyochickenApr 24, 2011
Chefs don't make minimum wage, but every single fast food worker or low-end restaurant worker does. I work my ass off cooking and selling food, and I make only pennies more than minimum.
Chef != Cook. (I bet you worked for a 3 or 4 star restaurant)
shamsaelApr 24, 2011
I worked at Friendly's. I started at 8.00 with only a highschool diploma, made 9.00 two years later when I quit.
spuy767Apr 24, 2011
Waiters make less than minimum wage, dumbass.
effyochickenApr 24, 2011
No they don't. You cannot make less than minimum wage in this country unless you're an illegal immigrant with no ability to fight for worker rights without being deported.
It's called minimum wage for a reason, dumbass.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stemo159Apr 24, 2011
Waiters usually make less than minimum wage because it's technically supposed to be made up by the tips. That's why most restaurants have a mandatory 15-20% gratuity, so you basically paying for their paycheck.
bsonlineApr 24, 2011
That is why most restaurants SHOULD have a mandatory gratuity policy.
In reality:
Most restaurants do not have such a policy.
If waiters claim to make less than the required amount, they are still taxed on what they "should" have made that day/night.
Many places require servers to share their tips with other employees (cooks, bussers, host, etc) even though those employees make a standard wage.
The actual legal minimum for servers used to be half of minimum wage, but it has not been going up with the actual minimum wage rate. I believe it is around 3 or so per hour.
Servers are often required to do a lot of other work due to legal loopholes; this includes cleaning stations, sweeping, mopping, preparing some food such as salads and soups and in some cases doing dishes. Like free rolls? Your server probably had to cook them for less than minimum wage.
The "half" wage should only be for hours worked while being tipped, but businesses do not have to pay the full minimum wage until an hour after the last customer has left.
While the employer is required to make up the difference if the employee does not make enough tips to add up to minimum wage, most employers require the server to have claimed a certain amount - or will try to scare the server with "The IRS will audit you if you don't", which is a half-truth - the IRS usually just taxes higher.
jivetrkyApr 24, 2011
They do have an hourly wage of only $2.xx-3.xx But the rest if made up in tips.
In the couple restaurants I worked in as a server (this was about 6-7 years ago now) at the end of the shift you enter your tips made. If that number plus your hourly works out to less than minimum wage, the restaurant is supposed to make up the difference to bring it to minimum.
But you will find that most servers do not claim their ACTUAL tips, but rather figure out a number that looks good on paper to avoid taxes.
spuy767Apr 24, 2011
I am aware of this. I was directly responding to his comment to withhold tips from the server. So we should be going after the tax dodging waiters.
simonjester666Apr 24, 2011
actually I said save your money for the sever and the cook rather than pay more at Walmart.
richardboreanApr 23, 2011
I know this is crazy, but... if you do not like the way Walmart treats its employees, then do not shop there!
I do not approve of Walmart's international labor treatment, so I do not shop there. Pretty simple.
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
bu..bu..but thats personal responsibility!
duncan202Apr 23, 2011
Ok. And then what about the people who work jobs that are actually worth 12 dollars an hour?
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
thus you bring to light the entire problem with a minimum wage is that their is no minimum requirement of skill to balance the wage. why people don't understand this im not sure.
boody78Apr 23, 2011
Wow, I cannot believe how dumb people can be. You don't have to be an economist to understand this, it is an incredibly simple idea. If minimum wage was $12, then within 30 days I can guarantee you inflation would make $12/hour just as low of a wage as $7.25 is now. I work as a general manager at a fast food restaurant. I started there at 16 for $4.25/hour. I now make $51,000/year plus bonuses, seems pretty good as I never went to collage. I support my family of 5 with this salary, own my own home, and drive a pretty nice car. Stop hating on Walmart and other companies like them, because they start people out at minimum wage. These jobs are dead end for LAZY people, but stepping stones and opportunities for HARD WORKING people like me who could not afford collage.
gsydiggerApr 23, 2011
the fact that you can't spell college is enough of a reason to get people to go to college.
Also very few people who go to college want to become managers, and while $51,000/year + bonuses is good, that's also the kind of wage that someone who graduated college a year ago with a Chemistry or Physics related degree would get.
There's also missing out on the social aspects of college, which IMO is a major part of going.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
boody78Apr 23, 2011
There is a word for people who search a post for a single typo to use as some sort of come back because their point is very poor.
There is also a word for people who think having gone to college makes them intelligent.
There is also a word for people who need college in order to socialize.
Not everyone has the means to go to college, I didn't, and because of a dumb decision I made, I had a child to support at age 20, but in America everyone has the means to work hard and succeed in life. I have personally used a minimum wage job as a launch pad. I have worked hard to support my family. I earn a good wage in a depressed area (depending on where you live 51g may not be that impressive, but I can assure you here it is.) I have not blown my money but invested it in real estate, I own 3 apartment buildings. Last year I reported over $123,000 in income between my job and my investments. My wife, son and daughters live comfortably, in a 35000 sq foot home, I drive an Audi, I am 32 and my life is good.(I also have big thumbs and a touch screen phone with little buttons that like to guess what I mean)
So stick to spell checking Internet posts, chemistry and physics, because economics and apparently socializing are not your strong suits.
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
"Not everyone has the means to go to college"
It may just be because I live in Illinois, a very blue state, but my impression is that unless your parents are rich and greedy you can probably go to college. It may only be community college but college is college and a two year degree can open a surprisingly large number of doors.
Getting back to the original point, when I started looking into community college, I could have gone to class full time (12 hours in class, 20-30 hours of studying, per week) and financial aide would have paid for my tuition, fees and books, plus put some money in my pocket (maybe $1000 per semester but it's been a long time ago now so don't quote me on that). Sure, I would have had to pick up a PT job or something to live...
(Luckily, I actually qualified for scholarships and grants which, in addition to paying for all my college expenses, also paid me a living stipend. I was very lucky.)
adaguyApr 26, 2011
'but my impression is that unless your parents are rich and greedy you can probably go to college'
Did it ever occur to you that not every student is not college material?????
amaoicanApr 26, 2011
It occurred to me.. until I actually went to college. Now I'm not so sure. There are classes for everyone. Take my brother for example - he got his CDL (truck driver's license) at the local community college. I don't know what his finances are like, but I do know that the sorts of financial aide that I was alluding to are available to CDL students. And of course there's CNA, a mostly mindless job that doesn't pay extravagantly well ($25k is the median around here) but for which there is ALWAYS work available.
Now, is traditional college (4 years leading to a degree) for everyone? Probably not.
adaguyApr 26, 2011
'There are classes for everyone."
But not everyone has the time and the drive to attend in the first place.
And what about the highschool dropout who can barely read, and has no desire to improve. You've seen the type, the one who is young and stubborn enough that he thinks that he will prove to the world that he will do just fine without conforming?
This community is full of this type of people. A cook at the local cafe, (has to be at least 24 or 25) occasionally takes money at the cash register while the waitress is busy. This guy can't make change. He's helpless. Hand him your ticket and a 5 dollar bill and he's lost.
amaoicanApr 26, 2011
Okay, "for everyone" was a bit far.
tomtutsApr 24, 2011
Wish I could digg you more. That bit about inflation is what I wanted to say, but couldn't think of how to say it. So I'm glad you did. Wage minimums will never solve these problems; only improvements in the economy and job market will help with unskilled labor.
Closed AccountApr 23, 2011
Why won't alternet bitch about Apple who has a MUCH higher profit margin than Walmart? And their market cap is almost double Walmarts. And they employ GENIUSES yet pays them barely more than Walmart.
Therefore, since alternet wants Walmart to pay about 60% higher salaries than their competition, that means that Apple should pay their skilled retail employees close to $80,000 a year...rather than the $15 and hour they get if they are lucky. After all...they can afford it...right? And their poor employees are so poor that they can't even afford to buy Apple products!
murxApr 23, 2011
Exactly. And why we're at it. You could solve your 'illegal immigration problem' the same way.
