|
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 August 07 2013 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 02:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:You act like having a low minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And you act like significantly raising the minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And not just rich people who deserve to be hurt anyway. If people aren't making a living wage the cost is passed onto society in other means. Through welfare, through charity, through crime, through the justice system dealing with crime and so forth. People need to eat. Exploitatively low wages have negative externalities for which the company paying the wages doesn't pay. Why should the company pay for those externalities? Low wages are the result of multiple factors, most of which the company is not responsible for.
So Wallmart, a company who makes billions in profit has no influence in the fact that most of there employees don't earn a living wage? Im sorry but I must have missed the lesson where you cant afford to pay employees while being one of the most profitable companies in the US.
And yes this is just 1 example and sure there will be some for who your logic applies but that doesnt mean that living wages are a terrible idea.
|
On August 07 2013 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 02:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:You act like having a low minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And you act like significantly raising the minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And not just rich people who deserve to be hurt anyway. If people aren't making a living wage the cost is passed onto society in other means. Through welfare, through charity, through crime, through the justice system dealing with crime and so forth. People need to eat. Exploitatively low wages have negative externalities for which the company paying the wages doesn't pay. Why should the company pay for those externalities? Low wages are the result of multiple factors, most of which the company is not responsible for. So Wallmart, a company who makes billions in profit has no influence in the fact that most of there employees don't earn a living wage? Im sorry but I must have missed the lesson where you cant afford to pay employees while being one of the most profitable companies in the US. And yes this is just 1 example and sure there will be some for who your logic applies but that doesnt mean that living wages are a terrible idea.
Very little influence, yes. That's an indisputable fact you are going to need to accept. Low wages don't exist because employers are mean. They exist because of consumers' lack of willingness to pay higher prices and the worker's lack of valuable skills. Walmart can have some influence there by investing in training and capital equipment, but their ability to do so is limited.
|
On August 07 2013 05:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 02:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:You act like having a low minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And you act like significantly raising the minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And not just rich people who deserve to be hurt anyway. If people aren't making a living wage the cost is passed onto society in other means. Through welfare, through charity, through crime, through the justice system dealing with crime and so forth. People need to eat. Exploitatively low wages have negative externalities for which the company paying the wages doesn't pay. Why should the company pay for those externalities? Low wages are the result of multiple factors, most of which the company is not responsible for. So Wallmart, a company who makes billions in profit has no influence in the fact that most of there employees don't earn a living wage? Im sorry but I must have missed the lesson where you cant afford to pay employees while being one of the most profitable companies in the US. And yes this is just 1 example and sure there will be some for who your logic applies but that doesnt mean that living wages are a terrible idea. Very little influence, yes. That's an indisputable fact you are going to need to accept. Low wages don't exist because employers are mean. They exist because of consumers' lack of willingness to pay higher prices and the worker's lack of valuable skills. Walmart can have some influence there by investing in training and capital equipment, but their ability to do so is limited.
Yes im sure paying there employees a few dollars more if totally going to ruin there double digit billion dollar profits....
They can easily afford to pay a living wage without increasing prices. And lack of skills is also irrelevant. As i said a while ago living wage is avoiding exploitation and ensuring a full time worker is not reliant on government aid for basic needs. There skills are irrelevant. That sort of thing matters for wages above the minimum living wage.
Ps. Low wages arnt because employers are mean. There just greedy beyond regard for the needs of there follow human being.
|
On August 07 2013 05:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 02:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:You act like having a low minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And you act like significantly raising the minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And not just rich people who deserve to be hurt anyway. If people aren't making a living wage the cost is passed onto society in other means. Through welfare, through charity, through crime, through the justice system dealing with crime and so forth. People need to eat. Exploitatively low wages have negative externalities for which the company paying the wages doesn't pay. Why should the company pay for those externalities? Low wages are the result of multiple factors, most of which the company is not responsible for. So Wallmart, a company who makes billions in profit has no influence in the fact that most of there employees don't earn a living wage? Im sorry but I must have missed the lesson where you cant afford to pay employees while being one of the most profitable companies in the US. And yes this is just 1 example and sure there will be some for who your logic applies but that doesnt mean that living wages are a terrible idea. Very little influence, yes. That's an indisputable fact you are going to need to accept. Low wages don't exist because employers are mean. They exist because of consumers' lack of willingness to pay higher prices and the worker's lack of valuable skills. Walmart can have some influence there by investing in training and capital equipment, but their ability to do so is limited.
