|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 02 2013 21:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 13:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It isn’t breaking news that many Wal-Mart Stores employees are dissatisfied with their current wage levels, as it was only late last year that members of OUR Walmart, a union-backed worker group, chose Black Friday to walk off the job and campaign for their rights.
Similarly, earlier in May, that same group announced its plans to meet in Bentonville, Arkansas, on the day of Wal-Mart’s annual shareholder meeting, and campaign for a greater number of full-time jobs with predictable schedules and wages that could help them provide for their families.
A new report, however, illuminates that Wal-Mart employees might not be the only ones paying the price for their low wages. Taxpayers, too, may have a reason to take a stand.
According to The Huffington Post, Congressional Democrats released a study Thursday that demonstrated how Wal-Mart’s wages are so low that many of its workers must rely on food stamps and other government aid programs, costing taxpayers as much as $900,0000 at just one Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wisconsin.
The report, “The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy,” was produced by Democrats with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
It explains that it chose Wisconsin as its state of study because of its data being the most recent, allowing the study to employ the state’s Medicaid data to discern the annual cost taxpayers pay in order to provide the food stamp and publicly subsidized health care programs to those Supercenter workers who require it.
Wal-Mart has long been criticized for its pattern of offering wages that force its workers to take advantage of public-assistance programs. This recent study argues that the criticism is warranted. The company had more workers enrolled in the state’s public health care program in last year’s last quarter than any other employer.
So how did the report’s authors come up with the $900,000 figure? First, they took into account the number of Wal-Mart stores and employees across Wisconsin and the per-person costs of Badgercare, the state’s health care program, estimating that the cost of the publicly funded health care comes to $251,706 per year for a Supercenter that employees 300 workers.
Then, they considered the other public-assistance programs available to these families on Badgercare. Assuming that the families take advantage of all the additional programs offered, the final cost amounts to over $900,000.
Though the study’s estimate is based on the assumption that those who qualify for the public assistance programs take advantage of all the opportunities offered to them, the number is a daunting figure nonetheless. Source Nice to see Dems going back to the magic math thing.
Nice to see you focusing on the number rather than on the underlying problem denounced by the study.
|
On June 02 2013 21:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 21:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2013 13:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It isn’t breaking news that many Wal-Mart Stores employees are dissatisfied with their current wage levels, as it was only late last year that members of OUR Walmart, a union-backed worker group, chose Black Friday to walk off the job and campaign for their rights.
Similarly, earlier in May, that same group announced its plans to meet in Bentonville, Arkansas, on the day of Wal-Mart’s annual shareholder meeting, and campaign for a greater number of full-time jobs with predictable schedules and wages that could help them provide for their families.
A new report, however, illuminates that Wal-Mart employees might not be the only ones paying the price for their low wages. Taxpayers, too, may have a reason to take a stand.
According to The Huffington Post, Congressional Democrats released a study Thursday that demonstrated how Wal-Mart’s wages are so low that many of its workers must rely on food stamps and other government aid programs, costing taxpayers as much as $900,0000 at just one Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wisconsin.
The report, “The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy,” was produced by Democrats with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
It explains that it chose Wisconsin as its state of study because of its data being the most recent, allowing the study to employ the state’s Medicaid data to discern the annual cost taxpayers pay in order to provide the food stamp and publicly subsidized health care programs to those Supercenter workers who require it.
Wal-Mart has long been criticized for its pattern of offering wages that force its workers to take advantage of public-assistance programs. This recent study argues that the criticism is warranted. The company had more workers enrolled in the state’s public health care program in last year’s last quarter than any other employer.
So how did the report’s authors come up with the $900,000 figure? First, they took into account the number of Wal-Mart stores and employees across Wisconsin and the per-person costs of Badgercare, the state’s health care program, estimating that the cost of the publicly funded health care comes to $251,706 per year for a Supercenter that employees 300 workers.
Then, they considered the other public-assistance programs available to these families on Badgercare. Assuming that the families take advantage of all the additional programs offered, the final cost amounts to over $900,000.