Find a company that employs illegal workers (give them a week or two for paperwork or fire those without) and fine them. Fine them seriously.
Let them pay for EACH CASE one year of taxes and rates they would have payed for a 'legal' worker - and double it so it counts as punishment.
And if they don't have the money - well disown them and sell them to someone who can run a legal business.
If there were no companies employing illegal workers by the masses there would be much less immigration.
esfisherApr 23, 2011
Want to eliminate illegal immigration? End the drug war, end minimum wage, end welfare, and open the borders. I guarantee the only people coming to the US at that point would be able to provide for themselves.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Unregistered_CowardApr 23, 2011
Wha?
rotundoApr 23, 2011
Brilliant! Let's turn our country into a place people don't want to come!
More seriously: I agree with you on the drug war. However you obviously have no understanding of the motivation of immigrants (namely, how hard the places they're coming from can be) nor how quickly the inevitable underclass becomes a festering cesspool without things like minimum wage and welfare. We tried it that way for centuries and the results were pretty bleak.
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
so our country was 'bleak' in the early 1900's? i thought that is when our country and economy was strongest.
magpladApr 24, 2011
You've apparently not heard of the robber barons or that little "great depression" thing that followed them.
rotundoApr 24, 2011
You're not serious, are you? Are you talking about the Great Depression or the economic turmoil that led to it? Either way, you'd be hard pressed to argue that was economic strength.
But in any case I wasn't just talking about the economy. I was talking about living conditions. Things like infant mortality, life expectancy, nutrition and access to education for the poor, workplace safety, etc. In the 1900s these were all abysmal.
Simply put: you would not want to live in those days. There are a lot of problems today; I hope we can solve them. But the golden past never was.
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
afterall there was a lot less in this country when we had majority of immigrants.
esfisher is absoultely right in his comment. we are just getting more tax-suckers from other countries when we need to quit the government dependence which makes americans and illegal immigrants lazy.
elmuerte17Apr 23, 2011
How about force 'em to pay the same wage and benefits to illegal workers as everyone else? Then they won't have any incentive to hire illegal workers.
rotundoApr 23, 2011
Precisely. There should be no such thing as illegal workers: if someone is working - i.e. contributing to our economy - why the hell would that ever be illegal? You can be born here and leech off the system legally, but you're not allowed to be productive just because you came from elsewhere?
It's a completely brain-dead policy.
kasha34Apr 23, 2011
We don't need any more uneducated guys who can learn house-painting and hang drywall.
rotundoApr 24, 2011
So you're saying we should have birth restrictions for US citizens who are unlikely to raise highly educated children?
Or are you saying that we should offer subsidized education to immigrants?
I'm not sure you've thought this through.
kasha34Apr 24, 2011
No, I'm saying we should do what most other countries do. Admit people based on what WE need. Not what they want.
If we need lefty-handed glass-blowers...let 'em in.
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
a brain-dead policy brought to you by a brain-dead politician.
theunlearnApr 24, 2011
They already have to pay them the same wage. They are required by law to record and report where every penny of their money is going. If they pay any employee less than minimum wage, it will be seen in tax records and punitive measures will be taken.
moocow2024Apr 24, 2011
lol. This = too much faith in the system. Ever seen how profits and costs can be manipulated in the books? Good try though.
Closed AccountApr 23, 2011
They pay their geniuses a lot. 6 figures with stock options. It's the factory workers who are paid very little.
Unregistered_CowardApr 23, 2011
Right
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
but doesn't that make sense because a 'genius' is more valuable than just a typical factory worker.
tomato1324Apr 24, 2011
i dk where you're getting your numbers but they don't pay their geniuses anything CLOSE to 6 figures.
chroniccolonicApr 22, 2011
If Walmart paid this, if Walmart paid that, if Walmart did this, if Walmart did that - well I tell you what, why don't you build your own department store chain and show Walmart how it is supposed to be done instead of telling them how to run their business.
Employees of Walmart are working there by CHOICE. If it was so awful, then why are they still there? Nobody is forcing them to work there.
Walmart - Department store - and labor camp. Riiiigght.
cajungalApr 22, 2011
That's a good idea, Chronic! Let them show 'em how it's done!!
As a matter of fact when ever Wal-Mart announces job openings there are far more applicants than there are openings.
ect5150Apr 23, 2011
To be fair, we are just coming out of a large recession with huge unemployment. Is this statement true during normal times as well, like the expansion on the 90's when Walmart was growing?
goweigusApr 23, 2011
I think its almost always that case with any job opening
cajungalApr 23, 2011
That is probably true; this is due to the failed policies of the Progressives in Washington D.C. They punish job creators and wonder why there are fewer jobs. They can't have it both ways.
Businesses need confidence to invest, they need to know what their future expenses will be if they hire new people. They are being buried by the thousands upon thousands of pages of new legislation that congress passed and Obama signed into law over the past 2 years that Cass Sunstien is now filling in all of the blanks on; so, they still have no clue where they stand. Small businesses don't stand a chance. They can't afford fancy lawyers to figure it all out for them like the big corporations can. Right now they are mostly keeping their heads down and just trying to hold on until sanity returns to Washington D.C.
tjj9020365Apr 23, 2011
amen, but you will dugg down by the utopian dreamers around digg.
cajungalApr 23, 2011
Thank you, and you are probably right about my comment being dugg down but someone has to say it!!
tjj9020365Apr 23, 2011
The small business that I work for has been extremely burdened by the new health care law. Our company provides health care to all employees and after the Obama Care bill passed our healthcare bill went up 20%. It is extremely burdensome on the employer and there is no way our company is expanding when government is hostile to business. That is why you have 8-10% unemployment and 5 dollar gas.
sux4buxApr 23, 2011
With high unemployment and only low wage jobs available, a huge portion of the population is going to end up there no matter what. Your type of thinking is exactly why wages are spiraling downward and the middle class evaporating. Do you really want to return to a world where %75 of the population are wage slaves living at subsistence levels?
Wal-mart specifically shouldn't be forced to do anything. Like any company they're obviously going to make whatever decisions (within the law) that are most profitable for them. That's why we need labor laws to change. If you can't pay someone a living wage and still profit from their labor, then your business model is not healthy for society.
ZoggyDogApr 23, 2011
Doing something like raising the minimum wage will work well for Walmart employees, but you have to remember that the USA has to remain competative on a global scale. Like you said companies will do what ever they can to make the most profit (as the should) and that will include outsourcing. It's a tough one and there's no simple solution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountApr 23, 2011
RTFA. It's not about the Government raising minimum wage - it's about wallmart paying their employees a little bit more so they don't need Government assistance.
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
how do you make walmart pay more but not force them to do so? the only way is to persuade them and i am definitely in favor of that instead of raising minimum wage.
shingoexApr 23, 2011
Yeah...then you raise the wages, then their profits drop from having to pay employees more, then they have to raise prices to get their profits back up, then inflation kicks in, and we're right back where we started from...
I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes this. This is why hamburgers aren't $0.35 anymore...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hydianApr 23, 2011
Someone didn't RTFA
shingoexApr 23, 2011
I'm talking about minimum wage, not Wal-Mart's rates of pay...
kasha34Apr 23, 2011
Someone doesn't BELIEVE the article.
immunofortApr 23, 2011
To expand on what hydian said, if you would have read the article then you would know that IF they raised the wages, and IF they passed along the increase in costs to the customer rather than absorbing it, it would only cost the customer an extra $12 a year on average, which is something you wouldn't notice at all when you spread that over each shopping trip. And because $12 a year is such a trivial amount, customers spending habits wouldn't change.
hydianApr 23, 2011
How do you outsource retail jobs? Do they bus people in from India every night to stock shelves or something?
