This is why you shouldn't shop at WalMart
Eh I kind of stand in a possibly controversial place here, but here we go:
This is like the recent McDonald's outrage (remember their budget plans?). People working zero skill jobs expect to be paid a decent wage. But what incentive does the company have for this? The worker has zero skills, which means the company can very easily pay some high school student to do the exact same work for the same, if not less, pay, because they're a student. The problem is people expect places like Walmart and McDonald's to give each and every employee a wage that can pay a family of 4, but that's not the point of those positions. They're entry level, no skill positions. You can't expect much out of that.
That's not to say I don't agree with Walmart. I think how they treat employees is awful, and I'm surprised they get away with it. So sure, they should definitely be treated better, but should any old cashier there make more than $12/hr? I don't think so. It's not representative of the amount of work and skill involved at all. Before I get all sorts of hate, I have been cashier at a few different large companies, I know exactly what the work is like. I never made more than $9.88/hr, and I thought that was fair. Granted, costs are cheap where I live, so that should be taken into account.
Unfortunately, this is just how the world works anymore. If you can't provide a skill that someone else can't, you can't expect to be paid more than that other person.
This is like the recent McDonald's outrage (remember their budget plans?). People working zero skill jobs expect to be paid a decent wage. But what incentive does the company have for this? The worker has zero skills, which means the company can very easily pay some high school student to do the exact same work for the same, if not less, pay, because they're a student. The problem is people expect places like Walmart and McDonald's to give each and every employee a wage that can pay a family of 4, but that's not the point of those positions. They're entry level, no skill positions. You can't expect much out of that.
That's not to say I don't agree with Walmart. I think how they treat employees is awful, and I'm surprised they get away with it. So sure, they should definitely be treated better, but should any old cashier there make more than $12/hr? I don't think so. It's not representative of the amount of work and skill involved at all. Before I get all sorts of hate, I have been cashier at a few different large companies, I know exactly what the work is like. I never made more than $9.88/hr, and I thought that was fair. Granted, costs are cheap where I live, so that should be taken into account.
Unfortunately, this is just how the world works anymore. If you can't provide a skill that someone else can't, you can't expect to be paid more than that other person.
I'm with you Disch I've been disgusted with Walmart for a number of years now and it's not just the way they treat their employee's but their customers to. How many other stores do you know where you have to submit your receipt to some rent a cop flunky 30 feet away from the register you just cashed out at so that he can make sure you're not stealing anything? It infuriates me that ANYONE would find this to be an acceptable practice, but in fact the vast majority have no problem with being suspected criminals at a store they are doing business with.
Speaking of this hole, does anyone know what kind of person goes through all of the training to become an Optometrist and decides that they should go work for Walmart? Or is it just that Walmart rents out these spaces to people like this? The later I would understand and it kind of makes sense with the amount of foot traffic that goes through these places but I have to wonder.
EDIT: I did want to say one more thing though. Don't demonize people who choose to trade stocks with our extra money. It's not like we're pimps or crack dealers we simply grew up seeing a system that gives you more money then a bank would for marginally more consideration of where you put your money. It's not like there is a law saying that anyone can't play the same game. And as far as saying that there is no work or effort involved? Try it for a week and get back to me.
Speaking of this hole, does anyone know what kind of person goes through all of the training to become an Optometrist and decides that they should go work for Walmart? Or is it just that Walmart rents out these spaces to people like this? The later I would understand and it kind of makes sense with the amount of foot traffic that goes through these places but I have to wonder.
EDIT: I did want to say one more thing though. Don't demonize people who choose to trade stocks with our extra money. It's not like we're pimps or crack dealers we simply grew up seeing a system that gives you more money then a bank would for marginally more consideration of where you put your money. It's not like there is a law saying that anyone can't play the same game. And as far as saying that there is no work or effort involved? Try it for a week and get back to me.
Last edited on
Everyone whining here at Disch needs to get their facts straight. Wal-mart is a predatory corporation, and if you knew a quarter of the facts about it that you think you do then you would never walk through their doors again either.
Wal-mart exists for one purpose - make the Waltons rich. It is capitalism at its worst.
But what is even worse is that it proves that we Americans are stupid narcissists at best. The delusions continually fed to us about what is true and right get us to do whatever the rich want, even when we are peripherally aware of it.
Wal-mart exists for one purpose - make the Waltons rich. It is capitalism at its worst.
