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.
So what exactly is a "living wage"? If I want to "live" by owning a 6000 sf house, drive a luxury vehicle or three, take a couple of pricey vacations every year, wear designer clothes, eat in fancy restaurants - should my employer pay me enough to live that way?
No business exists to provide a certain lifestyle to anyone. They exist to sell a product or service, for a fee. If they become successful, they will need more employees, as a byproduct of that success. Period.
Really? That's your response? That your "preferred" high-end living condition is what is to be supported? Don't be intentionally dense. I mean, I assume it's intentional. It has to be. A living wage, as you well know, is a wage which allows a worker working at or near full time to afford a place to live, food, utilities and care. It's not driving fancy cars, it's not having a bevy of naked models in your grotto, not traveling to Belize/ It's being able to survive without struggling every day.
It doesn't mean making enough to scrape 1/4 of the rent in a nearly-condemned slum, eating ramen and canned soup as your only meals, barely affording running water and not being able to run the heater, and never being able to seek healthcare. Are there people who deserve this lifestyle? YES. They are the ones who are not working by choice or who refuse to do their jobs. Those people deserve very little. But I cannot and will not get behind the idea that just because someone isn't high-skilled that their working 40 hours a week or more doesn't deserve at least a living wage.
Since you apparently can't understand that, I don't know what else i can say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
If people were not paying for freeloaders who have learned how to game the system, you would see even MORE money and goods flowing in to charities. But you have no idea how charity works because you've never participated in giving to someone else, have you?
If you took away the tax incentive to donate, I bet you would see charity donations decline sharply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tassy001
Specialty grocers stores are not that much more expensive then regular grocery stores. Farmer's Market's ARE cheaper then grocery stores.
Walmart wants you to believe their crap is the cheapest, that is simply not true.
They may not "that" much more expensive, depending on where you live. But they are more expensive. And how many low-income neighborhoods have specialty grocery stores? Probably not exactly the market for them. As well, how many farmer's markets are set up in areas easily accessible to swaths of low-income individuals? Probably not a familiar sight. If someone's going to spend $10 just to get to the market, and $10 to them is more than pocket change, why wouldn't they go to what gets them more food for their money? And if I was poor, you better believe I'm buying store value brand every time. I'm not poor, and I still go store brand for a decent portion of what I buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Yes. It radiates from virtually every post you've ever written in this forum.
I would say that about 85% of the posters on this forum. I don't know why I get sucked in sometimes. I usually only come by about once a month. There's only so much "LEECHES!" "THEFT!" "SOCIALISTS!" "ANTI-AMERICAN!" "TERRORISTS!" "GUN GRABBERS!" one can read by people who seem to live their entire life on this forum. And the insults...Jesus. It's one thing to tell someone they are dense or not understanding a concept. It's quite another to directly call someone an idiot, that they'd be better off dead, etc. I wish I could find the post where one guy went ballistic on me and said that I should die because I was so anti-American for something as simple as supporting increased wages (amongst about a half-dozen other direct insults).
I've asked before if some of the people who have post rates of 25-50 a day on here are as bitter and angry outside this forum as they are on it, or if this is simply a persona for them. Never gotten an answer, though.
McDonalds telling employees to get food stamps, Walmart telling their almost needy employees to help the really needy ones. ...
Beyond disgusting, beyond unacceptable - all worth a "guillotine" type of revolution.
Too bad you can't guillotine such heads anymore...I can only hope they burn forever on the other side.
I wish I could live with the illusion that if I never stepped foot in a Walmart or McDonalds again, I could actually make a difference; knowing most of their customers don't have a choice but shop with them, I know my choice would mean nothing.
They just need to burn in H. Too bad nobody can set them on fire here, in this life.
McDonalds telling employees to get food stamps, Walmart telling their almost needy employees to help the really needy ones. ...
Beyond disgusting, beyond unacceptable - all worth a "guillotine" type of revolution.
Too bad you can't guillotine such heads anymore...I can only hope they burn forever on the other side.
I wish I could live with the illusion that if I never stepped foot in a Walmart or McDonalds again, I could actually make a difference; knowing most of their customers don't have a choice but shop with them, I know my choice would mean nothing.
They just need to burn in H. Too bad nobody can set them on fire here, in this life.