Two things. (1) Walmart can greatly influence the wages it pays. Have you heard of Walmart's anti union strategies? They actively work to keep worker bargaining power down. In addition, other competing companies (Costco), pay higher wages but get more money out of each worker. Walmart chose to pursue a lowest possible wage and low employee capability strategy. That was a choice.
(2) The government can affect how much Walmart pays its employees. What Walmart pays is affected by many factors. Including the ability of workers to unionize, the minimum wage, hour per week laws, laws covering overtime, competition within their industry, and most importantly the prevailing employment rates. If the government tips the scales, by adjusting any one of the factors I listed, then the market will shift and a new prevailing wage will arise. We as a society, do not have to accept that public corporations pursue such low wage strategies. We can shift labor laws to induce companies to pursue other strategies.
|
On August 07 2013 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 05:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 02:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:You act like having a low minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And you act like significantly raising the minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And not just rich people who deserve to be hurt anyway. If people aren't making a living wage the cost is passed onto society in other means. Through welfare, through charity, through crime, through the justice system dealing with crime and so forth. People need to eat. Exploitatively low wages have negative externalities for which the company paying the wages doesn't pay. Why should the company pay for those externalities? Low wages are the result of multiple factors, most of which the company is not responsible for. So Wallmart, a company who makes billions in profit has no influence in the fact that most of there employees don't earn a living wage? Im sorry but I must have missed the lesson where you cant afford to pay employees while being one of the most profitable companies in the US. And yes this is just 1 example and sure there will be some for who your logic applies but that doesnt mean that living wages are a terrible idea. Very little influence, yes. That's an indisputable fact you are going to need to accept. Low wages don't exist because employers are mean. They exist because of consumers' lack of willingness to pay higher prices and the worker's lack of valuable skills. Walmart can have some influence there by investing in training and capital equipment, but their ability to do so is limited. Yes im sure paying there employees a few dollars more if totally going to ruin there double digit billion dollar profits.... They can easily afford to pay a living wage without increasing prices. And lack of skills is also irrelevant. As i said a while ago living wage is avoiding exploitation and ensuring a full time worker is not reliant on government aid for basic needs. There skills are irrelevant. That sort of thing matters for wages above the minimum living wage. Ps. Low wages arnt because employers are mean. There just greedy beyond regard for the needs of there follow human being.
Walmart doesn't make that much per employee (~$7,000). A living wage law would affect more than Walmart too.
PS Why don't you pick up the tab? Are you too greedy too?
|
On August 07 2013 06:02 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 05:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 02:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:You act like having a low minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And you act like significantly raising the minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And not just rich people who deserve to be hurt anyway. If people aren't making a living wage the cost is passed onto society in other means. Through welfare, through charity, through crime, through the justice system dealing with crime and so forth. People need to eat. Exploitatively low wages have negative externalities for which the company paying the wages doesn't pay. Why should the company pay for those externalities? Low wages are the result of multiple factors, most of which the company is not responsible for. So Wallmart, a company who makes billions in profit has no influence in the fact that most of there employees don't earn a living wage? Im sorry but I must have missed the lesson where you cant afford to pay employees while being one of the most profitable companies in the US. And yes this is just 1 example and sure there will be some for who your logic applies but that doesnt mean that living wages are a terrible idea. Very little influence, yes. That's an indisputable fact you are going to need to accept. Low wages don't exist because employers are mean. They exist because of consumers' lack of willingness to pay higher prices and the worker's lack of valuable skills. Walmart can have some influence there by investing in training and capital equipment, but their ability to do so is limited. Two things. (1) Walmart can greatly influence the wages it pays. Have you heard of Walmart's anti union strategies? They actively work to keep worker bargaining power down. In addition, other competing companies (Costco), pay higher wages but get more money out of each worker. Walmart chose to pursue a lowest possible wage and low employee capability strategy. That was a choice. (2) The government can affect how much Walmart pays its employees. What Walmart pays is affected by many factors. Including the ability of workers to unionize, the minimum wage, hour per week laws, laws covering overtime, competition within their industry, and most importantly the prevailing employment rates. If the government tips the scales, by adjusting any one of the factors I listed, then the market will shift and a new prevailing wage will arise. We as a society, do not have to accept that public corporations pursue such low wage strategies. We can shift labor laws to induce companies to pursue other strategies.
