21 ms·

There is no negotiation. This is Walmart, not silicon valley. You don't like what we're paying? Starve, see if we care, we'll find someone who will work for h

There is no negotiation. This is Walmart, not silicon valley. You don't like what we're paying? Starve, see if we care, we'll find someone who will work for half what we offered you and let us throw paint on him to boot. These jobs aren't taken by people whose needs are taken care of and are just looking for a little 'pocket money' or some gas so they can take the old car around and see their buddies on weekends.

illuminate 14y ago
"Starve, see if we care" Even if they like what Walmart is paying, their workers are still on food stamps.
- Nursie 14y ago
  And there is the issue! The rest of us, through taxes, are already subsidising the big corps and their minimum wage employees. We do this because people shouldn't have to starve in the modern world, but where people are employed we shouldn't need to. By forcing a raise in the minimum wage we stop the employer from taking from our collective pocket to support their broken business model.
  - nathan_long 14y ago
    But what's the root issue? Worker X is not able to produce value of more than $X an hour. Do we mandate he/she is paid more anyway, or do we try to train and educate a workforce that can produce more value?
    - Nursie 14y ago
      Why must it be that the worker isn't producing the value? Worker X may be producing value of $10X or $20X per hour, but corporation Y is pocketing the difference, and can do so because there is an oversupply of workers.
      - crusso 14y ago
        You are not fully understanding where the $10X or $20X value comes from. It doesn't come from the low skilled workers. It comes from the huge amount of automation, computerization, business process, and infrastructure all around that unskilled person. If I work twenty years and invest all my spare money to build a fabulous machine that produces intricate and expensive electronics but the one thing I don't do is create a way to turn it on and off automatically. I hire a person to just sit there and push the button. This person needs almost no skills whatsoever. Is this person really vital to producing my $100X per hour? In a way, yes. But then again, since this person's skills are non-existent - this person can be replaced by anyone else who can push a button. I invested in the invention and the creation of the machine. I took the risk to build the machine. I spent the twenty years of my life dedicated to it. I created the environment where any half sentient being could push the button to get the thing going. Everything I did created the $100X per hour. The person pushing the button doesn't deserve $100X per hour. The person pushing the button deserves the wages for someone with the skills to push a button.
        Nursie 14y ago
        Deserve? Oh my, have I crossed some randian moral-boundary here? My word... leeches and moochers everywhere! If you're not going to pay a living wage, what makes you think you DESERVE to have a worker there pushing the button?
        crusso 14y ago
        That person deserves what the market pays for people with that particularly low skill set. It's not totally up to me. Maybe I live in an area where wages are really high. In that case, I'm going to have to pay the going rate for someone with low skills. "living wages" are crap. They completely ignore the fact that some workers are young or spousal dependents looking for that part-time job to earn a little money. On top of that there is no such thing as a "living wage" that can be defined. If I'm living alone, young, healthy, and not real picky about my lifestyle -- a living wage can be $1000 per month. If I'm married with 5 kids and in need of constant medical care, a living wage is 6X higher. Yet you're implying that I as an employer with my available job for someone to push a friggin' button has to worry about all that or at very least accept someone's opinion on the lowest common denominator living wage? At that point, I say screw the high school kid or part-time mom looking to earn a little extra money pushing the button. I automate the whole damned thing and eliminate the job. That, my friend, is called the "unintended consequence" of your heavy handed approach of controlling every little perceived injustice.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    I don't get it. Do the same arguments apply to, say, subsidized college tuition?
    - Nursie 14y ago
      I'm not sure I see how that applies to subsidised tuition, could you elaborate?
      - twoodfin 14y ago
        Whenever a college charges more money than a student can pay, that student has to seek financial aid, which is subsidized by the taxpayer. Do colleges have a "broken business model", too?
        Nursie 14y ago
        You could say that yes. But you could also say it's in our collective interest to help students achieve a higher level of education, and therefore we could/should choose to support this broken model. You could make the claim that it's in our collective interest to keep WalMart profitable, but it would be something of a harder sell. IMHO.
        twoodfin 14y ago
        What about food aid? Are the evil food conglomerates "taking money out of our pockets" by charging prices that some people can't afford and thus requiring a government subsidy? Your theory that by democratically choosing to subsidize something, the government is creating an obligation on the part of private business to make the subsidy unnecessary is bizarre.
        Nursie 14y ago
        "Are the evil food conglomerates "taking money out of our pockets" by charging prices that some people can't afford and thus requiring a government subsidy?" Who said anything about evil? I merely think that the labour market does not resemble anything like a free market (nor can it or should it), and at the moment employers are profiting handsomely while depending on the public purse. "Your theory that by democratically choosing to subsidize something, the government is creating an obligation on the part of private business to make the subsidy unnecessary is bizarre." I'm not sure that's my theory at all. My 'theory' is that income top-ups via food stamps, tax credits, whatever, where someone is employed, form an unofficial subsidy to employers, and one that I think we should be trying to find ways to eliminate. If one of the ways we choose to do that is by pushing more responsibility onto the employer, then I'm not sure I see a problem.
- smsm42 14y ago
  Walmart has no say in the decision of who is getting food stamps. So if you, as a voter, decide that somebody has to get food stamps - Walmart can not be responsible for that decision. In any case, thinking that without Walmart salary the people that now getting food stamps wouldn't get them is clearly fallacious. Walmart is a largest private employer in the country, and employs a lot of low-skills people. The people of the US decided that earnings that Walmart can provide to these low-skills workers are not enough for them and the people want to give these workers more money. How it's Walmart's fault? They'd get public assistance with or without Walmart - with Walmart they just needs less of it, but it's not up to Walmart to replace the welfare system the people of the US instituted.

illuminate 14y ago

"Starve, see if we care" Even if they like what Walmart is paying, their workers are still on food stamps.