But what is even worse is that it proves that we Americans are stupid narcissists at best. The delusions continually fed to us about what is true and right get us to do whatever the rich want, even when we are peripherally aware of it.
| This is like the recent McDonald's outrage (remember their budget plans?). |
Yes. Those were just as comical/tragic. IIRC the budget assumed you were working 2 jobs, assumed you were living paycheck to paycheck, and still was unrealistic about expenses.
| The problem is people expect places like Walmart and McDonald's to give each and every employee a wage that can pay a family of 4, but that's not the point of those positions. |
A considerable portion of people that work in places like WalMart and McDonalds are educated and have skillsets that are applicable to other fields, they're just unable to find jobs in those fields.
The cold reality is that having a college degree does not guarantee you a good job. And there are only so many "good jobs" to go around. When the good jobs run out, people have to take the crappier ones.
The way I see it, this has 3 possible solutions:
1) Change the 'crappier' jobs so they're not as crappy
or
2) Create more 'good' jobs (note #1 also accomplishes this while at the same time removing crappy jobs)
or
3) Reduce the number of qualified people to match the number of available 'good' jobs
Considering solution #3 is tantamount to forcing people into poverty and/or discouraging high education, I'm a supporter of solutions #1 & #2.
| They're entry level, no skill positions. You can't expect much out of that. |
Why not?
If you put forth a solid effort and work hard 40+ hrs a week, should you not be able to live comfortably and support a family?
Though the situation now is you often have families with 2 people working 50+ hours a week at 2 jobs each and they're still just scraping by.
So from an employer perspective... if you're seeing your employees enduring such a hardship... what is your response?
Do you make marginal cuts to your grotesquely large profit margins to increase wages to give them a hand?
Or do you ask your other employees (many of whom are in the same boat) to donate their money to help them out?
To put this in perspective... back in the 1950's, the typical setup was to have 1 income earner working 1 fulltime job at 40 hrs a week (often in unskilled labor positions, like factory workers), and making enough to:
- Own a house
- Support a family
- Retire at 60 with a pension
Today you have more people putting in even more hours and having none of those things.
Wages and workers rights have dwindled. Pensions have been replaced with 401k's (rather than the company providing for you by using the profits you helped build.... you are expected to invest your own money). Minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. And the income gap continues to grow wider and wider and wider with no sign of it ever closing.
| I know exactly what the work is like. I never made more than $9.88/hr, and I thought that was fair. |
This is part of the problem. Poor people thinking they're not poor... or thinking that they deserve to be poor. It's bullshit. There's no reason wages have to be a low as they are. The myth that these large companies can't pay more money without sacrificing success is just that: a myth.
WalMart makes $17 Billion (that's Billion with a B) in profit yearly. That's profit, not revenue. That means after expenses... that's how much they come out on top. Every year. Anyone who claims they can't afford to pay their workers more is nuts.
The fact that they're not doing this is why the income gap is so wide. Seriously... watch this video I linked to before. Follow up on the references it links to. This shit is horrifying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
Last edited on
There is also a misconception that most people that work at places like McDonalds and Walmart are teenagers when most are adults struggling to provide for their families. Why shouldn't unskilled workers earn $12/hr (or whatever a living wage would be) the companies can certainly afford it. No one expects to get rich working unskilled jobs, but they should expect to live reasonably comfortably.
Last edited on
What's wrong with the 401K system exactly? Pensions put an additional burden on employers and stifle growth which impacts future employees. It's a broken concept which requires infinite growth to fulfill a ridiculous promise to a few selfish individuals.
The 401K system supplies our economy with the means to grow by allowing it to be invested in NEW businesses (what was your number 2 again?). I'll agree that it should be managed by more competent people (I figured out that the housing market was a bubble when I was like 13) but the idea behind it is sound. Baring the recent incidents of monumental fraud you shouldn't actually lose money in this system.
The 401K system supplies our economy with the means to grow by allowing it to be invested in NEW businesses (what was your number 2 again?). I'll agree that it should be managed by more competent people (I figured out that the housing market was a bubble when I was like 13) but the idea behind it is sound. Baring the recent incidents of monumental fraud you shouldn't actually lose money in this system.
Reinstate Glass-Stegle and you wouldn't. Not to be a conspiracy nut, but I'm pretty sure wikileaks leaked docs that showed as far back as the repeal thereof was planned as a part of a plan to feed the rich and fuck the poor.
five internets to whoever gets the lyrics I quoted.
five internets to whoever gets the lyrics I quoted.