1) Walmart can't be like Costco, it's a different business model operating in a different market. It's just not a relevant comparison. Unions at Walmart would be a terrible idea, particularly for the poor.
2) Yeah, we should enact laws to push the prevailing wage higher, not lower as raising the minimum wage would do.
|
On August 07 2013 05:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 05:28 DoubleReed wrote:On August 07 2013 05:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 05:05 Nightfall.589 wrote:On August 07 2013 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 02:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:You act like having a low minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And you act like significantly raising the minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And not just rich people who deserve to be hurt anyway. If people aren't making a living wage the cost is passed onto society in other means. Through welfare, through charity, through crime, through the justice system dealing with crime and so forth. People need to eat. Exploitatively low wages have negative externalities for which the company paying the wages doesn't pay. Why should the company pay for those externalities? Low wages are the result of multiple factors, most of which the company is not responsible for. If your business model is so awful that you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, I don't think your business should exist. If you can afford to, but choose not to, then that right there is the poster child for factors that the company is responsible for. If you get rid of all those business models the economy will be smaller :/ Uhh... no. Stop thinking so supply sided, please. Uhh, why? The supply side doesn't exist? Hamburgers make themselves now?
Hamburgers don't get made unless people want them to get made.
I find these conversations a bit disingenuous, honestly. "Oh not the poor, defenseless, exploitative corporations!!!!"
|
On August 07 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 05:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 02:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:You act like having a low minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And you act like significantly raising the minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And not just rich people who deserve to be hurt anyway. If people aren't making a living wage the cost is passed onto society in other means. Through welfare, through charity, through crime, through the justice system dealing with crime and so forth. People need to eat. Exploitatively low wages have negative externalities for which the company paying the wages doesn't pay. Why should the company pay for those externalities? Low wages are the result of multiple factors, most of which the company is not responsible for. So Wallmart, a company who makes billions in profit has no influence in the fact that most of there employees don't earn a living wage? Im sorry but I must have missed the lesson where you cant afford to pay employees while being one of the most profitable companies in the US. And yes this is just 1 example and sure there will be some for who your logic applies but that doesnt mean that living wages are a terrible idea. Very little influence, yes. That's an indisputable fact you are going to need to accept. Low wages don't exist because employers are mean. They exist because of consumers' lack of willingness to pay higher prices and the worker's lack of valuable skills. Walmart can have some influence there by investing in training and capital equipment, but their ability to do so is limited. Yes im sure paying there employees a few dollars more if totally going to ruin there double digit billion dollar profits.... They can easily afford to pay a living wage without increasing prices. And lack of skills is also irrelevant. As i said a while ago living wage is avoiding exploitation and ensuring a full time worker is not reliant on government aid for basic needs. There skills are irrelevant. That sort of thing matters for wages above the minimum living wage. Ps. Low wages arnt because employers are mean. There just greedy beyond regard for the needs of there follow human being. Walmart doesn't make that much per employee (~$7,000). A living wage law would affect more than Walmart too. PS Why don't you pick up the tab? Are you too greedy too?
Well then they should lower the income of their top employes so that the lower ones can at least make a living.
Its absolutely rediculous to have people working full time and not making enough to live from, and then depend on the government to fill up the gap.
Or else they can raise all prices with 1%. With a 140b dollar revenu in the first quarter that would be like 6.4b a year.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/
"A report released last week by the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, estimates that the cost of Wal-Mart’s failure to adequately pay its employees could total about $5,815 per employee each and every year of employment."
"Interestingly, the federal law imposes a penalty on companies with more than 50 employees who do not provide health insurance to an employee working over 30 hours per week. The feds also penalize a company when its workers buy their own healthcare coverage on an exchange and receives a government subsidy to do so.
However, there is no penalty imposed by the federal government on a company when a company’s workers become eligible for Medicaid.
Think that this ‘oversight’ had anything to do with Wal-Mart’s early support of the Affordable Care Act?
The result is that companies like Wal-Mart are actually encouraged by the federal policy to pay their workers even smaller sums without providing healthcare benefits so that even more of their workers will qualify for Medicaid.
