4 ms·

It's a nice gesture, but it's a perverse incentive. These retail jobs need to pay a living wage. The philosophy that these jobs are stepping stones, not destina

It's a nice gesture, but it's a perverse incentive. These retail jobs need to pay a living wage. The philosophy that these jobs are stepping stones, not destinations, is clearly false. This perspective lets Walmart justify perpetual starter wages.

j4kp07 8y ago
If working retail, mopping floors and stocking shelves is not an entry level job, in your opinion, then what is? > These retail jobs need to pay a living wage. 1) A living wage for which city/state and 2) Does this include part time workers and 3) Define part time?
- maxerickson 8y ago
  They are agreeing with the sense you are using entry level. They mean that in addition to being entry level jobs, people are staying in them for long periods of time.
- habosa 8y ago
  Ideally a living wage for the city/state in which they are offered. If that's not possible, then it should be a living wage for a nearby town including the cost(s) of transportation to/from the job.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  It seems like you are the one who introduced the phrase “entry level” to make your point. OP simply said that these are not stepping stone jobs, but destinations with little upward mobility.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Why should an "entry level" position not pay a living wage? Do those people not have expenses? Or families?
  - gwbas1c 8y ago
    Because the assumption is that "entry level" means someone who's still living with Mom & Dad; or various other situations. (Leaving jail, recent immigrant, mother returning to the workforce.) IE, someone in an "entry level" position is someone who has partial support in their household. Of course, there's plenty of good discussion to have about the ethics of this kind of employment. Needless to say, I prefer to spend my dollars are stores where "entry level" employees are teenagers, retirees who just want to get out of the house, and people who need an extra opportunity to make an honest life.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      So, assumptions that are no longer true, and haven't been for a while?
  - kenpomeroy 8y ago
    Because economics
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      No. If you can't pay your employees a living wage, that's your failure, and you shouldn't be in business.
      - kenpomeroy 8y ago
        Some jobs generate less value for businesses than the arbitrary amount you deem to be a "livable wage." That's economics.
- scrumption 8y ago
  I love this argument that doesn't attempt to address the fact that these jobs are necessary to the economy and must exist, but jumps straight to the assertion that whoever does them just deserves to be poor.
adventured 8y ago
Very few developed countries pay "living wages" for the bottom tier of employees. That is true in eg: Italy, Spain, UK, Germany, Portugal, Canada, France, Japan, South Korea, Greece, Israel. They all subsidize low paid labor with social welfare benefits. Which is exactly what the US does as well. The US now has a more generous welfare state than Canada. You can just about count the number of nations requiring a proper living wage on one hand out of 195.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "The US now has a more generous welfare state than Canada." That is a flat out lie. And those countries all have higher tax rates to pay for their social safety net, and they actually work toward getting people to use it. Here in the US, we're actively working to gut the safety net.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Canada’s per capita non-military expenditures are slightly lower than the US’s. They have somewhat higher taxes not because they spend more on welfare, but because they run a much smaller deficit.
- djsumdog 8y ago
  You have got to be kidding me? All those other countries have public health service. You don't have to worry about how you're going to pay for cancer treatments in Germany if you get a brain tumor and can't work. Medical debt is still the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US. Our systems are abysmal: https://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-the-unaffordable-care-act/ https://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-...
LyndsySimon 8y ago
> These retail jobs need to pay a living wage. In many rural areas, $11 / hour is a living wage. Not comfortable, surely, but feasible.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Depends a lot if it is the full 30 hours or not.

j4kp07 8y ago

If working retail, mopping floors and stocking shelves is not an entry level job, in your opinion, then what is? > These retail jobs need to pay a living wage. 1) A living wage for which city/state and 2) Does this include part time workers and 3) Define part time?

maxerickson 8y ago
They are agreeing with the sense you are using entry level. They mean that in addition to being entry level jobs, people are staying in them for long periods of time.
habosa 8y ago
Ideally a living wage for the city/state in which they are offered. If that's not possible, then it should be a living wage for a nearby town including the cost(s) of transportation to/from the job.
moorhosj 8y ago
It seems like you are the one who introduced the phrase “entry level” to make your point. OP simply said that these are not stepping stone jobs, but destinations with little upward mobility.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Why should an "entry level" position not pay a living wage? Do those people not have expenses? Or families?
- gwbas1c 8y ago
  Because the assumption is that "entry level" means someone who's still living with Mom & Dad; or various other situations. (Leaving jail, recent immigrant, mother returning to the workforce.) IE, someone in an "entry level" position is someone who has partial support in their household. Of course, there's plenty of good discussion to have about the ethics of this kind of employment. Needless to say, I prefer to spend my dollars are stores where "entry level" employees are teenagers, retirees who just want to get out of the house, and people who need an extra opportunity to make an honest life.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    So, assumptions that are no longer true, and haven't been for a while?
- kenpomeroy 8y ago
  Because economics
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    No. If you can't pay your employees a living wage, that's your failure, and you shouldn't be in business.
    - kenpomeroy 8y ago
      Some jobs generate less value for businesses than the arbitrary amount you deem to be a "livable wage." That's economics.
scrumption 8y ago
I love this argument that doesn't attempt to address the fact that these jobs are necessary to the economy and must exist, but jumps straight to the assertion that whoever does them just deserves to be poor.

adventured 8y ago

Very few developed countries pay "living wages" for the bottom tier of employees. That is true in eg: Italy, Spain, UK, Germany, Portugal, Canada, France, Japan, South Korea, Greece, Israel. They all subsidize low paid labor with social welfare benefits. Which is exactly what the US does as well. The US now has a more generous welfare state than Canada. You can just about count the number of nations requiring a proper living wage on one hand out of 195.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
"The US now has a more generous welfare state than Canada." That is a flat out lie. And those countries all have higher tax rates to pay for their social safety net, and they actually work toward getting people to use it. Here in the US, we're actively working to gut the safety net.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Canada’s per capita non-military expenditures are slightly lower than the US’s. They have somewhat higher taxes not because they spend more on welfare, but because they run a much smaller deficit.
djsumdog 8y ago
You have got to be kidding me? All those other countries have public health service. You don't have to worry about how you're going to pay for cancer treatments in Germany if you get a brain tumor and can't work. Medical debt is still the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US. Our systems are abysmal: https://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-the-unaffordable-care-act/ https://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-...

LyndsySimon 8y ago

> These retail jobs need to pay a living wage. In many rural areas, $11 / hour is a living wage. Not comfortable, surely, but feasible.

maxerickson 8y ago
Depends a lot if it is the full 30 hours or not.