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.
Our Walmart raised wages to $12-13 a few years ago, even for the floor moppers. There will always be plenty of menial jobs to go around, the problem is no one wants to do them anymore.
As an example, where I used to live in CA we had a wholesale nursery which sold plants to all the local home and garden stores. They got raided by ICE and lost all their illegal workers, so they had to hire only legal workers because they were under surveillance. They had to run an ad constantly for workers and were totally flummoxed because they couldn't keep workers for more than a week because no one wanted to work for under $8, they all felt that the work was too hard. They raised the wages a buck an hour, but the newly hired would just not come in, or would walk off the job, after their first or second day. Those that gave a reason said they didn't realize that the work would be that hard. The work entailed watering, dragging heavy hoses, loading plants on pallets, and putting trees and pallets of plants on trucks, hauling plants around the place on pallet jacks, etc. They almost went out of business after having been successful for 40+ years.
The centuries-long trend of mechanism in all its permutations continues. Yet you attribute this immediate snapshot in history as not part of that overarching of ... well, of the entire Western world from the Industrial Revolution onward, but a sudden reaction to current policies.
I wonder if you were one of those (woefully wrong) individuals who proclaimed that the rise in ATMs would decrease bank employment? That didn't happen. Or perhaps that increased use of surveillance cameras would result in fewer law enforcement jobs? That was completely wrong, too. The examples are endless.
In reality, it doesn't look like Walmart is doing this in reaction to what aggrieves you politically. They're just doing what industry has been doing for hundreds of years.
What is predictable is the silly hand-wringing, from the Luddites to those trying to spin it as a consequence of policies they don't like. I wonder how these people manage to explain - in their own excuse-making minds - how this country once employed 50% of its populace in agriculture and now employs a mere 2%, yet 48% percent of the country isn't standing around without work complaining that the tractor and combine replaced the plow and hoe?
They have their Larry Kudlow sound-bites, but unfortunately for them, they don't have reality on their side: https://www.nber.org/papers/w25434
^^^My God, a well thought out, intelligent response ! I had to read it twice, it was that good, and correct.
It's amazing that the higher ups at these companies say almost exactly the same thing as if they are taught by the same people on what to say. They say robots won't take away jobs but will work side by side with the employees for an enhanced working experience. They say robots will do the mundane, repetitive tasks that humans won't do (Jees how the hell did these tasks get done for hundred of years before robots appear?).
And I have noticed that the affected employees are never interviewed by the media. It's always the management touting how great the robots are.
I'm going to guess most likely the employees aren't allowed to talk to the media. The couple of years I spent at Sears years ago, it was explicitly stated in the handbook that employees couldn't talk to the media and any media inquiries had to be directed to the store manager. From what I've seen, this is pretty common, especially in national chains.
Our Walmart raised wages to $12-13 a few years ago, even for the floor moppers. There will always be plenty of menial jobs to go around, the problem is no one wants to do them anymore.
As an example, where I used to live in CA we had a wholesale nursery which sold plants to all the local home and garden stores. They got raided by ICE and lost all their illegal workers, so they had to hire only legal workers because they were under surveillance. They had to run an ad constantly for workers and were totally flummoxed because they couldn't keep workers for more than a week because no one wanted to work for under $8, they all felt that the work was too hard. They raised the wages a buck an hour, but the newly hired would just not come in, or would walk off the job, after their first or second day. Those that gave a reason said they didn't realize that the work would be that hard. The work entailed watering, dragging heavy hoses, loading plants on pallets, and putting trees and pallets of plants on trucks, hauling plants around the place on pallet jacks, etc. They almost went out of business after having been successful for 40+ years.
Had they paid $15-20/hr, they might have kept the new legal employees. $8 or less is too little. Im surprised they even got legals to come to work for them.
And they should have ivested in electric pallwt jacks and the lije to help the legal employees.
Illegals will do whatever and not complain as they will need a job under the radar. There are too many Jose Mendezes working under the same social security already.
Employers need to pay what the market for their jobs will pay to have successful employees, just as much as the employees need to do the work required for the job to be successful.
Not every job can be replaced by robots.