Though the study’s estimate is based on the assumption that those who qualify for the public assistance programs take advantage of all the opportunities offered to them, the number is a daunting figure nonetheless. Source Nice to see Dems going back to the magic math thing. Nice to see you focusing on the number rather than on the underlying problem denounced by the study.
Nice to see you buying the propaganda rather than focusing on the underlying problem that the study ignores.
Edit: The underlying problem is not that some jobs (like cashier at walmart) don't pay a living wage, it's that those who need a living wage too often can't get a job that pays one.
|
On June 02 2013 21:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 21:31 kwizach wrote:On June 02 2013 21:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2013 13:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It isn’t breaking news that many Wal-Mart Stores employees are dissatisfied with their current wage levels, as it was only late last year that members of OUR Walmart, a union-backed worker group, chose Black Friday to walk off the job and campaign for their rights.
Similarly, earlier in May, that same group announced its plans to meet in Bentonville, Arkansas, on the day of Wal-Mart’s annual shareholder meeting, and campaign for a greater number of full-time jobs with predictable schedules and wages that could help them provide for their families.
A new report, however, illuminates that Wal-Mart employees might not be the only ones paying the price for their low wages. Taxpayers, too, may have a reason to take a stand.
According to The Huffington Post, Congressional Democrats released a study Thursday that demonstrated how Wal-Mart’s wages are so low that many of its workers must rely on food stamps and other government aid programs, costing taxpayers as much as $900,0000 at just one Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wisconsin.
The report, “The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy,” was produced by Democrats with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
It explains that it chose Wisconsin as its state of study because of its data being the most recent, allowing the study to employ the state’s Medicaid data to discern the annual cost taxpayers pay in order to provide the food stamp and publicly subsidized health care programs to those Supercenter workers who require it.
Wal-Mart has long been criticized for its pattern of offering wages that force its workers to take advantage of public-assistance programs. This recent study argues that the criticism is warranted. The company had more workers enrolled in the state’s public health care program in last year’s last quarter than any other employer.
So how did the report’s authors come up with the $900,000 figure? First, they took into account the number of Wal-Mart stores and employees across Wisconsin and the per-person costs of Badgercare, the state’s health care program, estimating that the cost of the publicly funded health care comes to $251,706 per year for a Supercenter that employees 300 workers.
Then, they considered the other public-assistance programs available to these families on Badgercare. Assuming that the families take advantage of all the additional programs offered, the final cost amounts to over $900,000.
Though the study’s estimate is based on the assumption that those who qualify for the public assistance programs take advantage of all the opportunities offered to them, the number is a daunting figure nonetheless. Source Nice to see Dems going back to the magic math thing. Nice to see you focusing on the number rather than on the underlying problem denounced by the study. Nice to see you buying the propaganda rather than focusing on the underlying problem that the study ignores. Edit: The underlying problem is not that some jobs (like cashier at walmart) don't pay a living wage, it's that those who need a living wage too often can't get a job that pays one.
Would there even be enough people who are not dependent on earning wages to work those kinds of jobs if everyone who wanted a decent job could get one? It seems to me like your idea of the underlying problem is fairly close to being the same thing as what you say it isn't. If jobs like being a cashier at Walmart paid a living wage, people who need a living wage and can only get those jobs would then have a job that pays one.
|
On June 02 2013 21:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 21:31 kwizach wrote:On June 02 2013 21:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2013 13:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It isn’t breaking news that many Wal-Mart Stores employees are dissatisfied with their current wage levels, as it was only late last year that members of OUR Walmart, a union-backed worker group, chose Black Friday to walk off the job and campaign for their rights.
Similarly, earlier in May, that same group announced its plans to meet in Bentonville, Arkansas, on the day of Wal-Mart’s annual shareholder meeting, and campaign for a greater number of full-time jobs with predictable schedules and wages that could help them provide for their families.
A new report, however, illuminates that Wal-Mart employees might not be the only ones paying the price for their low wages. Taxpayers, too, may have a reason to take a stand.
According to The Huffington Post, Congressional Democrats released a study Thursday that demonstrated how Wal-Mart’s wages are so low that many of its workers must rely on food stamps and other government aid programs, costing taxpayers as much as $900,0000 at just one Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wisconsin.