The near term future threat to retail jobs is probably robotics and raising wages will have no effect on that.
richardboreanApr 23, 2011
If you are saying that businesses have to be healthy for society at large, I think you are missing chroniccolonic's point, or at least, do not understand where he is coming from.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
penglustApr 23, 2011
I understand exactly what he is saying. But its total crap. There are many small business trying to compete with Wallmart. Many of them are trying to treat the employees well. It is hard to compete against Wallmart because they are ruthless and too many Mericans are too stupid to realize they are only hurting their own lives shopping there.
richardboreanApr 24, 2011
If they are too stupid to understand it, then f**k 'em. I don't mean to sound cold and cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
jmaisApr 24, 2011
~Bill Hicks~R.I.P.
richardboreanApr 24, 2011
+1 jmais for getting that reference.
skeptictankApr 23, 2011
That comment is certain to get some of the Ayn Rand objectivists' panties in a bunch. I'll agree with another post, that many American workers are spoiled somewhat from the 90's tech boom but with $150,000 toilets and $10 million bonuses being given out as rewards for gambling away billions in people's 401k's... it's a little harder to be a realist. And while the notion of a healthy society is admirable, it's now buried along side Plato, Confucius, Aristotle, Rousseau and all the rest of those morons that thought humans could live in an enlightened community. Ha! The joke's on them. It's too bad that this dog eat dog, self-interest driven form of capitalism can only lead to one end. All empires rise and fall, it's the way of things.
beckyo2Apr 23, 2011
Yes. It sounds as Blame Walmart.
cAnWeBeSeWeIoUsApr 23, 2011
What CHOICE, to work or die? There aren't many jobs out there. You gotta take what you can get when your poor, especially now. It may be routine for the rich the shop around for there dream job. But for the poor its filling out 100s of applications and hoping just one of them will at least give you an interview.
superkendallApr 23, 2011
No, not the poor. The ill-educated. I know because I came from a poor family and was able to educate myself to the point I was able to shop for jobs and not have to take whatever menial job was offered (and when I was younger I worked plenty of those too BTW).
This is why education is so important, why learning skills is so important. It doesn't matter if you are rich or if you are poor, what matters is can you provide VALUE to an employer?
cAnWeBeSeWeIoUsApr 24, 2011
Education is only part of the answer. Do you really think if every single American had and college degree everything would be solved.
Who feels the lower tier jobs then?
Immigrants? well all that does is shift the problem
Are we going to have college graduates serving big macs?
Or are businesses that rely on the lower educated workforce just going to go out of business?
Until we have Robot work force, I don't think education can be the only answer.
Even then there are only so many jobs. Right now "educated" business leaders use the excuse of the uneducated being easily replaceable to pay them as little as possible, Because the uneducated workforce is larger than the available jobs out there.
This same problem would effect the educated as well. Should everybody receive higher level education. We are already seeing it now. China and India are pumping out educated people. China has more Honor Students right now than we have students. So now not only low tier jobs are going over seas, but mid tier ones as well.
No I think we need to find a balance. You get a higher education, great you deserve more out of life, but you don't need to get greedy.
A lot of people didn't care about the poor's stagnant wages, while the middle class and upper class wages went up. Raises had to be legislated for the poor, because of the greed.
But now its happening to the middle class, while upper class wages sky rocket. A lot of people just didn't care until it effected them.
I feel like I could go on all day, I'll shut up now.
MusicManGPApr 23, 2011
You're saying, in this economy, that anyone with a job is only there because they want to be? f**k you.
chroniccolonicApr 23, 2011
It is still a choice. They are not 'slaves' to Walmart. This article makes the accusation that people working at Walmart aren't making a livable wage. So, they are working and dying all over the place? Pulease.
MusicManGPApr 23, 2011
A person compelled to make a choice (e.g. because they need money to live in our society, you do too don't you?) is not the same as a person making a choice completely of their own free will. It is still a choice, but implying that it's entirely voluntary is disingenuous.
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
working is a choice because you can choose not to work. you may not be able to survive by not working but that doesn't force you to work, it just give you a really really good reason to.
chroniccolonicApr 23, 2011
It is voluntary...nothing is making them stay there. This is the 'land of opportunity'. Situations may change and people come and go. People working at Walmart may leave for a better opportunity if one arises.
Do you think that most people would not leave when the opportunity arises? I know people who quit jobs to work at Walmart because the pay was better, the benefits were better, the commute was less.
Disingenuous is thinking the employees of Walmart do not have a choice.
penglustApr 23, 2011
Many families are working and on government assistance. That is not a living wage.
whmeroeApr 24, 2011
Good now that they have a job they can get off the government assistance please.
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
MusicManGP:
why else would they be there?
ajajadudeApr 23, 2011
It's also a choice to be a complete an utter douchebag, but I see what direction you went with that one.
When people will do anything just for a job, companies like Walmart take advantage of the situation. Of course people will be lining up to get a job there. Most positions don't require retail experience, degrees, a large amount of training, etc. Of course those people aren't going to be making $50k a year.
But on the flip side, you and I NEED Walmart employees and employees from any other retail store, fast food restaurant, gas station, whatever. These people are what make the rest of our lives easier to live. Who else is going to stock shelves, order, ring us out, unlock the bloody door in the morning?
The sad fact of the matter is we end up paying for those people anyway. If they work for peanuts, we're paying them through the government.
It's called doing the right thing for your employees. I know, it's a concept that no one gets these days, but in the end you get happier, more productive workers.
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
its easier to be a critic than an entreprenuer. your right, every job is voluntary and you can even voluntarily create your own job. most of us choose to work just as some of us choose to be unemployed. those choices are freedom.
ferretmanApr 23, 2011
Pretty straightforward.
Assuming the study is correct (and I'd want to see the methodology to believe this),if you don't like Wal Mart don't shop there.
miklkitApr 23, 2011
I don't shop there. Costco pays $16 an hour and has better prices and goods.
shingoexApr 23, 2011
So...wait...when does Wal-Mart hold guns to the heads of employees and force them to work there and only there...?
gsydiggerApr 23, 2011
no but the fact that there are very few job vacancies does
shingoexApr 23, 2011
Blame the economy...not Wal-Mart.
They're at least getting money in a situation where they otherwise wouldn't.
adaguyApr 23, 2011
'Blame the economy...not Wal-Mart.'
Who do you think was the daddy of all this outsourcing in the first place?????
Who do you think invented janitors insurance????
Wal Mart is as underhanded as they come!
shingoexApr 23, 2011
Getting paid minimum wage is better than getting paid nothing at all. I'm not sure what you're arguing against...
These people actually have jobs in a crap economy where they otherwise wouldn'tComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adaguyApr 23, 2011
'These people actually have jobs in a crap economy where they otherwise wouldn't'
Go in any wall Mart and look at where most items were made. Now you may not be old enough to recall it, but in the 70s, most all the items in variety stores, as well as clothing stores, were made in the USA!
Walmart, by importing billions of dollars worth of goods, forced the closing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American businesses, putting their employees out of work, and forcing these same employees to lower their standard of living.
If you like them so well, go to China and work for em'!
shingoexApr 23, 2011
Where the items are made has NOTHING to do with the fact the people who work there are employed and are making income.
adaguyApr 24, 2011
'Where the items are made has NOTHING to do with the fact the people who work there are employed and are making income.'
It has everything to do with the current economic crisis!
shingoexApr 24, 2011
Well, that's one way to twist the argument into something I completely didn't say...
The people who are working there are employed and making money. Why is that concept confusing you so much?
superkendallApr 23, 2011
Well not WalMart since they have to hire locals.
