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 agree that the problem was created by the public and the private sector.
And also people.
You have college kids signing up in droves to do FREE internships with companies.
When I was in college those internships had salaries..pretty good salaries.
Companies will do what they can get away with.
And as long as Americans line up for it this decline will continue.
They will line up, take these unpaid positions and then complain about them.
They don't even see that they are part of the problem themselves.
Example:
I was reading about Black Thursday.
You had people at the mall and at stores telling the media that they didn't like that it's been moved to Thursday and it takes away from the family tradition.
These are people out at these malls/stores on Thursday at the earlier hour.
How can you go shopping on Thanksgiving and at the mall say you disapprove of it ?
Oh, and there is no such thing as "subsidizing low wage workers." Someone APPLIES for a job. They may be OFFERED that job, with a specified compensation package. If they ACCEPT that job, then they're accepting that compensation package. If it doesn't meet their needs, then they should keep looking, increase their value in the workforce or find an additional income stream.
You are assuming that there are better jobs out there, there is no recession, and if people are out of work or under employed it's their fault. Most of the people I know in retail had better jobs and now this is all they can find. The factory lands have been redeveloped into big box retail centers.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,145,823 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
How can you go shopping on Thanksgiving and at the mall say you disapprove of it ?
The same way that those who gripe about the banks and mortgage lenders saying how big and bad they were, yet those same were the ones taking out no doc, high risk mortgages, regardless of the fact that they couldn't afford them and were so certain that the CRA would do nothing but good....
The cause of our real estate crash had every bit as much to do with the people as it did with the banks and creditors.... most of them just don't want to admit it....
I think the public is starting to become aware of the fact that low wage jobs are effectively subsidized by government programs. The average Wal Mart costs taxpayers almost $900,000 year in subsidies for its workers.
No - why do you ask? I have to be a Marxist to want employers to pay for their own workers and not pass the expense off on the American taxpayer?
Beside the fact that you leave out all the other subsidies and privileges( that do not have a financial component.) ...
You seem to be using the labor theory of value. The wage rate is what they get. One reason workers are getting what they get is because of a falling marginal rate due to the financial implosion that creates a permanent surplus of labor. After the bailouts this condition has been allowed to persist, hardly making any concept of a real wage remotely accurate. So as of now I can hardly see a real market price , as people think that it is. But again you seem to have a fixed idea about the value of labor. Labor never is paid for their "value". They get what they get do to many conditions, especially the marginal utility of the input. Look at the asset side for the answer:
Since the value of assets is clearly a distortion, wages must be. The higher the price of assets, the lower the real wage rate must be by definition. Rising wages is the same thing as falling asset prices, just on the other side of the equation. Since the buying power of those who purchase assets was increased with bailouts, people get what they get for the marginal increase in asset prices which has clearly been manipulated to rise against wages.
The market was fully destroyed in 2008 so your simple, common sense approach, useful in many honest a pioneer states, is of little use. The flaw is not that you are a political Marxist. It is that you are using the concept that labor payment and value is related necessarily. In that context its not bad to be a Marxist when looking at it like a sovereign level. But the market just doesn't care about the conditions, manipulated or otherwise. If a boat make blows up the bridge, boat prices will rise according to "the market" principle. However one cannot just say the the utility of boats is naturally rising and the market will just fix it.
Beside the fact that you leave out all the other subsidies and privileges( that do not have a financial component.) ...
You seem to be using the labor theory of value. The wage rate is what they get. One reason workers are getting what they get is because of a falling marginal rate due to the financial implosion that creates a permanent surplus of labor. After the bailouts this condition has been allowed to persist, hardly making any concept of a real wage remotely accurate. So as of now I can hardly see a real market price , as people think that it is. But again you seem to have a fixed idea about the value of labor. Labor never is paid for their "value". They get what they get do to many conditions, especially the marginal utility of the input. Look at the asset side for the answer:
Since the value of assets is clearly a distortion, wages must be. The higher the price of assets, the lower the real wage rate must be by definition. Rising wages is the same thing as falling asset prices, just on the other side of the equation. Since the buying power of those who purchase assets was increased with bailouts, people get what they get for the marginal increase in asset prices which has clearly been manipulated to rise against wages.
The market was fully destroyed in 2008 so your simple, common sense approach, useful in many honest a pioneer states, is of little use. The flaw is not that you are a political Marxist. It is that you are using the concept that labor payment and value is related necessarily. In that context its not bad to be a Marxist when looking at it like a sovereign level. But the market just doesn't care about the conditions, manipulated or otherwise. If a boat make blows up the bridge, boat prices will rise according to "the market" principle.
I also think that as well. We will never see what we had before return.
I think the public is starting to become aware of the fact that low wage jobs are effectively subsidized by government programs. The average Wal Mart costs taxpayers almost $900,000 year in subsidies for its workers.
Take away the food stamps and Welfare and you might see workers unionizing so they can get a living wage.
If low wage workers didn't qualify for food stamps and subsidized housing, something would have to give. They can't be effective employees while starving and living on the street. At some point, walmart would have to make the decision to either raise wages or go out of business.
Let's stop this bs charade that leftists want these unskilled workers to make enough money so they wont qualify for subsidies. They'd simply be right where they are now if they had to pay for their own things. Liberals want them to make $15 an hour and still qualify for subsidies.
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.