The report, “The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy,” was produced by Democrats with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
It explains that it chose Wisconsin as its state of study because of its data being the most recent, allowing the study to employ the state’s Medicaid data to discern the annual cost taxpayers pay in order to provide the food stamp and publicly subsidized health care programs to those Supercenter workers who require it.
Wal-Mart has long been criticized for its pattern of offering wages that force its workers to take advantage of public-assistance programs. This recent study argues that the criticism is warranted. The company had more workers enrolled in the state’s public health care program in last year’s last quarter than any other employer.
So how did the report’s authors come up with the $900,000 figure? First, they took into account the number of Wal-Mart stores and employees across Wisconsin and the per-person costs of Badgercare, the state’s health care program, estimating that the cost of the publicly funded health care comes to $251,706 per year for a Supercenter that employees 300 workers.
Then, they considered the other public-assistance programs available to these families on Badgercare. Assuming that the families take advantage of all the additional programs offered, the final cost amounts to over $900,000.
Though the study’s estimate is based on the assumption that those who qualify for the public assistance programs take advantage of all the opportunities offered to them, the number is a daunting figure nonetheless. Source Nice to see Dems going back to the magic math thing. Nice to see you focusing on the number rather than on the underlying problem denounced by the study. Nice to see you buying the propaganda rather than focusing on the underlying problem that the study ignores. Edit: The underlying problem is not that some jobs (like cashier at walmart) don't pay a living wage, it's that those who need a living wage too often can't get a job that pays one.
Which is caused, in large part, by employers not willing to pay their employees living wages.
|
On June 02 2013 21:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 21:31 kwizach wrote:On June 02 2013 21:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2013 13:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It isn’t breaking news that many Wal-Mart Stores employees are dissatisfied with their current wage levels, as it was only late last year that members of OUR Walmart, a union-backed worker group, chose Black Friday to walk off the job and campaign for their rights.
Similarly, earlier in May, that same group announced its plans to meet in Bentonville, Arkansas, on the day of Wal-Mart’s annual shareholder meeting, and campaign for a greater number of full-time jobs with predictable schedules and wages that could help them provide for their families.
A new report, however, illuminates that Wal-Mart employees might not be the only ones paying the price for their low wages. Taxpayers, too, may have a reason to take a stand.
According to The Huffington Post, Congressional Democrats released a study Thursday that demonstrated how Wal-Mart’s wages are so low that many of its workers must rely on food stamps and other government aid programs, costing taxpayers as much as $900,0000 at just one Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wisconsin.
The report, “The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy,” was produced by Democrats with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
It explains that it chose Wisconsin as its state of study because of its data being the most recent, allowing the study to employ the state’s Medicaid data to discern the annual cost taxpayers pay in order to provide the food stamp and publicly subsidized health care programs to those Supercenter workers who require it.
Wal-Mart has long been criticized for its pattern of offering wages that force its workers to take advantage of public-assistance programs. This recent study argues that the criticism is warranted. The company had more workers enrolled in the state’s public health care program in last year’s last quarter than any other employer.
So how did the report’s authors come up with the $900,000 figure? First, they took into account the number of Wal-Mart stores and employees across Wisconsin and the per-person costs of Badgercare, the state’s health care program, estimating that the cost of the publicly funded health care comes to $251,706 per year for a Supercenter that employees 300 workers.
Then, they considered the other public-assistance programs available to these families on Badgercare. Assuming that the families take advantage of all the additional programs offered, the final cost amounts to over $900,000.
Though the study’s estimate is based on the assumption that those who qualify for the public assistance programs take advantage of all the opportunities offered to them, the number is a daunting figure nonetheless. Source Nice to see Dems going back to the magic math thing. Nice to see you focusing on the number rather than on the underlying problem denounced by the study. Nice to see you buying the propaganda rather than focusing on the underlying problem that the study ignores. Edit: The underlying problem is not that some jobs (like cashier at walmart) don't pay a living wage, it's that those who need a living wage too often can't get a job that pays one.