"
Am kinda suprised that people defend such practices.
|
On August 07 2013 06:38 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 05:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 05:28 DoubleReed wrote:On August 07 2013 05:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 05:05 Nightfall.589 wrote:On August 07 2013 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 02:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:You act like having a low minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And you act like significantly raising the minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And not just rich people who deserve to be hurt anyway. If people aren't making a living wage the cost is passed onto society in other means. Through welfare, through charity, through crime, through the justice system dealing with crime and so forth. People need to eat. Exploitatively low wages have negative externalities for which the company paying the wages doesn't pay. Why should the company pay for those externalities? Low wages are the result of multiple factors, most of which the company is not responsible for. If your business model is so awful that you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, I don't think your business should exist. If you can afford to, but choose not to, then that right there is the poster child for factors that the company is responsible for. If you get rid of all those business models the economy will be smaller :/ Uhh... no. Stop thinking so supply sided, please. Uhh, why? The supply side doesn't exist? Hamburgers make themselves now? Hamburgers don't get made unless people want them to get made. I find these conversations a bit disingenuous, honestly. "Oh not the poor, defenseless, exploitative corporations!!!!"
Hamburgers don't get made unless both the buyer and producer can agree on the price.
I don't see why these conversations are disingenuous. I'm basing my arguments on facts and logic. I'm not making emotional appeals, as you are suggesting.
On August 07 2013 06:52 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 05:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 02:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:You act like having a low minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And you act like significantly raising the minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And not just rich people who deserve to be hurt anyway. If people aren't making a living wage the cost is passed onto society in other means. Through welfare, through charity, through crime, through the justice system dealing with crime and so forth. People need to eat. Exploitatively low wages have negative externalities for which the company paying the wages doesn't pay. Why should the company pay for those externalities? Low wages are the result of multiple factors, most of which the company is not responsible for. So Wallmart, a company who makes billions in profit has no influence in the fact that most of there employees don't earn a living wage? Im sorry but I must have missed the lesson where you cant afford to pay employees while being one of the most profitable companies in the US. And yes this is just 1 example and sure there will be some for who your logic applies but that doesnt mean that living wages are a terrible idea. Very little influence, yes. That's an indisputable fact you are going to need to accept. Low wages don't exist because employers are mean. They exist because of consumers' lack of willingness to pay higher prices and the worker's lack of valuable skills. Walmart can have some influence there by investing in training and capital equipment, but their ability to do so is limited. Yes im sure paying there employees a few dollars more if totally going to ruin there double digit billion dollar profits.... They can easily afford to pay a living wage without increasing prices. And lack of skills is also irrelevant. As i said a while ago living wage is avoiding exploitation and ensuring a full time worker is not reliant on government aid for basic needs. There skills are irrelevant. That sort of thing matters for wages above the minimum living wage. Ps. Low wages arnt because employers are mean. There just greedy beyond regard for the needs of there follow human being. Walmart doesn't make that much per employee (~$7,000). A living wage law would affect more than Walmart too. PS Why don't you pick up the tab? Are you too greedy too? Well then they should lower the income of their top employes so that the lower ones can at least make a living. Its absolutely rediculous to have people working full time and not making enough to live from, and then depend on the government to fill up the gap. Or else they can raise all prices with 1%. With a 140b dollar revenu in the first quarter that would be like 6.4b a year. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/"A report released last week by the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, estimates that the cost of Wal-Mart’s failure to adequately pay its employees could total about $5,815 per employee each and every year of employment." "Interestingly, the federal law imposes a penalty on companies with more than 50 employees who do not provide health insurance to an employee working over 30 hours per week. The feds also penalize a company when its workers buy their own healthcare coverage on an exchange and receives a government subsidy to do so. However, there is no penalty imposed by the federal government on a company when a company’s workers become eligible for Medicaid. Think that this ‘oversight’ had anything to do with Wal-Mart’s early support of the Affordable Care Act? The result is that companies like Wal-Mart are actually encouraged by the federal policy to pay their workers even smaller sums without providing healthcare benefits so that even more of their workers will qualify for Medicaid. " Am kinda suprised that people defend such practices.
If walmart raises their prices, that hurts everyone's real incomes. Also, demand is elastic, so we should expect a volume decrease in goods demanded as well.
Why wouldn't someone defend Walmart's practices? They're great - particularly for the poor.
|
This situation is annything but logical.
Annyway:with 7k profit per employe (it is probably alot more on average and i think you took an example where wallmart had a particular bad year to get 7k but am not going to check this lol) and with the state having to sponser an extra 6k per employe, wallmarkt could pay all the healthcare costs and decent wage and still make profits of 1k per employe.
