4 ms·

I was once a happy employee of Sam's Club, which is owned by Walmart. They paid more than other jobs available to me, I was provided a 15 minute break every two

I was once a happy employee of Sam's Club, which is owned by Walmart. They paid more than other jobs available to me, I was provided a 15 minute break every two hours, good times. I didn't feel like anyone was spitting in my face when I read the article.

duhi88 6y ago
They could have afforded to pay you more, but they chose not to. You may or may not have been an outlier in the distribution of wages, but overall wages have not increased with productivity.
- mountainb 6y ago
  You could also borrow money or work a double shift to hire out more people or to just donate the extra money to charity or the government. Why are you posting on HN instead of working harder for the people? Why aren't you earning more so you can spend more on hiring people?
- renewiltord 6y ago
  This is literally true for anyone who has savings above subsistence. We could all afford to pay people more or we would have no surplus in our bank account.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  Can I have all your money that is above subsistence?
specialist 6y ago
FWIW, Starbucks copied its profit sharing (and other ideas) from Sam Walton. Walton's bio pop biz book was widely read (early 90s). Starbucks was considered very progressive for the time (by us "carpet walkers", what the blue collar workers called us office workers). Lot's of happy worker bees. But at some point, Walmart took a hard turn to the right. And to my own shame, I didn't understand how anti-labor Starbucks was at the time. There was always grumblings and heresay. It was easy to dismiss as sour grapes and cranks. Then Schultz became a candidate for President and all the knives came out. Moving forward, I just want what's fair. I don't understand how it's okay for the top of the heap to become billionaires while the minions are making starvation wages. It doesn't have to be 50/50 even split of the spoils. But upgrading from 1/99 to 10/90 or even 20/80 would materially improve the lives of millions of people.
- rabidrat 6y ago
  The median wealth in the US is $70k. The ratio is more like 1/100,000 for your average billionare, and 1/10,000,000 for zuckerberg, gates, and bezos. In this scheme 1/99 would be downright communistic.
cactus2093 6y ago
> I didn't feel like anyone was spitting in my face when I read the article. Well that's irrelevant, because it's the well-off progressives who get to decide whether you are being spit on or not. The opinions of the actual working class people that are at the center of these types of discussion aren't really worth paying much attention to.

duhi88 6y ago

They could have afforded to pay you more, but they chose not to. You may or may not have been an outlier in the distribution of wages, but overall wages have not increased with productivity.

mountainb 6y ago
You could also borrow money or work a double shift to hire out more people or to just donate the extra money to charity or the government. Why are you posting on HN instead of working harder for the people? Why aren't you earning more so you can spend more on hiring people?
renewiltord 6y ago
This is literally true for anyone who has savings above subsistence. We could all afford to pay people more or we would have no surplus in our bank account.
NikolaeVarius 6y ago
Can I have all your money that is above subsistence?

specialist 6y ago

FWIW, Starbucks copied its profit sharing (and other ideas) from Sam Walton. Walton's bio pop biz book was widely read (early 90s). Starbucks was considered very progressive for the time (by us "carpet walkers", what the blue collar workers called us office workers). Lot's of happy worker bees. But at some point, Walmart took a hard turn to the right. And to my own shame, I didn't understand how anti-labor Starbucks was at the time. There was always grumblings and heresay. It was easy to dismiss as sour grapes and cranks. Then Schultz became a candidate for President and all the knives came out. Moving forward, I just want what's fair. I don't understand how it's okay for the top of the heap to become billionaires while the minions are making starvation wages. It doesn't have to be 50/50 even split of the spoils. But upgrading from 1/99 to 10/90 or even 20/80 would materially improve the lives of millions of people.

rabidrat 6y ago
The median wealth in the US is $70k. The ratio is more like 1/100,000 for your average billionare, and 1/10,000,000 for zuckerberg, gates, and bezos. In this scheme 1/99 would be downright communistic.

cactus2093 6y ago

> I didn't feel like anyone was spitting in my face when I read the article. Well that's irrelevant, because it's the well-off progressives who get to decide whether you are being spit on or not. The opinions of the actual working class people that are at the center of these types of discussion aren't really worth paying much attention to.