See aksfjh's reply. Also, the idea that the job market is wide open for those with higher qualifications is a myth, given the high unemployment numbers for most high-qualifications professional occupations.
|
On June 02 2013 23:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 21:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2013 21:31 kwizach wrote:On June 02 2013 21:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2013 13:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It isn’t breaking news that many Wal-Mart Stores employees are dissatisfied with their current wage levels, as it was only late last year that members of OUR Walmart, a union-backed worker group, chose Black Friday to walk off the job and campaign for their rights.
Similarly, earlier in May, that same group announced its plans to meet in Bentonville, Arkansas, on the day of Wal-Mart’s annual shareholder meeting, and campaign for a greater number of full-time jobs with predictable schedules and wages that could help them provide for their families.
A new report, however, illuminates that Wal-Mart employees might not be the only ones paying the price for their low wages. Taxpayers, too, may have a reason to take a stand.
According to The Huffington Post, Congressional Democrats released a study Thursday that demonstrated how Wal-Mart’s wages are so low that many of its workers must rely on food stamps and other government aid programs, costing taxpayers as much as $900,0000 at just one Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wisconsin.
The report, “The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy,” was produced by Democrats with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
It explains that it chose Wisconsin as its state of study because of its data being the most recent, allowing the study to employ the state’s Medicaid data to discern the annual cost taxpayers pay in order to provide the food stamp and publicly subsidized health care programs to those Supercenter workers who require it.
Wal-Mart has long been criticized for its pattern of offering wages that force its workers to take advantage of public-assistance programs. This recent study argues that the criticism is warranted. The company had more workers enrolled in the state’s public health care program in last year’s last quarter than any other employer.
So how did the report’s authors come up with the $900,000 figure? First, they took into account the number of Wal-Mart stores and employees across Wisconsin and the per-person costs of Badgercare, the state’s health care program, estimating that the cost of the publicly funded health care comes to $251,706 per year for a Supercenter that employees 300 workers.
Then, they considered the other public-assistance programs available to these families on Badgercare. Assuming that the families take advantage of all the additional programs offered, the final cost amounts to over $900,000.
Though the study’s estimate is based on the assumption that those who qualify for the public assistance programs take advantage of all the opportunities offered to them, the number is a daunting figure nonetheless. Source Nice to see Dems going back to the magic math thing. Nice to see you focusing on the number rather than on the underlying problem denounced by the study. Nice to see you buying the propaganda rather than focusing on the underlying problem that the study ignores. Edit: The underlying problem is not that some jobs (like cashier at walmart) don't pay a living wage, it's that those who need a living wage too often can't get a job that pays one. See aksfjh's reply. Also, the idea that the job market is wide open for those with higher qualifications is a myth, given the high unemployment numbers for most high-qualifications professional occupations.
Here's an interesting article that relates to "higher qualifications myth."
A study released Wednesday by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute reinforces what a number of researchers have come to believe: that the STEM worker shortage is a myth.
The EPI study found that the United States has “more than a sufficient supply of workers available to work in STEM occupations.” Basic dynamics of supply and demand would dictate that if there were a domestic labor shortage, wages should have risen. Instead, researchers found, they’ve been flat, with many Americans holding STEM degrees unable to enter the field and a sharply higher share of foreign workers taking jobs in the information technology industry. (IT jobs make up 59 percent of the STEM workforce, according to the study.)
The answer to whether there is a shortage of such workers has important ramifications for the immigration bill. If it exists, then there’s an urgency that justifies allowing companies to bring more foreign workers into the country, usually on a short-term H-1B visa. But those who oppose such a policy argue that companies want more of these visas mainly because H-1B workers are paid an estimated 20 percent less than their American counterparts. Why allow these companies to hire more foreign workers for less, the critics argue, when there are plenty of Americans who are ready to work?
The EPI study said that while the overall number of U.S. students who earn STEM degrees is small — a fact that many lawmakers and the news media have seized on — it’s more important to focus on what happens to these students after they graduate. According to the study, they have a surprisingly hard time finding work. Only half of the students graduating from college with a STEM degree are hired into a STEM job, the study said.