Last edited on
| computergeek wrote: |
|---|
| EDIT: I did want to say one more thing though. Don't demonize people who choose to trade stocks with our extra money. [snip] It's not like there is a law saying that anyone can't play the same game. |
Yes. I actually am trying to get into it myself when I can find the time... simply because it's how the system works and I am fortunate enough to be able to afford it.
But it's a completely broken system that shouldn't exist. I'll be the first one to support pushing the reset button and rebuilding all this crap, but in the meantime you might as well play the game if you can.
But there's a difference between people investing for retirement, and people playing/manipulating the market to make millions.
| And as far as saying that there is no work or effort involved? Try it for a week and get back to me. |
By "work" I mean "doing something that benefits society in some way". Yes it takes effort to play the market... but it doesn't really do anything substantive. It's just moving money around in cyberspace and somehow it turns into more money.
| What's wrong with the 401K system exactly? |
They shift the burden onto the employee, whereas it was formerly on the employer.
| Pensions put an additional burden on employers and stifle growth which impacts future employees. It's a broken concept which requires infinite growth to fulfill a ridiculous promise to a few selfish individuals. |
The concept with a pension is that your work with the company contributes to its generation of profits. So the profits you help build are put aside to provide for you in the future. More company profits would be a larger pension fund.
Somewhere that got lost and it was decided "you don't need a pension, your wages are enough". Probably because people kept dipping into and stealing from the pension fund.
But yeah... the pension system is not perfect, I'll admit. Though it's certainly better than the current investment system.
| The 401K system supplies our economy with the means to grow by allowing it to be invested in NEW businesses (what was your number 2 again?). |
In theory, sure. If that were really the case, though... would we even be having this discussion?
This is a variation of "trickle-down" economics. The idea is that if companies have more money, it'll bolster the economy which will create jobs and yadda yadda. The thing is "trickle-down" economics have never worked. All they do is create a large income gap like what we see today.
In fact... the exact opposite of trickle-down is more true. When the people (instead of the companies) have the money... then they spend it. Spending money was never a problem for Americans. If there's one thing we're really, really good at... it's that.
So people with more money = people spending more money = business growth = more jobs = more money to give to people.
The problem here is, as it has been for many many years, that the richer, more powerful members of society of slowly crushing the financial power of the poor, who are allowing their wealth to seep away. Such a continuing imbalance has, in the past, lead to war (including civil war) and/or revolutions, in which some order of balance is promised to be restored.
The trouble is in the modern age, in 1st world countries, there is no-one to lead such a movement. The advancement of the capitalist system has allowed a way out to anyone who wants to try it. In theory, anyone can become rich and powerful in the capitalist society, but who actually does?
Many of the people who are becoming rich are the very people that would have, under different political systems such as monarchy or despotism, in which rising to the top is significantly hindered to those not born of royal blood or in the emperor's family, started the revolutions or funded the civil war. There is no catalyst for a revolution to form around. There is increased knowledge of information being passed around by those not in power, by those in power. Many obstacles stand in the way that were never previously present.
Now, I'm not saying that civil war or revolution is a good idea here, nor am I advocating one. I am simply saying, that was the solution in the past and this time it cannot work. Something needs to radically change at some point, probably this century, in how time, goods, money and services are exchanged and it needs to come without any kind of war.
Anyway, that is, I believe, the root of the problem we are discussing here. If anyone has a realistic solution*, well, it would be rather nice if you posted it and then we can all get on with our lives just that little bit more happy. : )
*The rich are not going to just give their money away. Saying 'large multinationals pay employees more' is not a realistic solution.
The trouble is in the modern age, in 1st world countries, there is no-one to lead such a movement. The advancement of the capitalist system has allowed a way out to anyone who wants to try it. In theory, anyone can become rich and powerful in the capitalist society, but who actually does?
Many of the people who are becoming rich are the very people that would have, under different political systems such as monarchy or despotism, in which rising to the top is significantly hindered to those not born of royal blood or in the emperor's family, started the revolutions or funded the civil war. There is no catalyst for a revolution to form around. There is increased knowledge of information being passed around by those not in power, by those in power. Many obstacles stand in the way that were never previously present.
Now, I'm not saying that civil war or revolution is a good idea here, nor am I advocating one. I am simply saying, that was the solution in the past and this time it cannot work. Something needs to radically change at some point, probably this century, in how time, goods, money and services are exchanged and it needs to come without any kind of war.
