[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Giving people above and beyond what they deserve is charity, not employment,[/quote]
Paying a fair wage is is employment , not paying a fair wage is theft
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You’ve really gone off the deep-end pittbulll [/quote]
Wow , you think my notions are so extreme? Maybe you scope of history is very limited
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would love to see a Wall Street Journal article beseeching all people not to make more money otherwise we will throw America into a period of Inflation .
[/quote]
That isn’t what I said, not even close.
Again:
If the market dictates you deserve more money you will get it. If you want more money, but the value you add to the world doesn’t afford you the wages you want, you have to learn a new skill.
However, forcing the market to pay large swaths of people more than the market dictates they are worth doesn’t solve the problem, because the market can’t afford those payments.
Like was mentioned, you are confusing demanding more money without adding more value (what I’m talking about) with earning more money through adding more value (what you are trying to pretend I am talking about.) Yes, workers get paid more in both situations, but the outcomes of the increased wages are different.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, exploitation of people with no education, no skills, and a crappy work ethic by giving them jobs.[/quote]
I don’t shop there so I wouldn’t know. How do you know? [/quote]
I’ve shopped there.[/quote]
And you did a study that proves your assertion?
I do think that Walmart employees shouldn’t get treated any better than the workers who make the crap it sells. The same goes for the people who shop there. [/quote]
You did a study proving your assertion that they sell crap?[/quote]
Yes.
[/quote]
Good, because otherwise you’d be a hypocritical idiot full of shit.[/quote]
Dammit, I was really trying to fit in.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would love to see a Wall Street Journal article beseeching all people not to make more money otherwise we will throw America into a period of Inflation .
[/quote]
That isn’t what I said, not even close.
Again:
If the market dictates you deserve more money you will get it. If you want more money, but the value you add to the world doesn’t afford you the wages you want, you have to learn a new skill.
However, forcing the market to pay large swaths of people more than the market dictates they are worth doesn’t solve the problem, because the market can’t afford those payments.
Like was mentioned, you are confusing demanding more money without adding more value (what I’m talking about) with earning more money through adding more value (what you are trying to pretend I am talking about.) Yes, workers get paid more in both situations, but the outcomes of the increased wages are different.
[/quote]
this is what you said that you keep erasing
“”"If Wal-Mart was forced to increase its expenses (wages for employees) what is going to happen? They would have to lower costs or raise prices. Wal-Mart is a success because of volume at the margin, it already strong arms for the lowest suppler costs possible. So it looks like prices are going up.
What happens when prices go up? The cost of living is higher.
What does that mean? The workers need another raise.
And the cycle starts all over again, and no one is in any better shape than they were before. “”"
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would love to see a Wall Street Journal article beseeching all people not to make more money otherwise we will throw America into a period of Inflation .
[/quote]
That isn’t what I said, not even close.
Again:
If the market dictates you deserve more money you will get it. If you want more money, but the value you add to the world doesn’t afford you the wages you want, you have to learn a new skill.
However, forcing the market to pay large swaths of people more than the market dictates they are worth doesn’t solve the problem, because the market can’t afford those payments.
Like was mentioned, you are confusing demanding more money without adding more value (what I’m talking about) with earning more money through adding more value (what you are trying to pretend I am talking about.) Yes, workers get paid more in both situations, but the outcomes of the increased wages are different.
[/quote]
this is what you said that you keep erasing
“”"If Wal-Mart was forced to increase its expenses (wages for employees) what is going to happen? They would have to lower costs or raise prices. Wal-Mart is a success because of volume at the margin, it already strong arms for the lowest suppler costs possible. So it looks like prices are going up.
What happens when prices go up? The cost of living is higher.
What does that mean? The workers need another raise.
And the cycle starts all over again, and no one is in any better shape than they were before. “”"
[/quote]
And? I’m not erasing anything. Note the use of the word “force”. I didn’t use the word earn, I didn’t say they deserved more money, never once did the people add any value, therefore pricing their raise into the market.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
please elaborate ?
[/quote]
well lets look at the situation:
They are paid market wages, which means they are paid what they are worth given the skills they have, the value they bring.
[/quote]
Depends on what you mean by “what they are worth”. It is a bit of a silly statement to be honest. Those same people, with the exact same skills, could be earning $20/hr in some parts of the world and $1/hr in others.
Market wages, at the low end of the scale, are almost entirely governed by desperation, rather than a fair negotiation based on value added.
Pittbullls point is that by unionizing the employees can improve their bargaining position.
Unions can be a powerful market force. The tricky part is they require a strong community. And most parts of the US have very little in the way of community.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What happens when prices go up? The cost of living is higher.
What does that mean? The workers need another raise.
And the cycle starts all over again, and no one is in any better shape than they were before. [/quote]
That does not make any sense. Walmart products make up only a portion of the necessities of daily living. If Walmart raises prices, and all similar retailers raise prices, the price of a gallon of gas will not change. Housing costs will barely change. Utilities will more or less stay the same.