“Even in engineering,” the authors said, “U.S. colleges have historically produced about 50 percent more graduates than are hired into engineering jobs each year.”
Source
There's more in the article, but that's the meat.
|
That study isn't making an argument about a higher qualifications myth, it is arguing that the US doesn't need to expand working visas for foreign IT workers. WaPo misread the study IMO.
There is a huge bait and switch in using IT workers as a substitute and representative of all STEM careers.
|
It's not the argument, but it is a finding. Especially the part about wages that aren't increasing despite "record demand."
|
On June 02 2013 22:50 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 21:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2013 21:31 kwizach wrote:On June 02 2013 21:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2013 13:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It isn’t breaking news that many Wal-Mart Stores employees are dissatisfied with their current wage levels, as it was only late last year that members of OUR Walmart, a union-backed worker group, chose Black Friday to walk off the job and campaign for their rights.
Similarly, earlier in May, that same group announced its plans to meet in Bentonville, Arkansas, on the day of Wal-Mart’s annual shareholder meeting, and campaign for a greater number of full-time jobs with predictable schedules and wages that could help them provide for their families.
A new report, however, illuminates that Wal-Mart employees might not be the only ones paying the price for their low wages. Taxpayers, too, may have a reason to take a stand.
According to The Huffington Post, Congressional Democrats released a study Thursday that demonstrated how Wal-Mart’s wages are so low that many of its workers must rely on food stamps and other government aid programs, costing taxpayers as much as $900,0000 at just one Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wisconsin.
The report, “The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy,” was produced by Democrats with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
It explains that it chose Wisconsin as its state of study because of its data being the most recent, allowing the study to employ the state’s Medicaid data to discern the annual cost taxpayers pay in order to provide the food stamp and publicly subsidized health care programs to those Supercenter workers who require it.
Wal-Mart has long been criticized for its pattern of offering wages that force its workers to take advantage of public-assistance programs. This recent study argues that the criticism is warranted. The company had more workers enrolled in the state’s public health care program in last year’s last quarter than any other employer.
So how did the report’s authors come up with the $900,000 figure? First, they took into account the number of Wal-Mart stores and employees across Wisconsin and the per-person costs of Badgercare, the state’s health care program, estimating that the cost of the publicly funded health care comes to $251,706 per year for a Supercenter that employees 300 workers.
Then, they considered the other public-assistance programs available to these families on Badgercare. Assuming that the families take advantage of all the additional programs offered, the final cost amounts to over $900,000.
Though the study’s estimate is based on the assumption that those who qualify for the public assistance programs take advantage of all the opportunities offered to them, the number is a daunting figure nonetheless. Source Nice to see Dems going back to the magic math thing. Nice to see you focusing on the number rather than on the underlying problem denounced by the study. Nice to see you buying the propaganda rather than focusing on the underlying problem that the study ignores. Edit: The underlying problem is not that some jobs (like cashier at walmart) don't pay a living wage, it's that those who need a living wage too often can't get a job that pays one. Which is caused, in large part, by employers not willing to pay their employees living wages.
And what causes that? The jobs don't add much value.
|
What do you mean by "add value" exactly and how do you measure it in this case? I propose an experiment, let's fire all cashiers and see how little "value" they add.
|
On June 03 2013 02:14 silynxer wrote:
What do you mean by "add value" exactly and how do you measure it in this case? I propose an experiment, let's fire all cashiers and see how little "value" they add.
Yea, that is bad reasoning. Each new cashier adds less and less value to the store, as does each stock person, salesperson, security guard, etc. The first of each is highly valuable, but drops off quite fast based on business throughput. This is why strikes work really well and scabs get paid so much.
On June 03 2013 01:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2013 22:50 aksfjh wrote:On June 02 2013 21:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2013 21:31 kwizach wrote:On June 02 2013 21:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 02 2013 13:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It isn’t breaking news that many Wal-Mart Stores employees are dissatisfied with their current wage levels, as it was only late last year that members of OUR Walmart, a union-backed worker group, chose Black Friday to walk off the job and campaign for their rights.