There are also other ways besides underpaying your workers to reduce costs and increase profits, wallmart just need become a bit more efficient in other areas of the organisation.
@below:sure i agree that that might be a bit low, but can you realy defend this situation in all honesty?
Ahold, wich also operates in the usa and as far as i know pays their workers enough to make a living and also pays for healthcare (at least in the netherlands, not sure about situation in the usa though) makes 10k/employee, 7k seems to be reasonable so then wallmart has to cut some costs in other ways.
Off course wall marts behaviour is logical,the whole situation is just absurd. Thats what i meant to say.
|
On August 07 2013 06:59 Rassy wrote:
This situation is annything but logical.
Annyway:with 7k profit per employe (it is probably alot more on average and i think you took an example where wallmart had a particular bad year to get 7k but am not going to check this lol) and with the state having to sponser an extra 6k per employe, wallmarkt could pay all the healthcare costs and decent wage and still make profits of 1k per employe.
I doubt $1K / employee would result in an acceptable profit margin.
Edit: Why isn't the situation logical?
|
United States43673 Posts
On August 07 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 05:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 02:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:You act like having a low minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And you act like significantly raising the minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And not just rich people who deserve to be hurt anyway. If people aren't making a living wage the cost is passed onto society in other means. Through welfare, through charity, through crime, through the justice system dealing with crime and so forth. People need to eat. Exploitatively low wages have negative externalities for which the company paying the wages doesn't pay. Why should the company pay for those externalities? Low wages are the result of multiple factors, most of which the company is not responsible for. So Wallmart, a company who makes billions in profit has no influence in the fact that most of there employees don't earn a living wage? Im sorry but I must have missed the lesson where you cant afford to pay employees while being one of the most profitable companies in the US. And yes this is just 1 example and sure there will be some for who your logic applies but that doesnt mean that living wages are a terrible idea. Very little influence, yes. That's an indisputable fact you are going to need to accept. Low wages don't exist because employers are mean. They exist because of consumers' lack of willingness to pay higher prices and the worker's lack of valuable skills. Walmart can have some influence there by investing in training and capital equipment, but their ability to do so is limited. Yes im sure paying there employees a few dollars more if totally going to ruin there double digit billion dollar profits.... They can easily afford to pay a living wage without increasing prices. And lack of skills is also irrelevant. As i said a while ago living wage is avoiding exploitation and ensuring a full time worker is not reliant on government aid for basic needs. There skills are irrelevant. That sort of thing matters for wages above the minimum living wage. Ps. Low wages arnt because employers are mean. There just greedy beyond regard for the needs of there follow human being. Walmart doesn't make that much per employee (~$7,000). A living wage law would affect more than Walmart too. PS Why don't you pick up the tab? Are you too greedy too?
He is picking up the tab. He and every other tax payer when they subsidise income, give tax benefits, give food stamps and so forth to people who are barely scraping by. It's cheaper than the alternative, the state steps in with the people's money because nobody else will and giving people a little is far cheaper than having them steal stuff, set fire to shit and so forth. But he's subsidising Walmart.
|
On August 07 2013 07:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 05:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 02:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:You act like having a low minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And you act like significantly raising the minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And not just rich people who deserve to be hurt anyway. If people aren't making a living wage the cost is passed onto society in other means. Through welfare, through charity, through crime, through the justice system dealing with crime and so forth. People need to eat. Exploitatively low wages have negative externalities for which the company paying the wages doesn't pay. Why should the company pay for those externalities? Low wages are the result of multiple factors, most of which the company is not responsible for. So Wallmart, a company who makes billions in profit has no influence in the fact that most of there employees don't earn a living wage? Im sorry but I must have missed the lesson where you cant afford to pay employees while being one of the most profitable companies in the US. And yes this is just 1 example and sure there will be some for who your logic applies but that doesnt mean that living wages are a terrible idea. Very little influence, yes. That's an indisputable fact you are going to need to accept. Low wages don't exist because employers are mean. They exist because of consumers' lack of willingness to pay higher prices and the worker's lack of valuable skills. Walmart can have some influence there by investing in training and capital equipment, but their ability to do so is limited. Yes im sure paying there employees a few dollars more if totally going to ruin there double digit billion dollar profits.... They can easily afford to pay a living wage without increasing prices. And lack of skills is also irrelevant. As i said a while ago living wage is avoiding exploitation and ensuring a full time worker is not reliant on government aid for basic needs. There skills are irrelevant. That sort of thing matters for wages above the minimum living wage. Ps. Low wages arnt because employers are mean. There just greedy beyond regard for the needs of there follow human being. Walmart doesn't make that much per employee (~$7,000). A living wage law would affect more than Walmart too. PS Why don't you pick up the tab? Are you too greedy too? He is picking up the tab. He and every other tax payer when they subsidise income, give tax benefits, give food stamps and so forth to people who are barely scraping by. It's cheaper than the alternative, the state steps in with the people's money because nobody else will and giving people a little is far cheaper than having them steal stuff, set fire to shit and so forth. But he's subsidising Walmart.
