This bothers me (credit, loan, employment)

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv

I believe a lot of people on government entitlements don't have the ability to understand delayed gratification. They have a hard time dealing with day to day life much less planning for the future. Around 9 percent of the population has an I.Q. less than 80. Some of these people will succeed, however most will not. A majority of them will be stuck in low wage jobs for the rest of their lives. It just seems to me that Victoria's Secret paying so low is an example of how big corporations aren't socially responsible anymore. There was a time when low skilled persons made a decent living. It most certainly got out of hand for some industries (automobile for certain) however I am very concerned about the lack of pay for low skilled workers. We are getting to the point where we have no choice but to keep a lot of people and families who work full time on some sort of government assistance. They can't make it otherwise. I know it isn't true so much in Texas, but the paradigm shift is definitely to the left socially overall in this country. If the big corporations can't take care of people, it is going to be up to the government. And if the government doesn't step in, major cities will have areas that resemble "Slumdog Millionaire" shanty towns. Of course, if the government does step in, it's going to cost a fortune in taxes. This could bring down the standard of living for those who rightfully earned theirs. And as liberal as I am, the bringing down of standard of living for those who earned it actually bothers me more than the minimum wage pay.

Maybe the real issue is I read too much into things.

You've set up a logical fallacy by asserting "If the big corporations can't take care of people, it is going to be up to the government." The implication is that there are no other institutions aside from the corporation or government in society that can or will assist people. This is false.

The most important unit in society is the nuclear family. From there springs associations that are voluntary, i.e. religious institutions such as the church or synagogue, or civic institutions (Rotary, Shriners, etc.) Government compels participation through hegemony that ultimately rests on power derived literally through the barrel of a gun, and government that exchanges favors/gifts/entitlements for votes is not only inherently corrupt, but ultimately harms society by creating and exacerbating an underclass dependent on the government for food, shelter, health care, etc.

As far as a corporation goes, its only responsibility is to earn its shareholders a profit and obey the laws set forth by the governments whose jurisdiction the company dwells in. A corporation has no "social responsibility." One may argue that the individuals who make up the shareholders have a social responsibility, but now you are talking about morals and values that (I believe) should not be legislated.

The bottom line is that society benefits from a grass roots hierarchy (individual--> nuclear family --> extended family --> voluntary association group) much more than a top down system where Big Government dictates.

[crbcrbrgv]

I understand your point, but if families are getting poorer, donations to churches and other charities go down. It could go from corporations to government rather quickly the way things are going.

[Thaskateguy]

Many service industries, including retail sales, pay very little. I worked in those fields for years, and with out tips, would have staved. Not good career choices, unless you know sombody, or are part of the Family.

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv

I understand your point, but if families are getting poorer, donations to churches and other charities go down. It could go from corporations to government rather quickly the way things are going.

Government taking from those with the means to give to charity has the greatest (negative) effect. The Federal Government is a bloated, wasteful entity, yet by reaching even deeper in to the pockets of those who already are taxed (and give to charity) the most, it only exacerbates the problem as opposed to solving it.

[EasilyAmused]

Originally Posted by rb4browns

Government taking from those with the means to give to charity has the greatest (negative) effect. The Federal Government is a bloated, wasteful entity, yet by reaching even deeper in to the pockets of those who already are taxed (and give to charity) the most, it only exacerbates the problem as opposed to solving it.

Yes, but they get to punish the Mr. Deep Pockets in the process...so that makes it ok.

[MIASLTX]

my college kid works for a high end retailer (uk based) and started at $8/hr been with 2 years and is approaching $10.25/hr. she also transferred job from houston store to san antonio without a hitch. hth.

[SoHoVe]

I really believe that higher wages in unskilled positions only ecourages people to remain unskilled and gives them an excuse not to better themselves thru higher education.

[theSUBlime]

Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv

This may not even be a "Houston" topic per se, but it is occurring in Houston. As many of you know, I am a teacher looking for a job who currently works as a general handyman for many of the retailers. I was at a Victoria's Secret (we get a lot of work from them) when I started to talk to some of the girls. My pay is pretty lousy, but not the worst. They were telling me that Victoria's Secret starts out at 7.25. Also, I was told this is common at most of the high end retailers around Houston. Am I the only one bothered by the fact that a high end retailer such as Victoria's Secret pays their employees minimum wage? For what they charge for their clothing, it almost seems criminal to me.

Well, when you work in retail you realize how sucky it is. First off, these types of business take advantage of how badly young woman (and teenagers) would love to work there and have access to discounts--you get blinded. And while I realize that retail is difficult, because I've worked at several stores like Express (8.25/hr), at Abercrombie & Fitch ($6.75 in Houston/ $9.00 in Boston), the salary is generally reflective of the type of service that is expected. I mean, you are expected to give great service at all of your retail jobs, but the A&F I worked in in Boston was a flagship store so we were always on, as the corporation president always made unexpected visits there.

I'm not gonna lie--at the Houston A&F location I really didn't say much beyond "Hey, what's goin' on!" And you also have to take into account the Houston location, the market here for many retail corporations is often deemed more necessity-based (we're the 4th largest city) than dollar-based (NYC, LA, Miami etc), though there are very high-end shoppers in Houston, we don't have as much high end dollar pull as a lot of other cities our size.

Also at Express, I was always busy and I had a lot more to juggle than size checks and folding shirts--I actually put together whole outfits for people, whereas many of the outfits in A&F were pretty interchangeable...what went with one would go with another. I also had a huge ass radio attached to my head and was trained to push credit sales.

If I worked clothing retail again, I would definitely want to go for something high-end. The pace is much slower, less clients/customers and more individualized sales techniques and thus higher pay (oftentimes commission), repeat customers/networking.

[crbcrbrgv]

SoHove, that's true, but it also could be argued that it punishes those who don't have the ability to educate themselves.

[crbcrbrgv]

Originally Posted by theSUBlime

Well, when you work in retail you realize how sucky it is. First off, these types of business take advantage of how badly young woman (and teenagers) would love to work there and have access to discounts--you get blinded. And while I realize that retail is difficult, because I've worked at several stores like Express (8.25/hr), at Abercrombie & Fitch ($6.75 in Houston/ $9.00 in Boston), the salary is generally reflective of the type of service that is expected. I mean, you are expected to give great service at all of your retail jobs, but the A&F I worked in in Boston was a flagship store so we were always on, as the corporation president always made unexpected visits there.

I'm not gonna lie--at the Houston A&F location I really didn't say much beyond "Hey, what's goin' on!" And you also have to take into account the Houston location, the market here for many retail corporations is often deemed more necessity-based (we're the 4th largest city) than dollar-based (NYC, LA, Miami etc), though there are very high-end shoppers in Houston, we don't have as much high end dollar pull as a lot of other cities our size.

Also at Express, I was always busy and I had a lot more to juggle than size checks and folding shirts--I actually put together whole outfits for people, whereas many of the outfits in A&F were pretty interchangeable...what went with one would go with another. I also had a huge as head radio attached to my head and was trained to push credit sales.

If I worked clothing retail again, I would definitely want to go for something high-end. The pace is much slower, less clients/customers and more individualized sales techniques and thus higher pay.

See, that's just it. These 7.25 an hour people at VS are doing all that. And the credit card pushing makes me sick. The corporations profit tremendously from these cards yet the employees get nothing for opening accounts. To me, that's a good example of corporate greed. Also, people keep making the point that "you don't have to work at a job that pays that low." A lot of people do. They have no choice.