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.
The discussion was about full-time workers. You keep changing the goal-posts here.
I am not changing the topic.
I am sourcing your point and putting it into perspective.You missed the point that $12.78/hour "includes department managers who are paid hourly and probably earn a good deal more than cashiers, stockers and sales associates."
I am sourcing your point and putting it into perspective.You missed the point that $12.78/hour "includes department managers who are paid hourly and probably earn a good deal more than cashiers, stockers and sales associates."
ok I am lost then. They don't count as employees of Walmart? Is that not a position that you can work your way up to? You do realize there are about 15 departments at Walmart and about 2-3 department/asst. department managers for each department.
I have worked at Walmart and deparment managers are not like dept. managers at other stores. They are essentially glorified supervisors, so they really don't make that much (probably 14-15 an hour to start). Zone managers are what you are thinking about when you think of traditional dept. managers from other groceries/retailers.
ok I am lost then. They don't count as employees of Walmart? Is that not a position that you can work your way up to? You do realize there are about 15 departments at Walmart and about 2-3 department/asst. department managers for each department.
I am including management as employees; I'm not sure why you are saying I am not?
But, we are talking about the LOWEST paid worker. That's why $12.78/hour is skewed. It included Management. I mean the AVERAGE wage is even more than that if you include the CEO and the executive staff. But, we are not talking about the AVERAGE we are talking about the LOWEST paid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
I have worked at Walmart and deparment managers are not like dept. managers at other stores. They are essentially glorified supervisors, so they really don't make that much (probably 14-15 an hour to start). Zone managers are what you are thinking about when you think of traditional dept. managers from other groceries/retailers.
This is not what I am saying. Again, I was just sourcing the $12.78/hour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by candycanechick
I saw this article, and your failing to mention a very important piece of it.
"Walmart's $12.78 figure probably presents a misleading picture of what store workers actually make. As the company itself notes, the $12.78 calculation excludes part-time workers, and it includes department managers who are paid hourly and probably earn a good deal more than cashiers, stockers and sales associates."
Your excluding part time workers, and including management.
The part in " " is a direct copy and paste from the article that demonstrates average pay is $12.78/hour. It is not my position. It is a source for YOUR CLAIM regarding Walmart pay in (you post) post #198.
You keep discussing min. wage. I have already shown you almost no one is making min. wage. You are arguing for 704k people in a workforce of over a 100 million. Why? Are you arguing low wages or min. wage? Which is it?
I am arguing for 704k people in a workforce of over a 100 million because:
1.) everyone working full time deserves a liable wage,
2.) especially when 60% of people *potentially* collecting aid work at one company. That has the money to pay them and chooses not too.
3.) 704,000 people*($500/person)/(month in aid)* 12 months=~$4.2 billion
That being said, now I have a new question and will be posting another thread.
I am including management as employees; I'm not sure why you are saying I am not?
But, we are talking about the LOWEST paid worker. That's why $12.78/hour is skewed. It included Management. I mean the AVERAGE wage is even more than that if you include the CEO and the executive staff. But, we are not talking about the AVERAGE we are talking about the LOWEST paid.
*Losing me...*
So can Walmart afford to bring the other ~45% of full time people that aren't at 12 dollars an hour to 12 dollars an hour? Probably. How do you think the people that had earned 12 dollars an hour would respond to every full time employee being brought up to their wage? They could just off-set it by removing raises from these people for a number of years.
I'm not sure as a (hypothetical) part-time employee that had been there for 10 years but only wanted part-time hours I would find that particularly fair.
So is it economically feasible sure for only part-time because over 50% of them are already over your threshold. Would it increase employee morale, engagement, perceptions of fairness? I would say no to that question.
From a business perspective does it make sense to make a minority of your employees happy and alienate the majority?
Quote:
Originally Posted by candycanechick
The part in " " is a direct copy and paste from the article that demonstrates average pay is $12.78/hour. It is not my position. It is a source for YOUR CLAIM regarding Walmart pay in (you post) post #198.
Does that make sense?
So are you saying that you believe anyone that wants to work 40 hours a week should be entitled to 25k? They should start out their? So am I concluding correctly that you believe the min. wage should be decided based upon what the poverty line is for a single mother with dependent(s)?
My point from post 198 was that barely anyone actually makes min. wage and that # is drastically reduced to almost nothing when you take into account people who actually work full time. You seem to be under this impression that min. wage is common. It is not even close to common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by candycanechick
I am arguing for 704k people in a workforce of over a 100 million because:
1.) everyone working full time deserves a liable wage,
2.) especially when 60% of people *potentially* collecting aid work at one company. That has the money to pay them and chooses not too.
3.) 704,000 people*($500/person)/(month in aid)* 12 months=~$4.2 billion
That being said, now I have a new question and will be posting another thread.
