N.C. is moving backward (minimum wage, tax, living)
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.
It is no more insulting than calling someone a conservative. And I do know what a "Progressive" is thank you very much. Social justice is a plank of the progressive platform and that is what I am referring to.
Social Justice is NOT what your definition was--of demanding equal outcomes for everyone. Social justice is equal opportunity (freedom from arbitrary discrimination, etc) for everyone.
Aldi sells food & nonfoods. So does Walmart. Both are multinational which speaks to buying power.
Buying power involves a lot more than being multinational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbound_295
Find where I said that fast food workers should get $15 an hour. If you don't understand negotiations, here's a clue. Ask for more than you can reasonably expect & settle for something in between.
The fast food thing isn't tied to Pat. Are you using that as a smoke screen because he's doing worse than Bev did with jobs?
You said "living wage" which has been described as between $12 and $20 an hour, so I picked something in the middle. I never said anything about fast food, I said low-skilled, part-time labor. I never mentioned McRory either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
Social Justice is NOT what your definition was--of demanding equal outcomes for everyone. Social justice is equal opportunity (freedom from arbitrary discrimination, etc) for everyone.
I guess it depends on who you ask. Various social justice groups talk about redistribution (UC Berkeley) to "society is equitable in all things" (Social Justice Training Institute). Miller's theory involves "just outcomes" as well:
It isn't that simple. There was an analysis of what would happen if Wal-mart raised their wages. They have to increase prices and/or lay off employees. Fewer people will shop there as a result of raised prices causing loss of market share and revenue. The stock will drop, stockholders will fire the board/CEO and then we are back to square one. Aldi and Hobby Lobby are nowhere in the same league as Wal-mart so the comparison is not valid.
If Sam Walton were alive he'd be the richest person in this country. As it stands now the top 10 list is littered with Waltons as his fortune is broken up between his wife and kids. If Walmart raised prices would it hurt revenue? Of course. Would it hurt it to a point that it would bankrupt the company? No. The math in your example was if they raised salries and raised prices in response. They can afford to cut into their bottom line, though it would reduce profits, and raise salaries without raising prices. They could even to backdoor raise, by allowing a significant discount to employees and/or allowing them to purchase things at wholesale. To prevent abuse there can be monthly or annual cap, equivalent to what the raise would be, and it would keep the money the employees spent within the company.
If Sam Walton were alive he'd be the richest person in this country. As it stands now the top 10 list is littered with Waltons as his fortune is broken up between his wife and kids. If Walmart raised prices would it hurt revenue? Of course. Would it hurt it to a point that it would bankrupt the company? No. The math in your example was if they raised salries and raised prices in response. They can afford to cut into their bottom line, though it would reduce profits, and raise salaries without raising prices. They could even to backdoor raise, by allowing a significant discount to employees and/or allowing them to purchase things at wholesale. To prevent abuse there can be monthly or annual cap, equivalent to what the raise would be, and it would keep the money the employees spent within the company.
It'll never happen, CEO and executive salaries, bonuses and perks have grown so out of wack with the common person it's become expected, so there is no way in hell they're gonna forego the upper end country club golf lifestyle. Even more amazing is the people who rage in defense of these skewed practices and any attempt to point out the disparity usually get labeled as socialism or redistribution of wealth mongers. I call it the new form of the Stockholm Syndrome because those blowhards with this mindset actually believe it helps the economy and their pursuit to obtain greater wealth...when in essence it serves as a greater catalyst for the concentration of wealth.
The redistribution of wealth is occurring and continues to dramatically favor those with money/power. And they've got enough influence and communication channels to portray the fraud of the American Dream to the less fortunate and any attack on the current system gets easily squashed with one word "socialism". I too am a strong capitalist but the ship needs a tilt to right side up before the angry mob realizes the fix is in.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,816 posts, read 34,766,393 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad
Buying power involves a lot more than being multinational.
You said "living wage" which has been described as between $12 and $20 an hour, so I picked something in the middle. I never said anything about fast food, I said low-skilled, part-time labor. I never mentioned McRory either.
I guess it depends on who you ask. Various social justice groups talk about redistribution (UC Berkeley) to "society is equitable in all things" (Social Justice Training Institute). Miller's theory involves "just outcomes" as well:
So yes, equal opportunity is a component but so are equal outcomes. And now that I'm way off topic have a good night.
First off, when the minimum wage is adjusted it is done incrementally.
Second, it's public knowledge that older workers who are not unskilled or uneducated are being forced into minimum wage jobs, if they can get hired at all. Your contempt for people who are not faring as well as you is just sad.