By what definition of subsidy? Definitions liberals made up for the singular purpose of political propaganda don't count 
|
If, all other things being equal, Walmart was paying its employees 100$ less, JonnyBNoHo would still be arguing that they couldn't afford to pay them more.
|
On August 07 2013 08:11 kwizach wrote:
If, all other things being equal, Walmart was paying its employees 100$ less, JonnyBNoHo would still be arguing that they couldn't afford to pay them more.
What Walmart can and cannot "afford" is of very small consequence to my arguments.
|
On August 07 2013 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 08:11 kwizach wrote:
If, all other things being equal, Walmart was paying its employees 100$ less, JonnyBNoHo would still be arguing that they couldn't afford to pay them more. What Walmart can and cannot "afford" is of very small consequence to my arguments.
Actually, you argued that the wages were this low because consumers would not pay higher prices, while the point is that even with current prices Walmart could perfectly afford to pay its employees slightly higher wages.
|
On August 07 2013 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 08:11 kwizach wrote:
If, all other things being equal, Walmart was paying its employees 100$ less, JonnyBNoHo would still be arguing that they couldn't afford to pay them more. What Walmart can and cannot "afford" is of very small consequence to my arguments.
As are most facts, I assume. You're arguing that minimum wage and any increases would hurt the poor, even though minimum wage has stagnated over he past two decades, not kept up with inflation, all while the poor continue to become poorer.
I have to assume that by your baseless logic on this, you feel the minimum wage should never have existed at all. Thus Walmart (and any other company) could pay their employees as little as they can afford, which would then lead to Walmart selling their products for even cheaper and they'd grow as a company, which would trickle down to benefit of us all!
|
On August 07 2013 08:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 08:11 kwizach wrote:
If, all other things being equal, Walmart was paying its employees 100$ less, JonnyBNoHo would still be arguing that they couldn't afford to pay them more. What Walmart can and cannot "afford" is of very small consequence to my arguments. Actually, you argued that the wages were this low because consumers would not pay higher prices, while the point is that even with current prices Walmart could perfectly afford to pay its employees slightly higher wages.
First, that argument was over minimum wages in general, not Walmart specific, and for much higher amounts than $100/yr/employee.
Secondly, it depends on what definition of "can afford" you are using.
On August 07 2013 08:34 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 08:11 kwizach wrote:
If, all other things being equal, Walmart was paying its employees 100$ less, JonnyBNoHo would still be arguing that they couldn't afford to pay them more. What Walmart can and cannot "afford" is of very small consequence to my arguments. As are most facts, I assume. You're arguing that minimum wage and any increases would hurt the poor, even though minimum wage has stagnated over he past two decades, not kept up with inflation, all while the poor continue to become poorer. I have to assume that by your baseless logic on this, you feel the minimum wage should never have existed at all. Thus Walmart (and any other company) could pay their employees as little as they can afford, which would then lead to Walmart selling their products for even cheaper and they'd grow as a company, which would trickle down to benefit of us all!
The real disposable income of the poor has increased substantially over the past few decades, even though real wages have stagnated and, at times, declined. This is because wage subsidies, championed by the right as well as Clinton during his presidency, have been so successful.
I'm not going so extreme as to argue against minimum wages altogether (though maybe I should). Walmart generally pays above minimum wage anyways, so repealing minimum wage laws wouldn't affect their workers much.