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
so... why can't people create their own job?
goltzcApr 23, 2011
@shingoex it is very obvious you did not ready the article. The point of the article was to say that mega corporations could afford to pay a living wage and it would barely be noticed by consumers. In wal-mart's case the average consumer would end up paying 40 some cents more per trip or around 12 dollars each year. There was no talk of forcing Wal-Mart or any other corporation to do anything. The study was simply debunking the myth that raising the minimum wage or paying the employees a living wage would cause large scale lay offs or increased prices.
shingoexApr 23, 2011
I did read it.
You either work for a corporate master or you don't. Your choice...
miklkitApr 23, 2011
The best choice is to Unionize. Walmart forces other stores out of business and then raises prices.
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
"Walmart forces other stores out of business and then raises prices." I don't think there is evidence of this, but I'm always happy to be proven wrong..
adaguyApr 23, 2011
This has been proven true, and Walmart has been sued and lost in court.
In a case in Arkansas, Walmart was sued because they would come into a town, and slash pharmaceuticals prices until they put the local drug store out of business. While this was going on, the profit from the rest of the store covered the loss in the pharmaceutical dept. Then the prices in the Wal Mart Pharmacy would increase back to normal, and they would slash sporting goods until they put the local sporting goods competitor out of business. Once this was completed, they would slash clothing prices until local competitors were out of business.
This case went to court back in the 90s and WalMart lost the case.
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
I'd love to read more about it. I'll try to Google it up but if you find it first please post. Thx.
adaguyApr 24, 2011
'I'd love to read more about it. I'll try to Google it up but if you find it first please post. Thx.'
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-10-13/business/fi-45290_1_predatory-pricing
bigtime2Apr 23, 2011
Wal-Mart may have also caused other grocery stores in same cities (that used to pay higher wages) to close down. Now people can't just go and get a job anywhere, especially poor people, who may not be able to afford to move two counties away, or from one coast to another.
How does one get a higher paying job elsewhere if he or she doesn't (can't afford) have a car and public transportation (pretty much) doesn't exist in his or her city?
StrongTacoApr 23, 2011
At least it's a job
blklightningApr 24, 2011
more proof that it's corporate greed keeping wages down instead of the fairytale that proper wages would devastate a company's bottom line.
LillyGrillzitApr 24, 2011
Walmart has set the tone for the rest of North America. They founded their corporation in Northern Arkansas, and register all of their vehicles in Oklahoma. They get free advertising, and when they violate laws, they love going to court, because they can and do out lawyer everyone. They made it legal to purchase life insurance on any person for any reason! Their good buddy Tyson's do the same thing. Lower wages, unreal work environment, unpaid for time required to be at work. That is Arkansas progressives! WTG
LillyGrillzitApr 24, 2011
Finally, Wal-Mart has hired paid spammers! What isle do they come from? Do they get paid more than a living wage?
I have a first hand view of the Walton/Phillips families rise in fame and business, and have observed Wal-Mart growing into a giant, that takes the best of every town, and every person, leaving them like trash in the gutter.
It is not only uneducated, or untrained people who work for them, Their base pay is low enough, that a full-time worker (32 hours - that started in the 80'), is eligible for Food Stamps.
For all of you hating "the left", what do you have to say about that? Big Government helps Wal-Mart profit, by supplementing a wage that is not enough for a person to pay their basics! Keep them poor. Make them poorer.
I did work for them in 1982 - 1989. When old man Walton was alive, Wal-Mart, Affiliated Foods, and Food-4-Less were the best places to work in Arkansas. After the Walton died, the changes came quickly. Whenever a Wal-Mart comes to a town, it dries up all of the small businesses.
Ask Construction companies, what Wal-Mart has done to change the way contractors must work for them. How it takes at least 120 days to get paid from any job, and they are always the victor. The only contractors who can afford to work for them are those with plenty of operating capitol. Contractors bare the costs or overruns completely, period.
It is obvious that "The People of Wal-Mart" are trolling, and no common sense, or logic will prevail. Hey! Free Samples in the deli, Run!
laurahoustonApr 24, 2011
""Whenever a Wal-Mart comes to a town, it dries up all of the small businesses.""""
good post, you are so right about that.
Even though walmart is the largest employer in america....they ruined local small family businesses for miles around them.
illinestApr 24, 2011
putting the cart before the horse.
There are other ways to reach the same effect that don't include allowing the government to dictate the value of our labor.
It's okay to empower the government with broad powers but we should not give them the authority to create policies that affect only small portions of the population.
Here's an example that reflects what I'd like to see: make broad changes to the tax structure to introduce new forms of size inefficiencies to businesses that grow beyond established thresholds.
The goal is to foster an economic environment that is friendly toward very small businesses. The natural tendency of wealth to accumulate will be balanced by the taxation structure. Businesses like McDs, Walmart, etc... will become relatively less profitable while small volume, small grossing stores will become relatively more profitable.
This will increase the number of small business owners and there'll be more people getting smaller slices of the pie. It will also result in the creation of many more mid-high level positions within these companies and these relatively skilled job openings will increase as the number of minimum wage register-jockey jobs decrease.
In a certain sense Walmart is telling the truth about how jobs will be destroyed but it'll be more than balanced out by the larger number of better jobs that will be created in response.
Closed AccountApr 23, 2011
Right... and increasing the minimum wage doesn't affect inflation either. Hold on a sec, I have some beachfront property in Oklahoma I'd love to sell you.
mlw4428Apr 24, 2011
But that's the problem with capitalism, isn't it? People are just simple resources to be expended and paid the lowest possible price you can get away with. Walmart wouldn't even need to raise their prices a single penny. In 2010 they made a net profit (meaning after all of the expenses for the year were paid for) of $16.993 billion. Nearly $17 billion in free floating cash. In fact if they paid ONLY $12 extra per hour * 1.4 million employees they'd only be spending $16,800,000 more. That still leaves with with a good chunk of >$15 billion in net profit. For an extra 46 cents/shopping trip they could probably afford to raise it from $12/hr to like $15/hr.
But they won't do that, not until they're forced to by some regulatory or legal action. People, to corporations, are in the same class as box cutters or a pair of gloves. Get them for as cheap as you can, use them for as long as you can, take the minimal amount of care you can, and replace them when they become defective or worn out.
The almighty $ > people's lives. That's capitalism.
melthornalApr 24, 2011
You mean 16.8million per worker/hour. Not total. Assuming each worker works 20 hours a week, 40 weeks per year, that is 13 billion dollars.
These guys are saying an extra 1000$ per worker x 1.4 million workers = 1.4 billion dollars.
Or up to 6 grand per worker = 8.4 billion dollars.
mlw4428Apr 24, 2011
Yeah, I saw the mistake but the time to correct it already had passed. Thanks for the clarification.
zeddApr 23, 2011
I'd gladly pay an extra $1 per trip.
justjohn025Apr 23, 2011
I think if Wal Mart paid their employees $12 an hour, they'd get more respect from customers, media, etc. and this they would be a bigger company, then what they already are.
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
and prices would increase. when I worked at BK and the minimum wage went up, the next day all our prices increased to adjust. now I know BK can afford to pay more but these companies will not just 'roll over' they are gonna raise their prices to keep making the profit they were before. doesn't make sense but it happens all the time.
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
This article misses the point of Wal-mart. You don't shop at Wal-mart because you save _SO MUCH_ money. You go there because you know they are going to offer you the lowest price. Go in, buy what you need, and leave, confident that you got the best price you could get for the merchandise you bought.
If they lose that, they lose everything.
melthornalApr 24, 2011
Its funny you say that, because in my area Wal-Mart is well known as having the highest prices of any store. Its really just where the creepy losers go to shop. They get along with each other or something.
andytronicApr 24, 2011
From the article:
"[If] Walmart were to pay its 1.4 million U.S. workers a living wage of at least $12 per hour and pass every single penny of the costs onto consumers, the average Walmart customer would pay just 46 cents more per shopping trip, or around $12 extra dollars each year."
amaoicanApr 24, 2011
Sorry, I've forgotten the point I was trying to make. Thx for the reply.
