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.
Can places like Walmart make profit while paying EVERY employee enough money to live off of without government aid?
If possible, please state why and a reference for your opinion.
A liveable wage being 150-200% for the federal poverty limit for a 2 person family, 24k-31k per year, or $12 to $15 per hour. This meets the requirement to not require government aid. ( Food stamps require the person make less than 130% of the federal poverty guideline) This question is referring to full time workers.
two person family at $31k/year = $7.75/hour. They generally pay that. Not that that means much. Go try and live in San Francisco on $31k/year for two people. I mean, you can definitely do it. Find a room to rent that allows two people to share it for around $800/month, no car. Minimum wage in SF is $10/hour which would help.
two person family at $31k/year = $7.75/hour. They generally pay that. Not that that means much. Go try and live in San Francisco on $31k/year for two people. I mean, you can definitely do it. Find a room to rent that allows two people to share it for around $800/month, no car. Minimum wage in SF is $10/hour which would help.
How about these same people suck it up,work during the day, get some schooling at night. In 12-18 months, they can have some training or certification that will land the jobs that pay 2-3times as much.
They could even suck up to the managers at Wal-Mart or McD and get a job as a shift manager or something. They would then have a new career in management that can take them many places.
Notice how the onus is on the worker to create the life that they want.
the answer is NO, and they shouldn't have to. It was never meant to be a living wage. It is supposed to be a step, an additional job, a bit of help. If you're looking to McDonald's for a career, then you better start thinking management, and you better be the best at your job.
How about these same people suck it up,work during the day, get some schooling at night. In 12-18 months, they can have some training or certification that will land the jobs that pay 2-3times as much.
They could even suck up to the managers at Wal-Mart or McD and get a job as a shift manager or something. They would then have a new career in management that can take them many places.
Notice how the onus is on the worker to create the life that they want.
If you cannot live off what a job pay's then don't take that job. Simple. It's not the employers fault that you cannot live off what the job pay's. The job pay's what it pay's. If you need more then get a different job. It's not the employers fault if you don't have the education or ability. That is up to you alone. Those who want to do better do. Those who want it given to them complain.
How about these same people suck it up,work during the day, get some schooling at night. In 12-18 months, they can have some training or certification that will land the jobs that pay 2-3 times as much.
They could even suck up to the managers at Wal-Mart or McD and get a job as a shift manager or something. They would then have a new career in management that can take them many places.
Notice how the onus is on the worker to create the life that they want.
Your post hits the mark, but I cannot help but notice that you had to use the term "suck up" not only once, but twice.
And for the record, I've been "paying my dues" in that environment for 42 years.
A person entering the mature, or "real" job market at the age of, say, 21 to 23, is often saying good-bye to 4-7 years of autonomy in a campus-centered environment. What he/she wants is a clear measure of his/her responsibilities, what he/she can expect in return, and a clear path upward without too much drudgery.
What they usually get is several years at the jobs nobody wants, a manager whose main task is to find something more for them to do -- within the same amount of time and at minimum pay, possible pressure to work "off-the-clock", and a promise that it will all be remembered "at your next performance/salary review" (where, in fact, any part of your personal style of living and working of which the management doesn't approve or understand will be the first thing to be picked apart).
Technology was ballyhooed as likely to create a better life for us all. It has, as far as making the basics of existence a little easier and cheaper to obtain, and the societal "safety net" a bit stronger; but it has not shortened the work day, and has created the regimented Frankenstein called the "Orwellian workplace". And too often, the modern day job involves physical demands structured so that a person over age 40 need not apply.
It's always been that way, always will be, has to be, and there won't be much improvement until the rest of the world fully catches on to what makes pluralistic democracy work. But the apparent decline of the "Pax Americana" (1945-2001) has made the frustrations of the Milennials more visible.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-23-2013 at 10:52 AM..
lol at all of you slaves. These companies make enough to pay their employees enough to get an apartment, but they don't have to because our society doesn't trust each other within each class, but trust those in classes above us.
Your post hits the mark, but I cannot help but notice that you had to use the term "suck up" not only once, but twice.
By "suck it up" I mean make a conscious decision to accept the fact that in life, we have to sometimes do things we don't like to do in order to later get the things that we want.
We "suck it up" in life all the time. Overweight but hate to exercise? Guess what...suck it up and go walking or do that workout DVD. The effort sucks now but when you get the results you want, you won't complain then.
You work at a low paying job, suck it up and do what you need to do to get the high paying job that you want in the future.
Entry level jobs at Wal-Mart and McD were never meant to be long term "career" jobs used to take care of families. The expectation is that workers will come in, make a few bucks, get a little experience on their resume and then move on to more lucrative jobs and careers. High turnover is expected.
I answered the poll "maybe" because it depends on whether each full time employee can become sufficiently valuable to an employer to justify the wages desired. It is not in the hands of the employer, it is up to the employees, one by one. The UAW proved that it is not sustainable to pay employees more than the value of their labor--can't be done on a permanent basis. The parasite will kill the host.
Basically what it purports is that yes indeed Walmart could pay every full time employee an annual salary of $25,000. Granted not necessarily the gold standard of middle class wages...but, it's a start.
Last edited by HomeIsWhere...; 11-23-2013 at 11:16 AM..
Reason: spelling/typo
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.