As for the benefits of Walmart in general, I suggest you read "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story" written by Jason Furman - Obama's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors (link).
|
On August 07 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 08:32 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2013 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 08:11 kwizach wrote:
If, all other things being equal, Walmart was paying its employees 100$ less, JonnyBNoHo would still be arguing that they couldn't afford to pay them more. What Walmart can and cannot "afford" is of very small consequence to my arguments. Actually, you argued that the wages were this low because consumers would not pay higher prices, while the point is that even with current prices Walmart could perfectly afford to pay its employees slightly higher wages. First, that argument was over minimum wages in general, not Walmart specific, and for much higher amounts than $100/yr/employee. Secondly, it depends on what definition of "can afford" you are using.
No, that argument was over Walmart low wages, as you can see by scrolling up the page.
The same definition you are using when you suggest prices would need to go up for wages to also go up.
|
United States43673 Posts
On August 07 2013 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 07:51 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 05:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On August 07 2013 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2013 03:25 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2013 02:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:You act like having a low minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And you act like significantly raising the minimum wage has absolutely no cost to real people. And not just rich people who deserve to be hurt anyway. If people aren't making a living wage the cost is passed onto society in other means. Through welfare, through charity, through crime, through the justice system dealing with crime and so forth. People need to eat. Exploitatively low wages have negative externalities for which the company paying the wages doesn't pay. Why should the company pay for those externalities? Low wages are the result of multiple factors, most of which the company is not responsible for. So Wallmart, a company who makes billions in profit has no influence in the fact that most of there employees don't earn a living wage? Im sorry but I must have missed the lesson where you cant afford to pay employees while being one of the most profitable companies in the US. And yes this is just 1 example and sure there will be some for who your logic applies but that doesnt mean that living wages are a terrible idea. Very little influence, yes. That's an indisputable fact you are going to need to accept. Low wages don't exist because employers are mean. They exist because of consumers' lack of willingness to pay higher prices and the worker's lack of valuable skills. Walmart can have some influence there by investing in training and capital equipment, but their ability to do so is limited. Yes im sure paying there employees a few dollars more if totally going to ruin there double digit billion dollar profits.... They can easily afford to pay a living wage without increasing prices. And lack of skills is also irrelevant. As i said a while ago living wage is avoiding exploitation and ensuring a full time worker is not reliant on government aid for basic needs. There skills are irrelevant. That sort of thing matters for wages above the minimum living wage. Ps. Low wages arnt because employers are mean. There just greedy beyond regard for the needs of there follow human being. Walmart doesn't make that much per employee (~$7,000). A living wage law would affect more than Walmart too. PS Why don't you pick up the tab? Are you too greedy too? He is picking up the tab. He and every other tax payer when they subsidise income, give tax benefits, give food stamps and so forth to people who are barely scraping by. It's cheaper than the alternative, the state steps in with the people's money because nobody else will and giving people a little is far cheaper than having them steal stuff, set fire to shit and so forth. But he's subsidising Walmart. By what definition of subsidy? Definitions liberals made up for the singular purpose of political propaganda don't count
If you're going to use the American polarised meaning of liberal could you at least go "libruhl" so we know it's being used as a slur and has no bearing of actual Liberalism.
Governments, in theory, attempt to solve social problems because they are called upon to do so. For example when there is crime they are expected to put systems in place to stop the crime and uphold the social contract, such as police and prisons. These things are paid for by the people through taxation. Corporations can create negative social externalities knowing that these will be seen as the government's obligation to fix through general taxation, even if the overall cost of doing that is higher than if the corporation paid for it. After all, the corporation has no social responsibility, only a responsibility to its shareholder, it isn't seeking an efficient solution to the problems of society, rather it seeks just to make money. The interests of a corporation are served by allowing the government to spend $2 fixing a problem that was created by the corporation saving $1 because that $2, or at least most of it, wasn't funded by their taxes.
Of course all corporations do this so actually it works out that they're fucking themselves and society over by doing it but that's game theory for you. The optimal solution for their shareholders is for everyone but them to act responsibly.
Anyway, because the government cannot simply pass the buck on the way corporations can they are forced to address the issue. This is, in effect, a subsidy. If all government aid were to stop on a given day the employees of Walmart would not continue to work there, it would not be worth it, they could not feed their families on the wage, afford daycare for their kids, afford healthcare, save money for their kid's education so they have a better future or any of the rest of it. Rather than choose to work at Walmart they'd choose to loot Walmart because their life is shit and Walmart would lose its government aid, the promise of a state enforced social contract. But even though Walmart has more to lose should that happen in social brinksmanship the government is the more responsible party, it blinks first, if someone has to pay it'll pay. The negative externalities of corporate practices are paid for by the general population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