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
'living wage' is a bulls**t term that has been embraced by the left-wing. explain what living wage means. it seems like these people are already living on their wages, may not be luxury, but you said 'livable'. if it wasn't livable then they would be elsewhere instead of continuing to work at a place where they cannot support themselves. apparently the wage is minimal yet livable.
the minimum wage is bulls**t as it has no minimum skill set. what nonsense.
magpladApr 24, 2011
Living wage = enough money to support yourself and your family without government assistance. You know... get people off those "entitlement programs" yall are always bitching about.
Closed AccountApr 23, 2011
Well...so all the Wal-mart haters claim that Wal-mart pays so much less than other stores. Now, this is not true, but let's pretend that it is.
Then doesn't the fact that people shop at Wal-mart far more than they shop at those other stores that supposedly pay so well prove that Americans DON'T want to pay an extra 46 cents per trip?
Surely if we all were willing to personally give such high wages, then we would all shop at Target or K-Mart, where apparently stockboys with a high school education (at best) drive around in brand new cars, eating filet mignon thanks to their outstanding Target paychecks.
I just seriously don;t understand the rational that this silly article is trying to give us. They never explain WHY Wal-mart should do this other than "They can afford it" which isridiculous since so many other companies make plenty of money too.
gsydiggerApr 23, 2011
no it just says that Americans buy from brands which are shoved in their faces.
barackalypseApr 23, 2011
If they aren't paying a living wage, wouldn't all their employees either be dying or seeking employment elsewhere?
noidea107Apr 23, 2011
Easier said then done, you know.
That being said, your typical employee of Walmart makes s**t money.
simonjester666Apr 23, 2011
Your typical employee at walmart is an idiot with 10 kids, food stamps and a welfare check. Or a "retired" old person with nothing better to do. There are tons of industry out there that get s**t on daily and I assure you Walmart employees are treated much better than most.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
noidea107Apr 23, 2011
So it's okay to treat your employees like s**t because you think they are stupid?
You're a dumbass.
MusicManGPApr 23, 2011
You don't immediately die if you don't have a living wage, that doesn't mean you always get to eat or happen to have any kind of medial coverage, or afford to send a child to day-care so you can keep working.
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
"afford to send a child to day-care" I don't know about other states, but Illinois has a program to provide subsidized child care. In my area, if you earn minimum wage ($8.25/hr 40 hrs/wk) and you have an infant you would pay just $47/mo for childcare.
You'd also get other help (food stamps, medical card, $4000+ tax "refund", etc). In fact, if you raised their pay to $12 per hour they might actually lose money, overall...!
jgreenietApr 23, 2011
We all know the answer, GREED. 1.4 million people times by an extra $6,000 a year = an extra 8 billion for the select few people at the top of walmart. so they can fly around in their jets and drive luxury cars and spend millions on vacations while the ones making them rich struggle to pay their bills.
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
"= an extra 8 billion for the select few people at the top of walmart"
Yes.. like the little old lady who saved her money in an IRA or 401k all her life and now vicariously owns a bit of Wal-mart. GET A JOB GRANDMA!
anomaly100Apr 23, 2011
I'd pay the 46 cents more. Damn, who wouldn't...I guess the other people commenting certainly wouldn't.
chroniccolonicApr 23, 2011
It is not a matter of whether or not I would pay an additional $0.46...it is a matter of saying Walmart workers are not making a 'living' wage. It is not like they are prisoners. They choose to work there. This article makes it seem like workers there are totally suffering. Why do they employ so many? Why aren't they leaving in droves if it is so bad. I can tell that if it was so bad, then many would be walking out.
These kids at Beserkly are so smart, then let them build their business and lets see how well they do. If it is better, great. Competition makes the wallet grow fatter.
superkendallApr 23, 2011
This is bulls**t. Why SHOULD teenagers be paid "a living wage"? If you demand all businesses pay a "living wage" no teenager in the U.S. will be able to find work. There has to be room to hire people like teenagers or temporary employees who do not need a "living wage". In this way a business gets more people and the people who do not need a living wage get the level of employment they desire.
Closed AccountApr 23, 2011
They want to turn the US into France where everyone is union and "guaranteed a living wage" and healthcare, and they have 25-40% unemployment. Where there are frequent riots because they've priced their entire economy out of work.
brewbeauApr 24, 2011
Not true. The peak unemployment in France was 10% last year. It's now at 9.6%, right about where the US stands. And they get health care, more vacation time, and substantial paternity leave.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
Look up real unemployment in france vs "unemployment".
Their government has a fancy accounting system just like our government does. We have far more than 10% unemployment in the US. The government just intentionally doesn't count it.
Same as inflation doesn't count food and energy.
the_pol3catApr 23, 2011
Obviously the subby needs to see the penn and teller bulls**t for walmart.
MusicManGPApr 23, 2011
Irrelevant to the point of this submission.
the_pol3catApr 23, 2011
I am assuming you haven't seen the episode as well. You should look it up, its on netflix.
MusicManGPApr 23, 2011
I have seen it, as well as other documentaries noting Wal-Marts business practices.
Closed AccountApr 24, 2011
But not the documentary in question.... dumbass!
MusicManGPApr 24, 2011
What the f**k? What documentary in question?
P.S. f**k you.
mawinApr 23, 2011
nice
novenatorApr 23, 2011
Walmart is destroying living wages in this country. They make a s**tload of profits, the vast majority of which go straight to the top, but give nothing back to either their workers or host communities.
We need a $10 minimum wage in America.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chroniccolonicApr 23, 2011
Minimum wage should be a stepping stone and not a goal. You cannot support a family on minimum wage. Do not have or start a family while on minimum wage. I got minimum wage when I first started working. Six months later, I left that wage behind because it was a pathetic sum I proved my worth and got paid more for providing value to a company. I wanted to make more money. So I got an education and provide much more value to companies now.
When companies make EEEVVVVVIIIIILLLLL profits, so do their stockholders, and those profits in turn go toward lowering costs for the consumer.
If we increased minimum wage to $10, you would then say that is not enough, we need $12. You would get 12, then you would say, nope, need $15.
How about this...let the market decide what someone is worth and not the government? Minimum wage is repressive. For the employer that has to pay it and for the employee that receives it.
novenatorApr 23, 2011
If we let the "market" decide, there would be no minimum wage. There would be no age restriction on labor (thus, you would be working next to your son). There would be no benefits, no breaks, no weekend, no 8-hour work day, no safety regs.
Government regulation is there for a reason. In the absence of it, slavery is the inevitable result. Not that you care from your high horse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bobcat7407Apr 23, 2011
Slavery is the inevitable result of no minimum wage? Wow! I've heard you make some ridiculous claims before, but this may be the best!
rotundoApr 23, 2011
Whatever you think of novenator, you may be shocked to learn that his claim is backed up quite well by history and the experience of every human currently working in a place without enforced workplace regulations.
Indeed, the market has decided for most of history and in much of the world today, so there's no need to speculate: the result is pretty much what he described in the first paragraph.
As to "slavery", it depends on whether he was speaking literally or figuratively. I personally don't like calling lousy conditions slavery for effect, if that's what he was doing. However it is true that any place where literal slavery is not outlawed (a government regulation) it has existed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bobcat7407Apr 23, 2011
His claims cannot be proven because we don't know what our workforce would be like without government intervention. But if you think that slavery is the result of no minimum wage, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Some of what he described in the first paragraph is true, but it is certainly not some fact of life that is guaranteed. In 1913 Henry Ford paid $5 a day and shortened the work day to 8 hours, well before the government intervened in the market. Ford reduced turnover and increased the quality of his employees almost a century ago. Who knows where we would be today without government intervention?