Your going to have to show me where you are getting these #s from. Now it is 60%? So now 90% (60%/67% that are between 25-65) of the people that work at Walmart that are between the ages of 25-65 rely on welfare?
Your # keeps rising. You are already to a select few hourly's and management. Pretty soon everyone that isn't a store manager will need it.
2. This is just class-envy. Someone in africa living on $2/week could say the same about you.
I disagree. There is only so much money one can require (require meaning personal preference) to live, and be logical. Then the hit the "eccentric" point, and do things like collect Yachts (that will never be used). Or they invest it. does anyone know if there is a CEO household budget online anywhere? I just think it would be interesting to see.
Also, CEO set the pay for many employees. Right now, several companies I know have "pay tables" and max raise percentages. I find this contradictory with the argument of obtaining the best talent. I mean what's good about having the best CEO and not the best Engineer?
I think that it's better to have an Ok CEO and amazing everyone else, than it is to have an amazing CEO and an ok everyone else. (WAGE GAP)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
How is that a weird concept? If a person can't justify their paycheck, why should they get one?
Is this a "generational" issue? For example Gen X, was able to get away with saying "I have a college degee and I am worth $X" and it worked. When Gen Y says "I'm worth $Y", they get laughed at, told to suck it up, and remember to ask "Do you want fry's (OR whip cream) with that?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
I am a firm believer that if a person takes 100% responsibility for his/her own situation, they can find a way out of it. Most people simply blame others, blame the economy, blame the neighborhood they were born into, etc. I don't believe in placing blame on anything I can't directly control.
How is that ever going to happen as long as we live in this welfare system?
quote:::You keep discussing min. wage. I have already shown you almost no one is making min. wage. You are arguing for 704k people in a workforce of over a 100 million. Why? Are you arguing low wages or min. wage? Which is it?[/quote]
quote:::You keep discussing min. wage. I have already shown you almost no one is making min. wage. You are arguing for 704k people in a workforce of over a 100 million. Why? Are you arguing low wages or min. wage? Which is it?
that's less than 1% of the working population. Roughly 1 in 200 working adults make min. wage. If we directed policy to help that percentage of the US for everything we would have a lot of work to do.
So can Walmart afford to bring the other ~45% of full time people that aren't at 12 dollars an hour to 12 dollars an hour?
^This^ is the question I am asking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
Probably. How do you think the people that had earned 12 dollars an hour would respond to every full time employee being brought up to their wage? They could just off-set it by removing raises from these people for a number of years.
I think is sucks, but:
1.) no one said life was fair
2.) this is the correct place to insert arguments about the person needing to go better themselves
3.) refer to my postings regarding motivation and then refer to point 2
Again, my point is to end the aid, and the price inflation that it causes. I would also like to FORCE people to learn how to be financially stable, which isn't possible in the current system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
I'm not sure as a (hypothetical) part-time employee that had been there for 10 years but only wanted part-time hours I would find that particularly fair.
See point 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
So is it economically feasible sure for only part-time because over 50% of them are already over your threshold. Would it increase employee morale, engagement, perceptions of fairness? I would say no to that question.
No one said that they should get motivation. As already discussed motivation is an internal thing, not an external thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
From a business perspective does it make sense to make a minority of your employees happy and alienate the majority?
Idk where you are getting this.
AVERAGE=SUM OF ALL HOURLY RATES/ TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURLY EMPLOYEES
Considering that in that AVERAGE of $12.78, there are multiple people making greater than $15/hour. Biased on how averages work, more people make less than 12.78 than people that make more than 12.78. Therefore, you would have more happy employees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
So are you saying that you believe anyone that *wants* to work 40 hours a week should be entitled to 25k?
Wants, no. Does, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
They should start out their?
Yes starting pay should be such that a person working full time should be able to afford to live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
So am I concluding correctly that you believe the min. wage should be decided based upon what the poverty line is for a single mother with dependent(s)?
I think minimum wage should be such that a person (with ONE) dependent makes enough to support basic needs without government aid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
My point from post 198 was that barely anyone actually makes min. wage and that # is drastically reduced to almost nothing when you take into account people who actually work full time. You seem to be under this impression that min. wage is common. It is not even close to common.
I know that minimum wage is not common.
Removing the ethics of living off the government, I know several people that can demonstrate that it is financially better for them to NOT work, than it is for them to work at a minimum wage job. When this is done, it proves that our system is "praising" people for not working. THIS IS ETHICALLY WRONG. There is NO GOOD REASON it should EVER be better to not work than to work (for a person physically capable of working). But yet, this is where we are.