Anyway, that is, I believe, the root of the problem we are discussing here. If anyone has a realistic solution*, well, it would be rather nice if you posted it and then we can all get on with our lives just that little bit more happy. : )
*The rich are not going to just give their money away. Saying 'large multinationals pay employees more' is not a realistic solution.
Bill gates is giving his money away. Thinks his peers and himself should be taxed more. Warren Buffet, too. Oh look, ultra rich people with good hearts.
| *The rich are not going to just give their money away. Saying 'large multinationals pay employees more' is not a realistic solution. |
Then there is no solution.
The only time the wealthy are going to [willingly] spend money on a large enough scale to make a difference is when it's likely to turn them a profit... and if they're profiting off it, then they're not really putting money back into the economy... they're just pulling more out of it.
So we're stuck in a one-way flow. The only way out is to do some kind of forced redistribution. That could be
1) An uprising/revolution
or
2) Improved labor laws to force large companies to spend their profit margin on employee wages.
Nobody wants to see #1, so we're really only left with #2.
The problem is every time the government tries to do something even remotely resembling #2 you get a bunch of people screaming bloody murder. "It's a free market!" "Government can't pick winners and losers!" "Government shouldn't interfere with business!", etc, etc, etc.
EDIT:
| Cheraphy wrote: |
|---|
| Bill gates is giving his money away. Thinks his peers and himself should be taxed more. Warren Buffet, too. Oh look, ultra rich people with good hearts. |
Yes.. you're right. I am grossly generalizing.
Last edited on
Also there's the problem of corporations owning congress. Sign on to the WOLFPAC if you haven't. We're pushing for a constitutional amendment establishing that corporations are not people, a huge issue with campaign funding ending up as bribery.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/petition
http://www.wolf-pac.com/petition
Last edited on
I really don't think that laws should be part of the market/employment. If a business doesn't want to pay its employees well, then the employees who care should boycott it. The rich can't get richer without the poor working for them. If the poor want to do something about it, they can.
| I really don't think that laws should be part of the market/employment. If a business doesn't want to pay its employees well, then the employees who care should boycott it. The rich can't get richer without the poor working for them. If the poor want to do something about it, they can. |
That's not quite how it works.
Pure, raw capitalism is cannibalistic. Labor laws are the only thing preventing it from destroying itself.
Read up on the history of the US industrial revolution. With no labor laws, you effectively have a slave class, and a handful of companies literally control the entire economy.
EDIT:
To elaborate further... let's say the entire lower class puts their foot down and goes on strike. What would happen?
1) Yes the rich would briefly stop getting richer.. but they're still rich and still live comfortably. All they have to do is sit back and wait.
2) The poor are now completely destitute with no income, and are homeless/starving.
3) People desperate for any work get hired on as scabs.
4) Since people are so desperate, companies can get away with paying employees even less. Workers can't refuse because some money is better than no money... and if they turn down the job there are 500 people in line behind them who will snatch it up.
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Was going to try and ignore this thread but ohh well lol ;p.
Because the government always seems to do a great job and are very good with money right? Let's face it our government x100 more greedy and wasteful then any fortune 500 company. So why on earth would we want to trust them to manage the private sector (Which is what would happen if they started doing forced redistribution).
Just look at the closest example to this. The Affordable Care Act. In it the government forced redistribution or healthcare and how did that turn out for the average worker?
We see many people losing full time employment because they are being forced to work under the 30 hour cutoff because the businesses can't afford to pay the added healthcare cost.
Millions of people are losing their plans and a lot of them will have to pay quite a bit more to get a new one.
Then also the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed for the most part (There are a few states which dropped on average but not many).
Yes I agree it would be great if everyone could get a good income to support a good living no matter what job they have, but I am sure not ready to trust the government to do it.
Now what if the company doesn't make a profit? Do the works not get their pensions then? There have been plenty of Companies and cities that have been bankrupted by pensions because the pension costs kept on getting raised yet the company wasn't making any more money.
Yes it was a good idea but generally the whole pension system is corrupted now.
It does benefit society... All that trading is going to funding new projects, funding new businesses, investments in small business and large. Yes they might just be in it for a paycheck or to make money but to say that them trading isn't doing anything substantive isn't true.
So it shouldn't be the individuals responsibility to take care of their self when they are older? Instead the employer should have to take over that responsibility?
Seems a bit backward to me, but I think I might be in the minority on that. Though to be fair most companies will match usually 50 cents to the dollar if not 1:1 up to a certain amount per year.