There is a difference between government regulations and laws. Laws are actually passed through our elected bodies, regulations are not. I have no issue with the government enforcing laws.
bobcat7407Apr 23, 2011
Stupid edit time...
What I was going to add is that slavery is outlawed in the US. Voluntarily working for a company is not slavery, even if the conditions are not good. You can still leave and better yourself, which has done by millions of people in the US over the centuries.
rotundoApr 24, 2011
I feel like my comment on slavery agrees with yours. Did you read my whole post?
But to your main point - it's interesting you bring up Henry Ford. I was going to use him as an example if anyone argued against my earlier post that increasing wages and treating your workers better was bad for a company. I worked for a company like that myself and it was great for me and the company was very successful. More companies should take that approach.
But that's a bit different from setting a minimum standard. Ford existed alongside companies that abused their employees. Ford's success didn't change the way they wanted to do business. And regulations didn't damage Ford since he was already doing better. All the regulation did was force s**t companies run by assh**es to behave a little more humanely. It also ushered in a century of prosperity.
Whenever anyone says we couldn't have know what would have happened had the government not gotten involved, I smile. We already tested it: the government was not involved until they were, and the reason they became involved was because it was not working without intervention. If that one test case doesn't convince you, then look at the hundreds of countries around the world, all of whom followed slightly different paths and you see a clear pattern emerge: without any workplace regulation the workers get abused. Show me a counter example and I'll gladly eat my words.
Cheers.
bobcat7407Apr 24, 2011
"I feel like my comment on slavery agrees with yours. Did you read my whole post?"
Yes, but I don't see how they agree. I know you are not talking about literal slavery and that is why I pointed to Ford who raised standards without government intervention and proved that it would help his business. This is obviously not going to cause every business to improve their standards, but over time many will to compete.
I already showed you what can happen without the government with the Ford example, I'm not really sure how that isn't the counter example you ask for.
On the other hand, here's an example of what the minimum wage can do:
http://blog.heritage.org/?p=32265
By the way, I have been digging you up, not burying you. I appreciate a debate that does not involve name calling.
goweigusApr 23, 2011
and what happens when you force companies to raise it? people get laid off
I don't know enough about how things work to begin to understand if getting rid of a Federal Minimum wage completely would be very bad or good, but I also believe in companies having a right to pay people what they want (going more less paid workers, or fewer higher paid workers).
rotundoApr 23, 2011
Ya, I don't buy this line any more.
Companies don't necessarily lay people off if they need to pay them more. And they don't necessarily hire more people if they have extra money because taxes were lowered or whatever. Any business owner running things as simplistically as that is frankly an idiot.
You hire as many people as you need to get the job done. If the wages are high, you work at increasing revenue or you find non-critical ways to reduce expenses. Laying people off is only one of many options and usually only a last resort.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bobcat7407Apr 23, 2011
"Any business owner running things as simplistically as that is frankly an idiot. "
Of course it's not that simplistic, but the only way to really discuss this topic is in generalities.
"You hire as many people as you need to get the job done. If the wages are high, you work at increasing revenue or you find non-critical ways to reduce expenses."
Of course, if you can't increase revenue then you may need to reduce expenses, by laying people off, to pay expenses.
In the recession companies let people go to reduce expenses because demand went down. They also increased productivity. Now that they can afford to hire people back the are often not doing it. How would increasing the expense of an additional employee help to get people hired back? I'm pretty sure it would not.
rotundoApr 24, 2011
That's why I said it doesn't "necessarily" lead to those things. Yes, there are cases where layoffs become necessary. However people often talk like there is a direct cause-and-effect between rising wages and layoffs (as written above), and that is not true. It's not a zero-sum game.
bobcat7407Apr 24, 2011
There is a direct cause-and-effect between the government forcing wages up and layoffs becoming necessary. There are lots of studies that show it, here is one example:
http://blog.heritage.org/?p=32265
Now, rising wages that happen because of market causes of course do not cause layoffs, but that is not what we are discussing.
superkendallApr 23, 2011
If wages you must pay are too high, some businesses would simply have to shut down - if hiring as many people as you need means you spend more on payroll than you take in, and you can't raise prices much because people stop buying - that's the end of a business.
rotundoApr 24, 2011
What you say is correct, but that's a different scenario. This article is specifically talking about a pay increase that would not eliminate their competitive advantage, and the poster I was replying to made it sound like any increase in wages results in an equal reduction in workforce. That is simply not true.
troy64Apr 23, 2011
Companies may not immediately lay off workers. What I have generally seen is people will quit and management will simply start spreading the work among other employees and see if they can live without the positions. If they can they don't rehire the positions. The end result is the same as a layoff.
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
the problem with a minimum wage is exactly this; employers must HIRE less, because they cannot PAY less.
novenatorApr 23, 2011
sheesh, the Wal-Mart fan club is all over this one!
robert5150Apr 23, 2011
What do you expect? No one can live your life for you! WalMart is employing people and giving them the opportunity to do other things with their time.
My first job was at the mall when i was 16 - i made 4.25 an hour - it sucked but it was a step in the right direction...
No one (No not even obama) can do it for you!
nullcodesApr 23, 2011
Huh? The alternative is working for a mom & pop store and getting paid minimum wage (if that) with no health benefits and no flexible schedule.
zirchxworldApr 24, 2011
entreprenuership? ..... anyone?
agmlauncherApr 23, 2011
Hahaha
I'm sorry, but $12/hour is not "living wage". At 40 hours/week WITHOUT taxes, and working 52 weeks/year straight, that's just under $25,000 / year.
$25,000 / year is far too little pay for anyone living in expensive parts of the country (california, florida) or anyone who has a family / kids.
So even if Walmart hired everyone full time and let them work 52 weeks straight without any holidays or vacations, they still wouldn't earn a "living wage". Like all retailers, the majority of Walmart's employees are part time.
For someone to earn a living wage, Walmart would have to pay everyone about $15/hour and employ them full time.
Full time is the key. Nobody can earn a living wage working 10 hours/week.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
touchy610Apr 23, 2011
s**t. I could live on 25,000 a year, easy.
celarnorApr 23, 2011
Yeah, me too. $12 an hour would be like a 40% raise.
Unregistered_CowardApr 23, 2011
Is that with or without Mommy charging you rent ?
touchy610Apr 23, 2011
I live on my own as it is, raise and provide for my daughter and help my disabled mother out financially. All on maybe 15,000 a year. But I just barely scrape by, and am lucky enough to be on foodstamps, which means I don't have to worry about my daughter not having a decent meal. I also can't afford a car, or really anything that isn't absolutely necessary.
I really think you should stop projecting your own situations on other people, dear. Just because your mother doesn't charge her itsy-bitsy tooky-wookins, doesn't mean you can crow about it to everyone else.
Unregistered_CowardApr 23, 2011
Well that is just super. You're living a subsidized existence with barely anything not absolutely necessary.
You think $25,000 changes the picture much? Going to be able to raise a family on that. Afford a car? Save for retirement or your kids future? Your health care costs factored into that $25,000?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
touchy610Apr 23, 2011
No, but it'll damn sure give me a better start than what I have now. Nobody was talking about living on 25,000 ten years from now, when I'll possibly have two other children, and...ya know...a husband to help me out.
My daughter has health insurance. I don't. When something happens to me, I either go to a free clinic or tough it out. She comes before me. I can't remember the last time I didn't get myself something the I didn't absolutely need, and I don't have a problem with it.
It would just be nice to be able to afford a car, or some clothes that aren't too big on me, or maybe some good toys for my daughter.
simonjester666Apr 23, 2011
Hey touchy, Close your f**king legs or learn to swallow, you are living in poverty with one kid all ready and you want to bring two more into this world, that is the real problem. Not Walmart.
touchy610Apr 23, 2011
How about you read between the f**king lines, and see that I'm not having anymore children until I have a stable relationship/marriage, and a better way of providing for my children.