Your going to have to show me where you are getting these #s from. Now it is 60%? So now 90% (60%/67% that are between 25-65) of the people that work at Walmart that are between the ages of 25-65 rely on welfare?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
Your # keeps rising. You are already to a select few hourly's and management. Pretty soon everyone that isn't a store manager will need it.
I think is sucks, but:
1.) no one said life was fair
2.) this is the correct place to insert arguments about the person needing to go better themselves
3.) refer to my postings regarding motivation and then refer to point 2
Again, my point is to end the aid, and the price inflation that it causes. I would also like to FORCE people to learn how to be financially stable, which isn't possible in the current system.
1. See I would say the same thing. Life isn't fair. It's not my job to provide you enough money to support a dependent. It's my job to pay you for the work you do. If that is 20k/yr find a roommate, take a bus to work,etc.
Again I lived off of 15k/yr so it is possible to live off of min. wage. So your point that every person should be able to live off the wage they are paid is fulfilled. A full time worker that makes min. wage would earn 15k/yr. I actually earned a little less than that as a grad student.
5k/semester as an instructor for spring and fall semesters.
4k as an instructor in the summer session.
Total 14k. If averaged out over 40 hours a week that is $6.73 an hour.
Had 2 roommates.
Rent with cable, electric, water, etc. was $420
Food was: $200
Car Insurance: 60
Gas: 90-100 (rode my bike a lot)
Brought home a little over 1k/month. Right there I am looking at 700. That still leaves me another 300 to do other stuff with per month.
Quote:
Idk where you are getting this.
AVERAGE=SUM OF ALL HOURLY RATES/ TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURLY EMPLOYEES
Considering that in that AVERAGE of $12.78, there are multiple people making greater than $15/hour. Biased on how averages work, more people make less than 12.78 than people that make more than 12.78. Therefore, you would have more happy employees.
2. You said that only the full-time employees that aren't receiving your "living wage" should get the raise. That would be about 40-45% of the full-time employees which would be about 25% of the actual employees in any given store. So you would be leaving all of the part-time employee's wages the same while the other's got a raise simploy for being full-time. Then you have all those that worked several years to get where they were making 12-13 an hour and full-time that would probably be pretty upset everyone else got a raise to their level.
You can say life isn't fair, but as an employer it would be difficult for me to explain to the 75% of employees that aren't getting any compensation increase why the other 25% are. So, life may not be fair, but it will be hard to run a store when 75% of my employee's are pissed. If you don't think engagement is important, why do you think these companies spend billions of dollars to understand it and measure it?
Quote:
Removing the ethics of living off the government, I know several people that can demonstrate that it is financially better for them to NOT work, than it is for them to work at a minimum wage job. When this is done, it proves that our system is "praising" people for not working. THIS IS ETHICALLY WRONG. There is NO GOOD REASON it should EVER be better to not work than to work (for a person physically capable of working). But yet, this is where we are.
3. Could that not partially be the fault of the govt? When you are a single mother with 2 dependents and the govt. is giving you 400 dollars a month in food stamps, subsidizing housing, electric, gas, and providing welfare. Why would you work? The govt. makes it easy, not the other way around. In order to get rid of all of that you aren't talking about a 25k/yr job, you are talking about closer to 35-40k/yr. Child care for 2 kids alone will run you 12-14k/yr. Why would someone work for 25k/yr when they can sit at home for 20k/yr? You won't ever fix that. I'm not saying there are a large majority of people doing that, but you will never be able to pay some people enough to where they will choose a 40 hour work week over free.
Quote:
what?
4. Why are you saying "what". You are the one who said 60% of Walmart's employees rely on govt. aid. I provided you evidence that 31% of retail employee's are aged 16-24 and 2% are 65+ (neither of those groups should need govt. aid on their own). So that leaves 67% of Walmart employees that could potentially rely on govt. aid. So that is the new 100%. You said 60% rely on that aid, so 60 divided by 67 is 90. That means 90% of the people that could rely on govt. aid do according to your numbers. Pretty simple math.
I'm curious where you are getting 60% from. There is only 1 study that ever looked at this and it was in Wisconsin, the link was provided earlier. They said 3,200 Walmart employee's in Wisconsin needed some form of govt. aid. As of 2006 there were 77 Walmart's in Wisconsin. So a safe estimate would be that their are 85 now (roughly 1 more added per year).
If there are 85 Walmart's in Wisconsin
and
3,200 employees represents 60% of the Walmart population
then
There are roughly 5,300 employees in all of Wisconsin working for Walmart (again, very simple math).
So
5,300 employees to man 85 stores
means
Each Walmart store in Wisconsin has approximately 63 employees
or
roughly 20% of the employees that every other Walmart in the US has.
I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. So you are going to have to walk me through where you are getting your #s because I walked you through how I believe they are impossible.
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.