Similarly, earlier in May, that same group announced its plans to meet in Bentonville, Arkansas, on the day of Wal-Mart’s annual shareholder meeting, and campaign for a greater number of full-time jobs with predictable schedules and wages that could help them provide for their families.
A new report, however, illuminates that Wal-Mart employees might not be the only ones paying the price for their low wages. Taxpayers, too, may have a reason to take a stand.
According to The Huffington Post, Congressional Democrats released a study Thursday that demonstrated how Wal-Mart’s wages are so low that many of its workers must rely on food stamps and other government aid programs, costing taxpayers as much as $900,0000 at just one Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wisconsin.
The report, “The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy,” was produced by Democrats with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
It explains that it chose Wisconsin as its state of study because of its data being the most recent, allowing the study to employ the state’s Medicaid data to discern the annual cost taxpayers pay in order to provide the food stamp and publicly subsidized health care programs to those Supercenter workers who require it.
Wal-Mart has long been criticized for its pattern of offering wages that force its workers to take advantage of public-assistance programs. This recent study argues that the criticism is warranted. The company had more workers enrolled in the state’s public health care program in last year’s last quarter than any other employer.
So how did the report’s authors come up with the $900,000 figure? First, they took into account the number of Wal-Mart stores and employees across Wisconsin and the per-person costs of Badgercare, the state’s health care program, estimating that the cost of the publicly funded health care comes to $251,706 per year for a Supercenter that employees 300 workers.
Then, they considered the other public-assistance programs available to these families on Badgercare. Assuming that the families take advantage of all the additional programs offered, the final cost amounts to over $900,000.
Though the study’s estimate is based on the assumption that those who qualify for the public assistance programs take advantage of all the opportunities offered to them, the number is a daunting figure nonetheless. Source Nice to see Dems going back to the magic math thing. Nice to see you focusing on the number rather than on the underlying problem denounced by the study. Nice to see you buying the propaganda rather than focusing on the underlying problem that the study ignores. Edit: The underlying problem is not that some jobs (like cashier at walmart) don't pay a living wage, it's that those who need a living wage too often can't get a job that pays one. Which is caused, in large part, by employers not willing to pay their employees living wages. And what causes that? The jobs don't add much value.
In the case of Wal-Mart, they are paying their own customer base. Each dollar they invest in their workforce generally comes back in some way, so the value of paying them more comes back full circle (albeit with diminishing returns). So, the value of each dollar spent on labor becomes moot on some level.
For low/no-skill workers, though, there is tremendous downward pressure on wages with the availability of labor. Even in a great economy, this is how it works. In a poor economy, with a minimum wage that won't keep up with living expenses, the problem is exacerbated.
|
On June 03 2013 03:55 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 02:14 silynxer wrote:
What do you mean by "add value" exactly and how do you measure it in this case? I propose an experiment, let's fire all cashiers and see how little "value" they add. Yea, that is bad reasoning. Each new cashier adds less and less value to the store, as does each stock person, salesperson, security guard, etc. The first of each is highly valuable, but drops off quite fast based on business throughput. This is why strikes work really well and scabs get paid so much.
That is a nice simple theory but doesn't explain how to measure the value a cashier adds. There are all kinds of jobs that need to be done for a Walmart to be functional at all. The difference between employing 0, 1 or 5 cashiers is basically nothing for a superstore since it couldn't operate in these circumstances, do they thus add 0 value? It doesn't even make sense to measure this in a "value added" way (you can of course convince me otherwise). Also I would like to see an explanation why a cashier should be paid what he is compared to any other integral job of a store using only the "value added" approach and not some labour market approach.
Or are you arguing that you measure the value a single person personally adds, i.e. how much you loose if this person (and only this person) quits and you don't change anything? This of course is absurd, so probably it's not what you are thinking.