If Sam Walton were alive he'd be the richest person in this country. As it stands now the top 10 list is littered with Waltons as his fortune is broken up between his wife and kids. If Walmart raised prices would it hurt revenue? Of course. Would it hurt it to a point that it would bankrupt the company? No. The math in your example was if they raised salries and raised prices in response. They can afford to cut into their bottom line, though it would reduce profits, and raise salaries without raising prices. They could even to backdoor raise, by allowing a significant discount to employees and/or allowing them to purchase things at wholesale. To prevent abuse there can be monthly or annual cap, equivalent to what the raise would be, and it would keep the money the employees spent within the company.
The stockholders would fire the board and appoint a board that would undo the changes. Maybe they can afford to raise wages this year but how would that affect earnings for next year? For the year after that? What happens if there is another recession? How would such a change impact cash on hand? What impact would it have on other retailers or the price of goods?
First off, when the minimum wage is adjusted it is done incrementally.
Second, it's public knowledge that older workers who are not unskilled or uneducated are being forced into minimum wage jobs, if they can get hired at all. Your contempt for people who are not faring as well as you is just sad.
We weren't talking about minimum wage, we're talking about a "living wage". I don't have contempt for anyone except those that refuse to work.
It'll never happen, CEO and executive salaries, bonuses and perks have grown so out of wack with the common person it's become expected, so there is no way in hell they're gonna forego the upper end country club golf lifestyle. Even more amazing is the people who rage in defense of these skewed practices and any attempt to point out the disparity usually get labeled as socialism or redistribution of wealth mongers. I call it the new form of the Stockholm Syndrome because those blowhards with this mindset actually believe it helps the economy and their pursuit to obtain greater wealth...when in essence it serves as a greater catalyst for the concentration of wealth.
The redistribution of wealth is occurring and continues to dramatically favor those with money/power. And they've got enough influence and communication channels to portray the fraud of the American Dream to the less fortunate and any attack on the current system gets easily squashed with one word "socialism". I too am a strong capitalist but the ship needs a tilt to right side up before the angry mob realizes the fix is in.
Thanks for the succinct explanation... very well said.
The people you're referring to have been programmed to believe that they are part of the "haves" and the vilified freeloaders are being carried by their "hard work". It's a great sell because in general people want to believe they have upward mobility to one day rub elbows with the elites and it's fine as long as they are distracted by a bogeyman to point at... look - look... <pointing> - THEY are the problem... THEY are lazy... THEY are bringing us down... THEY are the problem with government. It helps that most of us know someone who is gaming the system... whether it's Bubba's 3rd cousin Tipsy who draws disability without being hurt or Poopsie who has been collecting UE for 18 months. To compound this we are treated on social media and various "other outlets" to baby making welfare queens with homes full of fancy electronics. This is a long proven formula for keeping the serfs in line... and by serfs I mean the average hard working guy making ends meet. It's a perfect play from the likes of Art Pope that is worthy of movie awards. It's amazing what people can be led to believe.
Senior executive pay has exploded exponentially with income levels for the average American have been flat or declined for decades. This is not the capitalism used as the sounding board by so many and not a recent phenomenon... It's a travesty of epic proportions how the very richest are hedged by the dwindling middle class. A perfect circle of crony capitalism has formed to where it is all about who you know and have access to... what a great social experiment unfolding right before our eyes.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,816 posts, read 34,766,393 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad
We weren't talking about minimum wage, we're talking about a "living wage". I don't have contempt for anyone except those that refuse to work.
You continue to whine about people getting government assistance. We have explained to you that most of them are working, but not making enough to get by. The reason for this is that these people have been forced into minimum wage jobs. That is where the term living wage comes from. This has been explained to you repeatedly. You don't want to accept this because this would mean not having contempt for these people. So be it.
I think more-or-less the American Dream used to exist. If you worked hard, were smart, you could become successful. But technology has changed things. Technology is hyper-augmenting capitalism in such a way that it's short circuiting economic mobility. And this is accelerating. More and more technology is being developed that will eliminate more and more white collar, thinking jobs. You know, middle class jobs. (You should know, I'm a lifelong techie, but I've seen technologies dark side). The most expensive thing for companies to pay for is the salaries of employees. If the wealthy people that own the companies can reap the rewards of their companies and eliminate 80% of their staff, you bet your sweet a$% they are going to do it. Also, there are ultra wealthy that are gaming the system, they are pulling the ladder up behind them. All of this ranting about socialism/capitalism will look cute/quaint/naive in a couple decades. This will be a new form of feudalism. We will be kept busy arguing about whether someone with an "R" or "D" after their name should be elected. Talking heads will tell us to blame the other side for the growing unemployment. Some will say "well, just start your own business! just become an entrepreneur!" This will be like the new "let them eat cake" because it will be obvious that this will be almost impossible. Ask yourself, what will things look like when 30% of people are unemployed? What about 75%?
Last edited by VASpaceMan; 08-25-2013 at 11:59 AM..
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.
