Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I said raise the wage for certain stores to about 9hr. Cutting back on paying top executives is not going to hurt much, if at all.
Instead of taking 2 vacations a year take one and keep your employees motivated and out of rotation.
Allot of this not wanting to pay more is really only greed.
That would result in a deadweight loss to the country of $180k/hour in net economic spending that would disappear, if trends in minimum wage increases hold historically accurate. Is that worth it?
That isn't a matter of greed. That is a matter of looking at things from a macroeconomic point of view.
So you are saying the "massive government handout that subsidize's walmart employee costs" is mostly a result of each employee's personal decisions?
I think it's a circular problem (on thing exists, because another thing exists,because another thing exists). Walmart needs workers that are willing to work for them because they made bad choices. I mean even working at Walmart is a bad choice. It's why you and I have a degree. This is the worker walmart profits off of.
It's why I want to temporarily normalize the system, and remove the aid. For example, I had a roommate that used to complain about everything. Kinda like what you described in a previous post. The whole time he lived with me, everything was everyone else fault. He moved out and moved into an apt by himself. After doing so, it took some time, but he started to realize that all the things he blamed everyone else for was really his fault. There was no one else to blame; he had to become sufficient.
The people we are talking about, many of them will not become self sufficient, smarter, skilled, or want to better themselves unless they have too.
All that being said, I know people that work at these types of jobs and are happy. If that's how that person feels, I think they should be paid a liveable wage for getting up and going to work full time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
So why should Walmart/Target/McDonald's change because it's employees make poor life/financial decisions and need govt. help? You said it yourself that a single person could live off of min. wage.
I said that regarding the 65 hour work week. I think that's unreasonable, but that's a different discussion.
Ethically speaking, Walmart/Target/McDonald's should pay the people that are responsible for their profits enough money to live off of. I think they have a responsibility. We all agree that these people are low-skill and uneducated. But, I think at the very least they owe the people that are willing to get up and come to work for 40 hours a week, a wage they can live off of. If that person happens to be a single mom, or a dad that needs to pay child support, so be it.
I don't think these companies should pay for someone to have excessive amounts of children, but I think asking for them to pay someone enough to support one child is reasonable. Any more than one, and yes you have some life choices to pay for. And again, these are the characteristics of your low skilled, uneducated, aid collecting minimum wage worker.
That would result in a deadweight loss to the country of $180 million/hour in net economic spending that would disappear, if trends in minimum wage increases hold historically accurate. Is that worth it?
That isn't a matter of greed. That is a matter of looking at things from a macroeconomic point of view.
Are you a CEO? If not, why do you think they should be paid so much?
I said raise the wage for certain stores to about 9hr.
Cutting to the chase... that sort of thinking is FantasyLand.
Let alone the practical issues of getting such through Congress...
all it would accomplish is to leave the unemployable leftovers for small companies.
You would have even more unemployed than you do now.
One last time: those worth $9/hr (or $11 or $20) are pretty much getting it already.
If you want to focus some sort of penalty onto those super large corporations
and their fat cat stockholders... that is a whole other set of discussions.
It's probably one worth having but not anything to do with MW manipulations.
Yes you did give a budget. One that required working 65 hours per week. The thing is, a single person who is not a parent, could make that work. A single person, wouldn't be receiving a lot of government aid. But a single parent would receive aid, and would not be able to work 65 hours per week. The point of this thread is to deal with the massive government handout that subsidize walmart's employee cost.
That's not a budget. That's a prescription for poor health and a terrible personal life. Oh but these people who work at Walmart and Mc Donald's are basically untalented and ill educated and the tasks they perform have been derided by several of these posters. So, in their world, let them work themselves to death!
I am really horrified by the snide and arrogant behavior of many of these posters. Good for you candycanechick, for standing up to these Ebeneezer Scrooges.
Are you a CEO? If not, why do you think they should be paid so much?