If the confusion was about my experiment it was not meant as an actual way to measure anything.
|
On June 03 2013 04:36 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 03:55 aksfjh wrote:On June 03 2013 02:14 silynxer wrote:
What do you mean by "add value" exactly and how do you measure it in this case? I propose an experiment, let's fire all cashiers and see how little "value" they add. Yea, that is bad reasoning. Each new cashier adds less and less value to the store, as does each stock person, salesperson, security guard, etc. The first of each is highly valuable, but drops off quite fast based on business throughput. This is why strikes work really well and scabs get paid so much. That is a nice simple theory but doesn't explain how to measure the value a cashier adds. There are all kinds of jobs that need to be done for a Walmart to be functional at all. The difference between employing 0, 1 or 5 cashiers is basically nothing for a superstore since it couldn't operate in these circumstances, do they thus add 0 value? It doesn't even make sense to measure this in a "value added" way (you can of course convince me otherwise). Also I would like to see an explanation why a cashier should be paid what he is compared to any other integral job of a store using only the "value added" approach and not some labour market approach. Or are you arguing that you measure the value a single person personally adds, i.e. how much you loose if this person (and only this person) quits and you don't change anything? This of course is absurd, so probably it's not what you are thinking. If the confusion was about my experiment it was not meant as an actual way to measure anything.
I merely was commenting on the absurd notion that you can derive their value from all of them quitting. My opinion of factoring their actual value is much more complicated (which I may touch on when not on my phone).
|
The notion of a living wage is nonsense. If you are in a multi-income family, your living wage will be very small. If you have zero kids or five kids, your living wage is going to be drastically different. If you are a teenager living with your parents, you do not need a living wage at all. The notion of applying the same bare minimum to all people is completely absurd, as is the notion that pay should be predicated by need at all.
The value of a worker cannot be determined by looking at an individual company. Value is created by interconnected market forces. Simply asking what a person is worth to us ignores the question of what they are worth to other businesses. If you pay them too little, you will lose them to competition. Pay them too much, and you are only hurting your profit margin unnecessarily, which again will hurt you against competition. You have to look at both supply and demand to get any sensible picture of the value of something in a market system.
|
On June 03 2013 02:14 silynxer wrote:
What do you mean by "add value" exactly and how do you measure it in this case? I propose an experiment, let's fire all cashiers and see how little "value" they add.
Just replace with automated checkouts. Problem solved.
|
On June 03 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 02:14 silynxer wrote:
What do you mean by "add value" exactly and how do you measure it in this case? I propose an experiment, let's fire all cashiers and see how little "value" they add. Just replace with automated checkouts. Problem solved.
Hardly. Check out this article, it covers the topic nicely. The long and short of it is that customers like to see people working.
Automated self-checkout is appearing in more and more retail stores, with Walmart this year installing 10,000 self-service kiosks in hundreds of stores. But self-checkout is a technology direction with risks -- and even as Walmart moves ahead with its plan, other companies are already abandoning it.
Retailer Albertsons LLC, for instance, has already pulled its self-checkout systems, as did Big Y, a New England grocer. Ikea is moving to do the same thing.
At the heart of these reversals: Customer rejection.
Even so, stores like Walmart say automated self-checkout kiosks can increase customer convenience and choice. But what does a checkout kiosk system actually fix?
Vendors argue that having more checkout options means shorter lanes and speedier customer transactions. But there are concerns about the impact on jobs, since stores that roll out the technology can steer customers to self-checkout systems -- and cut back on human cashiers.
That later issue is a flash point.
Walmart, jobs and the rise of self-service checkout tech
|
On June 03 2013 05:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 03 2013 02:14 silynxer wrote:
What do you mean by "add value" exactly and how do you measure it in this case? I propose an experiment, let's fire all cashiers and see how little "value" they add. Just replace with automated checkouts. Problem solved. Hardly. Check out this article, it covers the topic nicely. The long and short of it is that customers like to see people working. Show nested quote +Automated self-checkout is appearing in more and more retail stores, with Walmart this year installing 10,000 self-service kiosks in hundreds of stores. But self-checkout is a technology direction with risks -- and even as Walmart moves ahead with its plan, other companies are already abandoning it.
Retailer Albertsons LLC, for instance, has already pulled its self-checkout systems, as did Big Y, a New England grocer. Ikea is moving to do the same thing.
At the heart of these reversals: Customer rejection.
Even so, stores like Walmart say automated self-checkout kiosks can increase customer convenience and choice. But what does a checkout kiosk system actually fix?