You don't know s**t about the circumstances of my daughter's conception, prick. I wish people like you had the balls to say dumb s**t like that to a person's face, so you could get the s**t beat out of you for being a bane to humanity, and an epic assh**e in general.
rotundoApr 23, 2011
For f**ks sake yes. $25K vs. $15K? Wow, the number of spoiled kids in this thread is amazing. Just because those two numbers sound painfully small to you doesn't mean there's not an enormous difference in how well you can live.
robert5150Apr 23, 2011
Well what do you expect? Obama to "To provide hope by giving everyone a guaranteed salary" ? or to "Change the way we do business in the US by dictating a wage increase" ?
Dont blame walmart for hiring people... What about all of the illegals that steal us JOBS everyday! (No i dont mean farming either). If the illegals were sent home then wow we'd have more jobs and opportunities.
rotundoApr 23, 2011
I'm just curious: since there's no limit on how many kids a US citizen can have, and they can "steal jobs" from each other, why do you care if some of the people competing for those jobs were born elsewhere?
Do you think more people in the market is a bad thing? If so, why not have limits on how many kids a US citizen can have? Is it only a bad thing to have more people if they're immigrants?
robert5150Apr 24, 2011
An intersting question... However all govertments restrict and block their jobs and make them available to their citizens first. (based on citizenship) This is dont to protect local economies.
There is alot more to it then what i am saying here... but let me be clear, your kid should be able to get a sjob at walmart or mc donalds without ahving to finght with millions of illegals for that job.
Otherwise you will end up with no jobs and 10+ Million people in line for whatever jobs become available...
I encourage you to do your own research on illegal immigration and come to your own understanding of the issue.... Specifically on Crime, Jobs, Fiscal matters etc.
rotundoApr 24, 2011
Should my kid be able to get a job at Wal-Mart without having to fight with millions of legals to get a job? I don't understand what the difference is between people and people. Everyone has to compete for work - why does it matter where they come from?
My research on immigration has led me to this: anyone who can pass an English GED should be allowed to come to the US. That is roughly the dividing line between someone who is going to be a net gain vs. a net drain on our society.
Also, it seems that the crime, jobs, and fiscal issues are largely a result of our bad immigration policy that denies working immigrants law enforcement, taxation, and equal workplace treatment. In other words, I think it is the fact that we label them "illegal" that causes the problem.
robert5150Apr 24, 2011
ok dude... why dont we just all quit our jobs move out and let the illegals mive in... i mean thats what your saying...
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
"$25,000 / year is far too little pay for anyone living in expensive parts of the country"
Living in an expensive part of the country is not a birth right. If your skills do not afford you the ability to earn the money necessary to live the life you want to live in the city you are living, maybe it's time to relocate.
And I lived on less than $25,000/yr in Chicago, quite easily. Think I tucked away 1/5-1/4 of it too.
agmlauncherApr 23, 2011
No, sorry, nobody has any right to tell anyone to simply relocate and move away from friends family. Part of "livable" is something I would define as not being forced to move out of reach of friends & family, just as I would define "livable" as having basic internet access and cell service.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
I have a right to say whatever I want. What I don't have a right to do is to force someone to relocate. But the economy (read: society) does have the right to pressure them into doing what the economy/society wants/needs them to do.
PS If family/friends want someone to stay in the city that badly they could subsidize his/her living...
rotundoApr 23, 2011
Sorry agmlauncher, but you've revealed yourself as spoiled. It's great that you can scoff at the many people in the US who do live off $25K/yr, some of them raising families, and thus don't have the option to move to the expensive parts of the country. You may also not realize that about half the stuff you spend money on is not necessary. You may think it is, but really, it's not. A "living wage" is not defined by the people who can afford to hang out on digg all day like you and I.
I agree with you, though, that nobody can earn a living wage at 10hrs/wk.
agmlauncherApr 23, 2011
To amaoican and rotundo, since you're so quick to judge....
I live in south eastern NH, which compared to many other parts of the country is expensive, but not nearly as expensive as California or Florida since I don't have any sales or income tax in my state. I make $24,000/year, $18,600 after federal taxes.
$850 / month in rent (cheapest I can find unless I move 40 or so miles further away from friends/family, just to save about $50/month).
$100 / month in gas. I work from home, so I don't have nearly as much driving expense as other people would have.
$40 / month in electricity
$28 / month in internet which I need for my job, which is a cost accounted for in my salary
$80 / month for my phone, also accounted for in my salary
$127 / month student loan
$10 / month gym membership
$10 / month netflix membership
$100 / month food
That leaves me with about $200 / month to put away into savings
If my car breaks down, I'm f**ked. If I get sick, I'm f**ked. If I had to commute just 10 miles/day to work, I'm f**ked. If I had to raise a kid, I'm f**ked. If I lived in a state with both sales and income tax, I'm f**ked.
So no, $25,000 is not enough of a livable wage for most people. You won't even be earning that unless Walmart pays you both $12/hour PLUS full time hours 52 weeks/year, at which point Walmart would have to pass on more than $0.46 / trip to its customers.
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
I spend about $1200 per month. Trying to put together how you are spending so much money, especially since your food budget is so small. But I pay $400 less per month in rent, and it includes "free" utilities and internet so I save $470 per month that way. I also have no student loans. But I do have to pay 5% of my salary to my state.
Once you knock out that student loan payment you'll be a lot better off... and keep searching for a cheaper place. Don't be too proud to live with family/friends if you have to. If I had family that lived nearby I sure as hell would. Offer them $300-400 per month (including utilities) for a room - I bet they'd be thrilled. $4-5 thousand per year of extra income, and they get to have your charming self around the house (not sarcastic - I assume your friends and family like you).
Make sure you have a sufficiently large credit line available to weather a few months if need be. Then apply the $200 (or, if you took my above advice, $700) per month to knocking out your student loans.
Most importantly, spend your free time looking for a different job. If you have $127 per month in student loan payments I'm guessing you have a legitimate degree and can earn a bit more than what you're making now if/when the opportunity presents itself.
None of this is particularly easy/fun, but they're the kind of difficult decisions you end up making when you are against a wall. Me? I moved country (to China) for a year when I couldn't find work at the height of the recession. It was a good experience, but it was also a sacrifice. Occasionally you need to make sacrifices.
agmlauncherApr 23, 2011
I would define making a sacrifice and being forced to move to China as "unlivable", meaning, you can't live in the US.
All I want is for people to recognize that the article of the story is not accurate, and that "living wage" should be taken out of the title.
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
If you define "living outside the united states" as "unlivable" then perhaps it's your definitions that need to change rather than Walmarts compensation policies...
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
PS I'm also more than a little confused about your tax claim. Your federal income tax should be about $1754 (based on irs.gov, assuming no special deductions and all that). Your social security should usually be 6.2% (but 4.2% this year) and your medicare should be 1.45% - so $1836 for those two. That brings us out to $20,410. I'd guess the rest of the w/h ($140/mo) is health insurance, which means you are paying a bit much for it but maybe I'm spoiled (I pay $86/mo).
agmlauncherApr 23, 2011
I am technically self employed and earn contractor income, thus I have to pay an additional 6.2% SS and 1.5% medicare on my GROSS income (not my net income) which an employer ordinarily has to pay.
And I've tried every trick under the sun to avoid having to pay the self employment tax, and it's not possible without engaging in actual tax evasion.
The closest thing I can do is set up an S-Corp through Delaware, and find a way to split my income into a mix of dividend payments, and salary. But I can't just claim all of my income as dividend, which means I still have to pay a large portion of my income as salary. The time and extra fees needed to manage and file taxes as an S-corp completely obliterates any advantage of having one at my income level.
