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.
In expensive places like NYC and LA, nobody lives off the minimum wage. Those with minimum wage jobs are often on welfare, so if someone has a WalMart or McDonalds job, defacto the state is subsidizing a business by paying part of the wages in food stamps, medicaid, and even cash assistance. So large companies like WalMart and McDonalds are using the government and ultimately taxpayers to sustain their business models and enable their employees to support themselves. If they can pay more, they should, in part to reduce the burden to taxpayers.
Not just large cities. Many small cities and counties have found that there is a very real cost to having a Walmart in their areas, one that the additional taxes generated by a store rarely offset. There are several studies linking the opening of a Walmart store specifically to increased usage of Food stamps and free medical services. True, not proven link, but a very strong link.
The other huge costs that many municipalities didn't bank on are those of infrastructure upgrades and wear and tear. Many have gotten smart and started to build those costs into the Big Box stores' start up costs. But Walmart specifically has stopped plans to open stores in many markets merely because they were faced with those costs. A big city could easily absorb 8000 extra cars per a day (average number of cars that visit a Walmart in the US,) but small towns can't. Imagine what that many cars would do to a two lane residential street.
It all comes down to supply and demand in the labor force. Contrary to what radiolibre says, there is no skill needed to work at these places that cannot be easily taught on the job. And when these individuals who overvalue themselves leave wal-mart, someone will easily step in to replace them.
If these people wanted to make more money, they should've invested more in their education and gotten a true "skilled" job.
How does that all negate the issue that wages remain stagnant while profits are high? The only excuses I hear are that the labor is unskilled, any Tom Dick and Harry can do these easy as hell jobs and what's offered is the going rate, take it or leave it. It's not as simple as supply and demand. I studied economics in college and noticed that a lot of the rhetoric I was learning in college, the textbook stuff left a lot out.
You ever seen the movie Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield? It was a silly movie but had a pretty pogniant scene where Dangerfield dispells the myths of doing business to the Economics professor, he is profoundly disturbed by his questioning of the dogma. Of course it was just a movie and highly exaggerated but as Robert Keen in his seminal book Debunking Economics has taught us, most economic schools of thought are not value free and are largely used to assert the interests of owners of business.
One can talk about the labor market determining the wages and what not, but when you look at the numbers you see that productivity is high but the gains are going in one direction; to the top. You cannot escape this reality. The topic up for debate is essentially why should those at the top get more?
The people on the right assert it's because they own the means and their astute brainpower has given rise to the wealth gains not the workers who are clearly unskilled, where any fool off the street can be trained to undertake their job, so that is why it is determined that their cut of all of this is a measly gain because the owner takes all the risks. So they are the ones determining what constitutes a skilled job and thus the pay. The debate is tilted in seeing it from solely their p.o.v. The only counter argument they have to that observation is some nonsense that the lack of skill for these jobs is self evident.
The debate is tilted in seeing it from solely their p.o.v. The only counter argument they have to that observation is some nonsense that the lack of skill for these jobs is self evident.
Regardless of whether Walmart chooses to keep wages low or raise them, that is strictly their choice.
It doesn't necessarily involve the skill (or lack there of) of their labor force that determines wages.
In the capitalistic country we live, all successful business is run on good, sound business practice.
Every successful company, regardless of size adheres to the rule of keeping cost down.
Labor is just one of the many cost that must be kept in check to remain successful.
The demonstrators out in the street, and a few posting here seem to harbor an undying hate of this huge company.
To that I would answer, that's tough tittie.
You want change?
Go out and start your own retail business, and once there you just might understand what it takes to maintain a successful business, and if in future years you are awarded a comfortable bonus for your efforts, good for you.
It is a dog eat dog world out there, and if one can't cope, then step aside.
We live in a country where free enterprise abounds, and that is as it should be.
Bob.
Do you agree or disagree that paying $15 would add to the likelyhood that many stores might close and then the workers will be out of a job.
This is essentially what happened at General Motors wages and benefits got out of Hand and then jobs disappeared , plants closed , etc
We all know what happened with the automakers ...
Do you want to see the same thing happen with fast food ?
If these franchises were making huge returns then I could see the point but the margins aren't that big .
It's not just food and labor . There's rent , insurance , utilities , vendors to be paid , taxes and a whole bunch of others expenses .
Where will the money come from ?
Walmart also has huge expenses too . I can't imagine real estate costs on those massive stores..
You seem to advocate a " pay them what they ask for " mentality
This would result in bankruptcy of nearly every company in the United States .
Will we be better off then because the evil business owners will be on the streets and the government will step in and reopen all the previously private companies?
This is called nationalism and the idea is very unpopular , it didn't work well in Cuba to my knowledge ..
Regardless of whether Walmart chooses to keep wages low or raise them, that is strictly their choice.
It doesn't necessarily involve the skill (or lack there of) of their labor force that determines wages.
In the capitalistic country we live, all successful business is run on good, sound business practice.