Vendors argue that having more checkout options means shorter lanes and speedier customer transactions. But there are concerns about the impact on jobs, since stores that roll out the technology can steer customers to self-checkout systems -- and cut back on human cashiers.
That later issue is a flash point. Walmart, jobs and the rise of self-service checkout tech
I don't know where you came up with this "like to see people working" theory. I used to automated check twice, it was simply a frustrating process. Much easier to let someone scan it all and press the fruit buttons they have memorized and everything. Not to mention you still need to get a human if you want something behind the counter, like liquor. In other words, convenience is why I rejected them, not because I like to see people work.
|
On June 03 2013 05:42 Ingsoc101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 05:32 farvacola wrote:On June 03 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 03 2013 02:14 silynxer wrote:
What do you mean by "add value" exactly and how do you measure it in this case? I propose an experiment, let's fire all cashiers and see how little "value" they add. Just replace with automated checkouts. Problem solved. Hardly. Check out this article, it covers the topic nicely. The long and short of it is that customers like to see people working. Automated self-checkout is appearing in more and more retail stores, with Walmart this year installing 10,000 self-service kiosks in hundreds of stores. But self-checkout is a technology direction with risks -- and even as Walmart moves ahead with its plan, other companies are already abandoning it.
Retailer Albertsons LLC, for instance, has already pulled its self-checkout systems, as did Big Y, a New England grocer. Ikea is moving to do the same thing.
At the heart of these reversals: Customer rejection.
Even so, stores like Walmart say automated self-checkout kiosks can increase customer convenience and choice. But what does a checkout kiosk system actually fix?
Vendors argue that having more checkout options means shorter lanes and speedier customer transactions. But there are concerns about the impact on jobs, since stores that roll out the technology can steer customers to self-checkout systems -- and cut back on human cashiers.
That later issue is a flash point. Walmart, jobs and the rise of self-service checkout tech I don't know where you came up with this "like to see people working" theory. I used to automated check twice, it was simply a frustrating process. Much easier to let someone scan it all and press the fruit buttons they have memorized and everything. Not to mention you still need to get a human if you want something behind the counter, like liquor. In other words, convenience is why I rejected them, not because I like to see people work.
Yeah well it's very simple how I came up "like to see people working", I read the actual article and looked at what was written. Also, familiarize yourself with Availability heuristics. Just because you are too inept to work an automated checkout does not mean that all complaints directed towards automated checkouts are like your own.
|
On June 03 2013 05:25 Ingsoc101 wrote:
The notion of a living wage is nonsense. If you are in a multi-income family, your living wage will be very small. If you have zero kids or five kids, your living wage is going to be drastically different. If you are a teenager living with your parents, you do not need a living wage at all. The notion of applying the same bare minimum to all people is completely absurd, as is the notion that pay should be predicated by need at all.
The value of a worker cannot be determined by looking at an individual company. Value is created by interconnected market forces. Simply asking what a person is worth to us ignores the question of what they are worth to other businesses. If you pay them too little, you will lose them to competition. Pay them too much, and you are only hurting your profit margin unnecessarily, which again will hurt you against competition. You have to look at both supply and demand to get any sensible picture of the value of something in a market system.
Mindless free market worship at its worst.
You want this to be legal:
![[image loading]](http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/slaves4.jpg)
Except they shouldn't necessarily have a place to sleep or food to eat. You know, things that actually got provided to slaves so they could live and stuff (because in slavery systems human life is apparently more important than in your model.)
Because economic freedom.
Smart.
|
What in the fuck? You just claimed that I want slavery legal because I don't believe in a living wage? There are some real loonies in this thread. You stay classy.
@farva well, if it says it in an article it must be true.
By the way, a quote from the article you are relying on to make your arguments:
"We have found that checkout times were longer for customers who used self-checkouts than for those using staffed checkouts," said Ikea spokesman Joseph Roth. "At Ikea, we believe staffed checkouts are more convenient to the customer - especially given the unique shopping experience our stores offer."
"The value to the business is very clear," said Gribbons. "The value to the shopper is less clear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