This is another case where we are expecting others to provide for us instead of looking to ourselves. Personally I would much rather want to save my own money for retirement then depend on a company and government to do it for me (Don't get me started on Social Security ;p).
| The problem is every time the government tries to do something even remotely resembling #2 you get a bunch of people screaming bloody murder. "It's a free market!" "Government can't pick winners and losers!" "Government shouldn't interfere with business!", etc, etc, etc. |
Because the government always seems to do a great job and are very good with money right? Let's face it our government x100 more greedy and wasteful then any fortune 500 company. So why on earth would we want to trust them to manage the private sector (Which is what would happen if they started doing forced redistribution).
Just look at the closest example to this. The Affordable Care Act. In it the government forced redistribution or healthcare and how did that turn out for the average worker?
We see many people losing full time employment because they are being forced to work under the 30 hour cutoff because the businesses can't afford to pay the added healthcare cost.
Millions of people are losing their plans and a lot of them will have to pay quite a bit more to get a new one.
Then also the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed for the most part (There are a few states which dropped on average but not many).
Yes I agree it would be great if everyone could get a good income to support a good living no matter what job they have, but I am sure not ready to trust the government to do it.
| The concept with a pension is that your work with the company contributes to its generation of profits. So the profits you help build are put aside to provide for you in the future. More company profits would be a larger pension fund |
Now what if the company doesn't make a profit? Do the works not get their pensions then? There have been plenty of Companies and cities that have been bankrupted by pensions because the pension costs kept on getting raised yet the company wasn't making any more money.
Yes it was a good idea but generally the whole pension system is corrupted now.
| By "work" I mean "doing something that benefits society in some way". Yes it takes effort to play the market... but it doesn't really do anything substantive. It's just moving money around in cyberspace and somehow it turns into more money. |
It does benefit society... All that trading is going to funding new projects, funding new businesses, investments in small business and large. Yes they might just be in it for a paycheck or to make money but to say that them trading isn't doing anything substantive isn't true.
| They shift the burden onto the employee, whereas it was formerly on the employer. |
So it shouldn't be the individuals responsibility to take care of their self when they are older? Instead the employer should have to take over that responsibility?
Seems a bit backward to me, but I think I might be in the minority on that. Though to be fair most companies will match usually 50 cents to the dollar if not 1:1 up to a certain amount per year.
This is another case where we are expecting others to provide for us instead of looking to ourselves. Personally I would much rather want to save my own money for retirement then depend on a company and government to do it for me (Don't get me started on Social Security ;p).
| Bill gates is giving his money away. Thinks his peers and himself should be taxed more. Warren Buffet, too. Oh look, ultra rich people with good hearts. |
Oh, look, counter-examples that completely destroy a generalization!!! /snicker
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html
| http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html |
TIL. However gates plans on leaving nothing to his children and plans to give away half his net worth. Also his funding helped eradicate polio. can't help but like the man anyways. (also I'm on disch's side in this thread)
| Because the government always seems to do a great job and are very good with money right? |
Nope. They're terrible at it. I agree. Though the problems with our government is a little too much of a tangent for me to get into.
Besides... I'm talking mainly about improved labor laws. The government never has to touch the money.
The most obvious change that would be pretty simple is to get rid of part-time/full-time distinctions to eliminate this "make them work only 29 hrs" loophole that every company exploits.
| Just look at the closest example to this. The Affordable Care Act. |
I totally agree that the ACA was an utter disaster. Insurance is a complete racket, and legally mandating people buy it is like punching yourself in the face to cure a bloody nose.
Though one could make the case that this was more a problem with lobbying than with labor laws.
| Now what if the company doesn't make a profit? Do the works not get their pensions then? |
If I were designing the system... no.
| It does benefit society... All that trading is going to funding new projects, funding new businesses, investments in small business and large. |
I don't think trading stocks does much to help businesses. At least not as much as people seem to think.
Small businesses typically don't have stock options. New businesses typically don't get funded by selling stock before they get started... they usually find private investors and/or take out loans from a bank.
Most of the revenue for new projects in large business comes from... well... their revenue.
I'll respond to the rest later.
@Cheraphy
Yeah, I know. Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as attacking you. (I wasn't.)
Yeah, I know. Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as attacking you. (I wasn't.)
ACA wasn't the right solution to start with (single payer, anyone?) but the roll-out that was botched was what caused the dissaster that it is. And we can thank the house for that one.