Nursie 14y ago
And there is the issue! The rest of us, through taxes, are already subsidising the big corps and their minimum wage employees. We do this because people shouldn't have to starve in the modern world, but where people are employed we shouldn't need to. By forcing a raise in the minimum wage we stop the employer from taking from our collective pocket to support their broken business model.
- nathan_long 14y ago
  But what's the root issue? Worker X is not able to produce value of more than $X an hour. Do we mandate he/she is paid more anyway, or do we try to train and educate a workforce that can produce more value?
  - Nursie 14y ago
    Why must it be that the worker isn't producing the value? Worker X may be producing value of $10X or $20X per hour, but corporation Y is pocketing the difference, and can do so because there is an oversupply of workers.
    - crusso 14y ago
      You are not fully understanding where the $10X or $20X value comes from. It doesn't come from the low skilled workers. It comes from the huge amount of automation, computerization, business process, and infrastructure all around that unskilled person. If I work twenty years and invest all my spare money to build a fabulous machine that produces intricate and expensive electronics but the one thing I don't do is create a way to turn it on and off automatically. I hire a person to just sit there and push the button. This person needs almost no skills whatsoever. Is this person really vital to producing my $100X per hour? In a way, yes. But then again, since this person's skills are non-existent - this person can be replaced by anyone else who can push a button. I invested in the invention and the creation of the machine. I took the risk to build the machine. I spent the twenty years of my life dedicated to it. I created the environment where any half sentient being could push the button to get the thing going. Everything I did created the $100X per hour. The person pushing the button doesn't deserve $100X per hour. The person pushing the button deserves the wages for someone with the skills to push a button.
      - Nursie 14y ago
        Deserve? Oh my, have I crossed some randian moral-boundary here? My word... leeches and moochers everywhere! If you're not going to pay a living wage, what makes you think you DESERVE to have a worker there pushing the button?
        crusso 14y ago
        That person deserves what the market pays for people with that particularly low skill set. It's not totally up to me. Maybe I live in an area where wages are really high. In that case, I'm going to have to pay the going rate for someone with low skills. "living wages" are crap. They completely ignore the fact that some workers are young or spousal dependents looking for that part-time job to earn a little money. On top of that there is no such thing as a "living wage" that can be defined. If I'm living alone, young, healthy, and not real picky about my lifestyle -- a living wage can be $1000 per month. If I'm married with 5 kids and in need of constant medical care, a living wage is 6X higher. Yet you're implying that I as an employer with my available job for someone to push a friggin' button has to worry about all that or at very least accept someone's opinion on the lowest common denominator living wage? At that point, I say screw the high school kid or part-time mom looking to earn a little extra money pushing the button. I automate the whole damned thing and eliminate the job. That, my friend, is called the "unintended consequence" of your heavy handed approach of controlling every little perceived injustice.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  I don't get it. Do the same arguments apply to, say, subsidized college tuition?
  - Nursie 14y ago
    I'm not sure I see how that applies to subsidised tuition, could you elaborate?
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      Whenever a college charges more money than a student can pay, that student has to seek financial aid, which is subsidized by the taxpayer. Do colleges have a "broken business model", too?
      - Nursie 14y ago
        You could say that yes. But you could also say it's in our collective interest to help students achieve a higher level of education, and therefore we could/should choose to support this broken model. You could make the claim that it's in our collective interest to keep WalMart profitable, but it would be something of a harder sell. IMHO.
        twoodfin 14y ago
        What about food aid? Are the evil food conglomerates "taking money out of our pockets" by charging prices that some people can't afford and thus requiring a government subsidy? Your theory that by democratically choosing to subsidize something, the government is creating an obligation on the part of private business to make the subsidy unnecessary is bizarre.
        Nursie 14y ago
        "Are the evil food conglomerates "taking money out of our pockets" by charging prices that some people can't afford and thus requiring a government subsidy?" Who said anything about evil? I merely think that the labour market does not resemble anything like a free market (nor can it or should it), and at the moment employers are profiting handsomely while depending on the public purse. "Your theory that by democratically choosing to subsidize something, the government is creating an obligation on the part of private business to make the subsidy unnecessary is bizarre." I'm not sure that's my theory at all. My 'theory' is that income top-ups via food stamps, tax credits, whatever, where someone is employed, form an unofficial subsidy to employers, and one that I think we should be trying to find ways to eliminate. If one of the ways we choose to do that is by pushing more responsibility onto the employer, then I'm not sure I see a problem.
smsm42 14y ago
Walmart has no say in the decision of who is getting food stamps. So if you, as a voter, decide that somebody has to get food stamps - Walmart can not be responsible for that decision. In any case, thinking that without Walmart salary the people that now getting food stamps wouldn't get them is clearly fallacious. Walmart is a largest private employer in the country, and employs a lot of low-skills people. The people of the US decided that earnings that Walmart can provide to these low-skills workers are not enough for them and the people want to give these workers more money. How it's Walmart's fault? They'd get public assistance with or without Walmart - with Walmart they just needs less of it, but it's not up to Walmart to replace the welfare system the people of the US instituted.