But just lije automation in the 1800s, robots will become a staple. Also, robots DO wear out, break down and need expensive repairs. Think of your car. Its reliable for 10k miles, then needs required maintenance and worn out parts replaced. And so on.
And humans are resistant to robots, but they were to mechanization and computers and self checkputs. Humans are remarkable characters...we CAN and WILL adapt to new situations.
Robots have to be completely reprogrammed. That costs money.
When i see robots in my Walmart, ill note what they are doing, and go from there, but likely ill not stop shopping there, as it will come to all stores world wide, eventually and we'll all learn new shopping habits.
The centuries-long trend of mechanism in all its permutations continues. Yet you attribute this immediate snapshot in history as not part of that overarching of ... well, of the entire Western world from the Industrial Revolution onward, but a sudden reaction to current policies.
I wonder if you were one of those (woefully wrong) individuals who proclaimed that the rise in ATMs would decrease bank employment? That didn't happen. Or perhaps that increased use of surveillance cameras would result in fewer law enforcement jobs? That was completely wrong, too. The examples are endless.
In reality, it doesn't look like Walmart is doing this in reaction to what aggrieves you politically. They're just doing what industry has been doing for hundreds of years.
What is predictable is the silly hand-wringing, from the Luddites to those trying to spin it as a consequence of policies they don't like. I wonder how these people manage to explain - in their own excuse-making minds - how this country once employed 50% of its populace in agriculture and now employs a mere 2%, yet 48% percent of the country isn't standing around without work complaining that the tractor and combine replaced the plow and hoe?
They have their Larry Kudlow sound-bites, but unfortunately for them, they don't have reality on their side: https://www.nber.org/papers/w25434
Where is your data on the ATM or surveillance cameras?
Tens of thousands of bank users like myself rarely step into a bank branch anymore and make contact with a live person. It's all automated now. ATM's, online banking, apps on your phone.
Let's say if that automation never occurred. Banks would have to hire thousands of more tellers and build hundreds of more branches. They would have to hire thousands of people to answer phone calls about their accounts which can now be checked by using an app.
So one could say that due to automation, less people are working now at banks.
As for Walmart, I don't believe it is political. The corporation sees a way to automate and save money on menial tasks and make their existing workforce more productive (more money for Walmart). I don't see a reason to layoff workers for this current automation, but I do see them hiring less workers over time.
Yes, a smaller workforce, while not sacrificing productivity, will be easier from management perspective - less impact from federal/state employment policy changes, less issues to handle from protests/walkouts and a "smaller" voice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRET04
Where is your data on the ATM or surveillance cameras?
Tens of thousands of bank users like myself rarely step into a bank branch anymore and make contact with a live person. It's all automated now. ATM's, online banking, apps on your phone.
Let's say if that automation never occurred. Banks would have to hire thousands of more tellers and build hundreds of more branches. They would have to hire thousands of people to answer phone calls about their accounts which can now be checked by using an app.
So one could say that due to automation, less people are working now at banks.
As for Walmart, I don't believe it is political. The corporation sees a way to automate and save money on menial tasks and make their existing workforce more productive (more money for Walmart). I don't see a reason to layoff workers for this current automation, but I do see them hiring less workers over time.
Interesting thread, not at all surprising in such a large company. Will save them millions in the long term (they hope)
We don't have Walmart in Oz, so I don't know anything about how they treat employees.
Some time ago, I heard, or read that ' some American companies' had removed the automated check-out machines, due to the increase in theft.
My local supermarket and Kmart use them. I hate 'em because They're so impersonal and because they cost jobs. Not very good jobs, but jobs nevertheless for unskilled workers, the most vulnerable in the work force.
I was a member of trade union all of my working life. I can't help but wonder if workers at places such as McDonald's,Walmart and Amazon would be treated better with strong trade unions
Today in Oz, trade unions are a shadow of their former selves. A good thing in areas such as Painters And Dockers (Waterfront),and the building industry, because those unions were notoriously corrupt. Not so sure about hospitality and shop workers.
The casualisation, and the zero hour contract in some industries here has been catastrophic for many unskilled workers.
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.
I had to read it twice, it was that good, and correct.