I can't write off part off my apartment because my office is in my bed room, and you need a dedicated room as an office in order to write off the square footage.
I've even tried to get my "employer" to pay off the $6,500 in student loan which is a tax-free fringe benefit, but that's not allowed since I'm greater than a 5% owner of the company.
And I've even tried putting my boss's name as the primary name on my apartment lease so that it's technically his apartment that he pays for and I just happen to live there, meaning he can pay me $850 less / month and thus would lower my taxable income by $10,200 / year, but that's incredibly sketchy and I would probably get the IRS on my ass since my boss lives in the UK.
It would still be considered a taxable fringe benefit.
superkendallApr 23, 2011
You should re-think your taxes:
"Your home office can be a separate room, but it does not have to be. The IRS says it may be a "separately identifiable space" and that permanent partitions are not necessary to mark off that space."
http://workathomemoms.about.com/od/taxes/a/qualifyhomeoff.htm
I have a home office that is an area with a desk specifically sectioned off. It's not a separate room.
agmlauncherApr 23, 2011
Errr no, that article is very, very wrong. I've talked IRS agents directly about this, and consulted multiple tax professionals. It has to be a separate room, as defined by the floor plan for the house or living unit. There are no exceptions to this.
And either way, my desk is 5" from my bed so there's no way to say it's a separately identifiable space...
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
You're not exactly an average joe... Your $24,000 of earnings is actually more like $22,284. Someone who makes $22,284 (in normal times) would pay $1715 in SS/MC and their boss would pay another $1715 in SS/MC. So think of yourself as earning $22,284 and that will work better in terms of comparing yourself to normal people.
Despite paying $850 per month in rent ($400 more than I do, even though mine comes with utils+internet) and $127 per month in student loans (something your average Wal-mart wage slave doesn't pay) you have $200 per month in savings. I find that impressive.
Again, I strongly recommend, if your finances are that tight, looking into renting a room from a family member. An extra $400-500 per month would be a big boon in your life at this moment. I also recommend plowing as much of your money as possible into getting rid of the student loan debt.
superkendallApr 23, 2011
$850/month rent is absurdly high. You can get a whole multi-story townhome in many places for that much.
And saving $200/month, you could easily handle emergencies that came up in regards to car or afford basic healthcare insurance.
agmlauncherApr 23, 2011
"$850/month rent is absurdly high."
Then do me a favor and look in the south eastern NH region for apartments for me that are significantly less. You won't find any, because I looked too, but if you stumble upon one then I'll gladly move to it and save myself some money.
agmlauncherApr 23, 2011
http://nh.craigslist.org/apa/
Unless I want to live in a studio in the middle bumf**k NH for marginally less rent, then $850 is pretty good. Oh, and heat is included in my rent, so I don't have to spend the extra $100-$200 / month in heating bills during the winter that most people have to pay.
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
As I said elsewhere... family?
amaoicanApr 23, 2011
Do you live near Rochester?
http://nh.craigslist.org/roo/2337340629.html
robert5150Apr 24, 2011
You sound like you have the money management down, but what can you do to make more moeny? Second job? Mall ? (No joke) .
There is awlays a way to make more moeny than what yo ar doing now, i would be careful not to dump what you have but if i were you i would be bustin my a... to get out there and make additional income. Thats the only way out for you...
superkendallApr 23, 2011
"$25,000 / year is far too little pay for anyone living in expensive parts of the country (california, florida) or anyone who has a family / kids."
Totally false. Even in California you could just live in a really poor part on that, easy. Even with a family.
robert5150Apr 24, 2011
you couldnt live in the worse ghetto in cali on that...
barackalypseApr 23, 2011
Ok, but what happens when you apply that same logic to every place I shop? Suddenly that 1.1% increase in product prices to fund this times the $7500 a year I spend means I'm losing $75 a year in purchasing power. Now go a step further and add this cost to every manufacturer and raw material supplier and you start to noticeably erode my buying power.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bowwowbillApr 24, 2011
Shhhhhhhhh The Walmart might hear you
chassupApr 24, 2011
I think the moron who wrote that article ought to open his own big box chain, pay a "living wage" and laugh all the way to the bank if he thinks he's right. But, guess what, he won't, because he's a chicken and refuses to put his money where his mouth is. And if he did, I bet he'd change his mind about taxing the "rich" to solve all the problems in the world.
grannysrightApr 24, 2011
We all know that is bs. It's funny how the left whines and bellyaches about the poor guy, the poorest of the poor who cannot even afford to bellyache.
So heres Walmart, who charges the least for their products, so that the poor class can afford to buy Christmas presents for their children, by food, etc, and all you guys want to do is raise the prices on these goods. You want to ORGANIZE!
Well you liberal organizers take your crap somewhere else. Walmart hires people your businesses won't hire so leave it alone.
If you want to bitch, then bitch about the fact that Walmarts products are becoming more and more valueless as China continues to sock it to us.
Happy Easter folks!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
behnoodApr 23, 2011
Walmart clearly does not give a damn about its employees. Why else would they purchase "dead peasant" insurance on their own employees?
blklightningApr 24, 2011
judging from all the older folks working at my local walmart, i'd say that's a wise investment. cold-hearted, perhaps. but hey, that's business, right?
evilnecroApr 23, 2011
Anyone even marginally versed in statistics would rip the 'study' to shreds.
The study considers only the actual pay increase, and ignores all the additional costs (your salary is a fraction of your actual cost to an employer). Most of these additional costs are based on payroll dollars not employees, so each employee costs the company considerably more money.
The 46 cents is per shopper per day, independent of sale, ie: You buy a 99 cent soda, tack on 46 cents. Walmart runs on thin margins and compensates with volume. 1.1% of net profit is significant - In fact many retailers consider a 1.1% net profit to be a successful result.
The report is clearly chasing a predetermined conclusion, almost every chart and commentary relies on class envy type reader response to make the desired point. Academics in the ivory tower ignoring the realities of the real world.
Interesting tidbit in the report is that 35.6% of walmart employees already earn above $12/hr.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
MusicManGPApr 23, 2011
FTA:
"Based on the distribution of wages for the Walmart workforce, we estimate that a $12 minimum wage
would increase Walmart's total payroll for hourly workers by 11.1 percent."
Are you sure they didn't take the other payroll costs into account? They mention numerous times that they analyzed actual payroll data from Walmart, which would include more than just the hourly rate (SS, FICA, etc.)
Interesting tidbit in the report is that 64.4% of walmart employees do not earn above $12 an hour.
evilnecroApr 23, 2011
They include FICA and medicare taxes in the base payroll, but not in the increase. Alas FICA and medicare are small potatoes in the grand scheme of per employee cost.
Not that this matters much. Simply reading through their methodology in Appendix A, one discovers that most of the key variables are assumed, estimated, or rely on intuition. Small changes to the assumptions, some of which are based on data from 1999, will greatly swing the results. In my opinion, this paper is a conclusion that sought out supporting data. It is littered with phrases and commentary that clearly show bias.
Regardless of what you want to think, the purpose of a merchant is to provide goods or services to the customer, while generating a profit for the owners. It is NOT to ensure that every employee can exceed 200% of the FPL simply by virtue of working there. Not every job is worth a $12/hr minimum.
But hey, believe what you want.
MusicManGPApr 23, 2011
FTA:
"Based on the distribution of wages for the Walmart workforce, we estimate that a $12 minimum wage
would increase Walmart's total payroll for hourly workers by 11.1"
Where does it show that they do not include it in the increase?
evilnecroApr 23, 2011
Do the math, I did.
Don't believe what people tell you, verify it for yourself.
dralezeroApr 25, 2011
$12/hr is diddly squat unless its full time with benefits.