Because rewards add value at the marginal level, not absolute. A healthy economy dictates that it does in fact take more in terms of absolute dollars to attract a top talent than it does lower level. The curve of wages/employable person is not linear, and in reality never has been. They are paid for the value they bring. If a CEO makes $11 million, but increases share price by $3, more often than not (depending on the company, obviously) he has more than earned his keep. If he/she didn't deserve that much money, someone else who was making less would step up, go after the job for less money and get it.
I could ask you the same question: why do you deserve the money you make?
You also never addressed my other point. Are you comfortable permanently taking $503k/hour out of the economy for your plan to go into effect?
Quote:
Originally Posted by warren zee
That's not a budget. That's a prescription for poor health and a terrible personal life. Oh but these people who work at Walmart and Mc Donald's are basically untalented and ill educated and the tasks they perform have been derided by several of these posters. So, in their world, let them work themselves to death!
I am really horrified by the snide and arrogant behavior of many of these posters. Good for you candycanechick, for standing up to these Ebeneezer Scrooges.
Just stopped by to show my support.
My life WAS terrible for the years I followed that budget. It also allowed me to make something of myself. I sacrificed three years of my life so that I could buy a house in my 20's and build the skills to prove I deserved a great job. Is it arrogant to tell someone to suck it up for a few years and make something of themselves? Apparently you think so.
and your not getting it either. Aid will always be necessary. Mental illnesses, physical disabilities. You can't just remove aid.
I think people with the conditions you describe should get aid. I don't think people capable of working full time should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
So you raise the min. wage. Say to 15 bucks an hour. At the same time you reduce hours, so now as a company I find a way to work with fewer hours. So now I don't need as many people. Who hires the people I laid off? Who hires the millions of currently unemployed?
I answered this already.
1.) those people move and find a job somewhere else
2.) those people go get skills or an education
3.) State and local governments *entice* corporations to open up factories in their areas to deal with all the unemployed
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
Either you are talking about a complete govt. take over of all companies operating in the US where they are forced to employ people or your idea is not feasible.
I'm not even sure what your saying here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
Anyway I'm likely done here, you keep changing the target. This topic has changed so many times.
I'm responding to your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
1st it was can they afford to pay all workers a living wage (which you have yet to define). Many said no, not without changing their business model. Then you changed it to should they be obligated to, now you are talking about the need to remove all govt. aid.
Can you not reload the first page of this thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by candycanechick
Hello,
Can places like Walmart make profit while paying EVERY employee enough money to live off of without government aid?
If possible, please state why and a reference for your opinion.
A liveable wage being 150-200% for the federal poverty limit for a 2 person family, 24k-31k per year, or $12 to $15 per hour. This meets the requirement to not require government aid. ( Food stamps require the person make less than 130% of the federal poverty guideline) This question is referring to full time workers.
That's not a budget. That's a prescription for poor health and a terrible personal life. Oh but these people who work at Walmart and Mc Donald's are basically untalented and ill educated and the tasks they perform have been derided by several of these posters. So, in their world, let them work themselves to death!
I am really horrified by the snide and arrogant behavior of many of these posters. Good for you candycanechick, for standing up to these Ebeneezer Scrooges.
Just stopped by to show my support.
The fact remains we are arguing about 3-4% of the hourly working population. The average wage for a full-time hourly employee at Walmart is $12.83 an hour.
Very few people are actually making minimum wage (1.2% of hourly employees).
12.83*40*52=$26,686.40
If I have a wife that earns that as well we have a median level household income.
For someone with a limited skillset to marry another person with a limited skillset and have the potential to earn as much as 50% of the households in the US working a no stress job for 40 hours a week seems like a pretty awesome deal to me.
Costco and Walmart are two completely different business models. Why don't people get this.
Costco is a warehouse type business they need very few employees to run the business. Which is providing more of an economic benefit to society?