Every successful company, regardless of size adheres to the rule of keeping cost down.
Labor is just one of the many cost that must be kept in check to remain successful.
The demonstrators out in the street, and a few posting here seem to harbor an undying hate of this huge company.
To that I would answer, that's tough tittie.
You want change?
Go out and start your own retail business, and once there you just might understand what it takes to maintain a successful business, and if in future years you are awarded a comfortable bonus for your efforts, good for you.
It is a dog eat dog world out there, and if one can't cope, then step aside.
We live in a country where free enterprise abounds, and that is as it should be.
Bob.
Endless. The presumed nonsense and platitudes and rhetoric is endless with you people. The whole reason why we have a minimum wage is so that businesses does not have the ultimate last say on it.
Labor is an input I agree, but it's a variable that doesn't remain constant like the rest of the costs. It's not like purchasing a machine which you know will put out the units you need it to produce. Labor = people, i.e. you're purchasing their ability to work. The factor then becomes how much can you get out of them for as little as possible. This is the why the manager is always trying to get the most work out of the worker, in a haste, for little as possible. There is a human element in this whole economic order that you're missing here. Labor isn't just a fixed input.
The only reason we even have the right to leave, to picket, to complain, to do anything of the sort is not because these big business owners bestowed so much of their wealth onto us, it's because workers said we're not like your other machines which you factor into your costs; we have to eat, sleep and breathe to keep your machines going and your profits flowing. Making workers work long hours, overtime, half-time to save on benefits, round the clock, supervised to get the most out of every minute of every hour of every day.
Just like the much revered Henry Ford once said, "I asked for pair of hands, and what I got was a worker".
So again, you're arguing with me from the p.o.v of an owner of business and asserting it as the natural order in which things are done or must be done to maintain stability. People argue like this all the time and accept the logic. The only difference is that I do not hide my bias; I am in absolute favor of the workers here, owners be dam ned.
You on the other hand take the owners side of things and act as though what's good for him is in the interests of us all. I cut out this middle man and say that what's good for the majority is good for all.
If a company hires a worker it is with the intent to make a profit off of their labor. Is this a surprise to employees in today's world? Do people that work for Walmart or other corporations think they are working for charities or nonprofits?? There is a reason they are called FOR profits.
I agree that people whether workers or business owners should be free to leave, picket, complain ,etc as long as they aren't harming others or breaking laws.
If Walmart or some other corporation is violating the rights of a worker , I would be the first to say they should be punished to the highest degree of the law.
Just because someone pickets, complains or anything of the sort does not mean that the employer MUST give in to their demands.
It sounds like you want a society where the employer or boss or CEO has NO rights and the employee has ALL the rights...how is this fair?
Do you agree or disagree that paying $15 would add to the likelyhood that many stores might close and then the workers will be out of a job.
This is essentially what happened at General Motors wages and benefits got out of Hand and then jobs disappeared , plants closed , etc
We all know what happened with the automakers ...
Do you want to see the same thing happen with fast food ?
If these franchises were making huge returns then I could see the point but the margins aren't that big .
It's not just food and labor . There's rent , insurance , utilities , vendors to be paid , taxes and a whole bunch of others expenses .
Where will the money come from ?
Walmart also has huge expenses too . I can't imagine real estate costs on those massive stores..
You seem to advocate a " pay them what they ask for " mentality
This would result in bankruptcy of nearly every company in the United States .
Will we be better off then because the evil business owners will be on the streets and the government will step in and reopen all the previously private companies?
This is called nationalism and the idea is very unpopular , it didn't work well in Cuba to my knowledge ..
That dilemma will ALWAYS rear it's ugly head back. ALWAYS. It did during the depression and what staved it off was Keynesianism and concessions to labor.
During the 1970s the stagflation crises came about and when wages were at their peak, several leaders said that if we continue at this rate we're going to end up with social democracy.
The auto industry saw it to be unprofitable to continue going on in the advent of Germany and Japan rising in the auto ranks. They blamed it on unions. Unions and these pesky high wages were cutting into the profits of the big dogs so the answer to that problem was neo-liberalism.
Well here were are again at another major crossroads in our economic history and this time there are no unions to blame. Germany and Japan have flourishing auto industries with mighty auto unions who contribute to the decision making in production.
What the top brass in politics and business were afraid of is that the US was headed toward *gasp* social democracy! It was going to diminish the social/economic role of the Fortune 500. So a political battle was waged and has been going even today as the new problems is "big government" and those pesky social programs that we must eliminate in order to acheive financial stability.
The issue in this country is not a problem of wealth or an economic one per se. It's a problem of wealth -re-distribution and a political battle. There is no one representing the interests of workers, unions are all but crushed and the business community and the politicians in their pocket promise armageddon if their interests are not met or if any one meddles with their profits.
So the question of whether we need nationalization, more regulation, reform, more taxes, better wages will always come up in our society. ALWAYS.
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.