Why do you say the consumers don't have a choice? Consumers always have a choice, especially when it comes to McD's and WMT.
Basic economics: end food stamps and welfare for only the most needy and wages will rise. The government programs only interject artificial levels of equilibrium into the economy.
Consumers create demand. Think about rents: the price is based on what people will pay. If people can't afford to pay $1000 a month, then the renter will lower the price to equilibrium. Over time, the underlying value of the assets will drop accordingly. If the government steps in and offers rent assistance rents are artificially inflated. Good for me. Sucks for you.
Likewise, if employers can't attract labor at a given wage, they will have to offer more. If an offered wage is too low, there isn't an incentive. If the value of welfare and food stamps was quantified and determined to be worth $1 per hour, then over time minimum wages in the aggregate will fall by $1 per hour. Those who don't utilize the services lose out. It just works that way. Wal-Mart or any retailer simply sets the price of labor at the adjusted equilibrium. The WSJ recently ran an article on farm wages. They are far above minimum wage. There is a labor shortage. Ponder on that.
Basic economics: end food stamps and welfare for only the most needy and wages will rise. The government programs only interject artificial levels of equilibrium into the economy.
Consumers create demand. Think about rents: the price is based on what people will pay. If people can't afford to pay $1000 a month, then the renter will lower the price to equilibrium. Over time, the underlying value of the assets will drop accordingly. If the government steps in and offers rent assistance rents are artificially inflated. Good for me. Sucks for you.
Likewise, if employers can't attract labor at a given wage, they will have to offer more. If an offered wage is too low, there isn't an incentive. If the value of welfare and food stamps was quantified and determined to be worth $1 per hour, then over time minimum wages in the aggregate will fall by $1 per hour. Those who don't utilize the services lose out. It just works that way. Wal-Mart or any retailer simply sets the price of labor at the adjusted equilibrium. The WSJ recently ran an article on farm wages. They are far above minimum wage. There is a labor shortage. Ponder on that.
The liberal death spiral...
What make you think ending those things is gonna raise wages? All ending social programs is gonna do is cause more homeless people.
Have you even been in a walmart lately? If not, do so. I suspect the experience will be eye-opening. There is a reason they aren't working literally across the street at Costco making $20/hr with health benefits etc.
The Costco is not likely directly across the street:
(From the Pittsburgh forum)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I just don't get all this gushing over Costco. They're in business to make money.
Since you brought up Walmart, here is a very good article comparing Walmart, Costco and Trader Joe's.
"Costco really is a store where affluent, high-socioeconomic status households occasionally buy huge quantities of goods on the cheap: That’s Costco's business strategy (which is why its stores are pretty much found in affluent near-in suburbs). Wal-Mart, however, is mostly a store where low-income people do their everyday shopping.
As it happens, that matters a lot."
One doesn't go to Costco to buy a spool of thread or a notebook, or even a new jacket, like one does at Walmart. If you look at the chart in this article, you'll see that Costco has almost 3X the revenue per employee, b/c when you go to Costco, you go to buy a lot. Costco's profit per employee is also considerably higher than WM's, e.g. about 50% higher.
Basic economics: end food stamps and welfare for only the most needy and wages will rise. The government programs only interject artificial levels of equilibrium into the economy.
Consumers create demand. Think about rents: the price is based on what people will pay. If people can't afford to pay $1000 a month, then the renter will lower the price to equilibrium. Over time, the underlying value of the assets will drop accordingly. If the government steps in and offers rent assistance rents are artificially inflated. Good for me. Sucks for you.
Likewise, if employers can't attract labor at a given wage, they will have to offer more. If an offered wage is too low, there isn't an incentive. If the value of welfare and food stamps was quantified and determined to be worth $1 per hour, then over time minimum wages in the aggregate will fall by $1 per hour. Those who don't utilize the services lose out. It just works that way. Wal-Mart or any retailer simply sets the price of labor at the adjusted equilibrium. The WSJ recently ran an article on farm wages. They are far above minimum wage. There is a labor shortage. Ponder on that.
The liberal death spiral...
Your argument is a red herring. Wages are set by supply and demand, not by lifestyle choices.
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.
, and I choose to shop at WalMart several times a week.