Company 1:
- Pays the average hourly employee $17 an hour
- Has 100 employees that work an average of 35 hours a week
17*100*35 = $59,500 paid out each week in wages.
Company 2:
- Pays the average hourly employee $12 an hour
- Has 350 employees that work an average of 30 hours a week.
12*350*30 = $126,000 paid out each week in wages.
Average # of SKUs in a Walmart Supercenter: 141,000
Average # of SKUs in a Costco: 3,750
Which do you think takes more man hours to stock, face, maintain, etc.?
Walmart doesn't have 350 employees at one location that work an average of 30 hours a week. Walmart hires "temporary" workers (that work part-time hours) that have to reapply for their position every 180 days. In fact, that business model has worked so BADLY for them, that they've recently made news because they're starting to move part-time employees to full-time positions, and are doing away with the temp workers (who will at the very least, be part-time). This is a good article: Wal-Mart Returning To Full-Time Workers-Obamacare Not Such A Job Killer After All? - Forbes Sales plummeted after they started using all part-time and temp workers. They're going back to having full-time employees with benefits because it's a better business model. Home Depot tried the part-time workers, too (to save money on benefits), and it didn't work for them either.
So how will Walmart handle having full-time employees who receive benefits? Well, apparently it will help to increase their sales. And by the way, employees that are full-time with benefits are more likely to pay taxes (because they're less likely to get it all back at the end of the year), and less likely to need government help - about 80% of Walmart employees qualify for, and accept, government food stamps (Daily Kos: Walmart: America's real 'Welfare Queen') - that amount should drop (by a lot) once employees are full-time.
1.) those people move and find a job somewhere else
2.) those people go get skills or an education
3.) State and local governments *entice* corporations to open up factories in their areas to deal with all the unemployed
1. Move with what money? There are people on this forum every day saying they would move if they had the funds (this requires first and last month's rent, a good credit score, a car, etc.).
2. Get skills or an education...nice 1 You are assuming either they don't already have any of that 2. they aren't currently doing that 3. That they want to do that or 4. They can afford to do that.
3. They entice them by doing what? Avoiding taxes for a few years like many states have done for Amazon? So you don't want the govt. helping these evil corporations by subsidizing wages, but you are completely fine with the govt. helping these evil corporations by providing tax subsidies, ok that makes perfect sense........................
Quote:
Originally Posted by candycanechick
Can you not reload the first page of this thread?
Why would I go back to the 1st page when I read the first 5 on Friday. I picked up where I left off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisfitBanana
Walmart doesn't have 350 employees at one location that work an average of 30 hours a week. Walmart hires "temporary" workers (that work part-time hours) that have to reapply for their position every 180 days. In fact, that business model has worked so BADLY for them, that they've recently made news because they're starting to move part-time employees to full-time positions, and are doing away with the temp workers (who will at the very least, be part-time). This is a good article: Wal-Mart Returning To Full-Time Workers-Obamacare Not Such A Job Killer After All? - Forbes Sales plummeted after they started using all part-time and temp workers. They're going back to having full-time employees with benefits because it's a better business model. Home Depot tried the part-time workers, too (to save money on benefits), and it didn't work for them either.
So how will Walmart handle having full-time employees who receive benefits? Well, apparently it will help to increase their sales. And by the way, employees that are full-time with benefits are more likely to pay taxes (because they're less likely to get it all back at the end of the year), and less likely to need government help - about 80% of Walmart employees qualify for, and accept, government food stamps (Daily Kos: Walmart: America's real 'Welfare Queen') - that amount should drop (by a lot) once employees are full-time.
Even if you say they average 20 hours a week, which I find really low it still provides a larger economic benefit. So my point still holds true. It doesn't break even until you get down to around 14 hours a week. I was working off of the data I have seen that shows just under 60% of their store employees are full-time.
350*.58 = 203 employees in a given supercenter work at least 35 hours a week.
35*203=7105
15*147=2205
If you use those #s the average employee would work 26.6 hours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