In reality such a change is likely to make low wage earners significantly better off, while at the same time higher wage earners will be slightly worse off.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
please elaborate ?
[/quote]
well lets look at the situation:
They are paid market wages, which means they are paid what they are worth given the skills they have, the value they bring.
[/quote]
Depends on what you mean by “what they are worth”. It is a bit of a silly statement to be honest. Those same people, with the exact same skills, could be earning $20/hr in some parts of the world and $1/hr in others.
Market wages, at the low end of the scale, are almost entirely governed by desperation, rather than a fair negotiation based on value added.
Pittbullls point is that by unionizing the employees can improve their bargaining position.
Unions can be a powerful market force. The tricky part is they require a strong community. And most parts of the US have very little in the way of community.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What happens when prices go up? The cost of living is higher.
What does that mean? The workers need another raise.
And the cycle starts all over again, and no one is in any better shape than they were before. [/quote]
That does not make any sense. Walmart products make up only a portion of the necessities of daily living. If Walmart raises prices, and all similar retailers raise prices, the price of a gallon of gas will not change. Housing costs will barely change. Utilities will more or less stay the same.
In reality such a change is likely to make low wage earners significantly better off, while at the same time higher wage earners will be slightly worse off.[/quote]
How dare you use rational reasoning skills on this board ?
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Depends on what you mean by “what they are worth”. It is a bit of a silly statement to be honest. Those same people, with the exact same skills, could be earning $20/hr in some parts of the world and $1/hr in others.[/quote]
No it isn’t a silly statement, not at all. These people should move to the other parts of the world where the market pays them $20 an hour then. My statement is so silly, your post proves it 100% correct.
There are macro and micro markets, just as the cost of living vary from area to area. The market dictates what you are worth depending on the value you add.
Take soccer player. In America the market says they are worth little, internationally they would be paid much more for their value added.
This is fantasy. No one is forcing these people to work anywhere, ever. Not in America. If they don’t like the pay they don’t have to take the job.
These jobs were never intended to pay living wages, never have never will. They aren’t intended to provide people with a living. They didn’t when I worked them in high school and they won’t when my kids do.
No shit. Has nothing to do with my post.
[quote]
That does not make any sense. Walmart products make up only a portion of the necessities of daily living. If Walmart raises prices, and all similar retailers raise prices, the price of a gallon of gas will not change. Housing costs will barely change. Utilities will more or less stay the same.[/quote]
I swear to God…
Yes, you are correct, when Wal-Mart has to raise prices to adjust for higher costs that add no additional value, the cost of living in that area will not change at all, nope. Paying more for things like food, cloths, TP and luxury goods has no bearing on COL, nope.
lol… So higher prices suddenly hurt higher wage earners more than lower wage earners now?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
How dare you use rational reasoning skills on this board ?
[/quote]
You should take notes
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
How dare you use rational reasoning skills on this board ?
[/quote]
You should take notes[/quote]
You are the lacking these skills at present
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You’ve really gone off the deep-end pittbulll if you think it’s appropriate for others to demand that the value of their work be inflated [/quote]
I also think grossly unfair the largest private employer deflate the value of labor
[/quote]
You are paid your worth to the company.
If I can get X quality of work for the lowest price, then I will.
Pitt, you are at the losing end of the argument. With so much unemployment, should you want to leave your job because you don’t like the pay, stand aside and let the other guy who has been out of work for months take the job.
These jobs are known to pay a certain amount, if you took the job, then you took the pay it offers. Don’t like it, leave. Perhaps these people should have planned out their life better, than to work a menial job.
I’ll bite in this thread.
Full disclosure, I’ve worked in retail both as an hourly and management employee. I’ve also worked in both mom and pop stores and big retailers and I’ve also worked for the worlds largest online retailer. I no longer work in retail though.
First, I laugh at the notion that WalMart is evil while shopping at Target. I see this a lot and I don’t understand the mentality. To me it shows a basic lack of understanding of the marketplace.
So, the reason I’m against big box retailers is simply because I don’t think that capitalism can flourish in such a marketplace. I live somewhere there are a lot of both large and small stores but in much of America there’s only these big box retailers. The small business simply cannot compete with these big guys because they don’t have access to the same suppliers. Without that there really is no competition. You also can’t go into your local Walmart and voice your true demand. Everything that we get is pushed onto us but there’s no method for us to pull the things that we really want. Sure you can do this in some cases but typically that’s not the case.
They also bring prices artificially low which is also a problem for capitalism. The price that we pay for these goods in no way reflects what the true cost is. It’s not because they are made in China but because they are subsidized in China.
Let’s also not forget that everything they sell is disposable. So not only are we stifling capitalism we are managing to just fill up our landfills with this same useless crap. In the end it’s a lot more expensive to buy the same good several times instead of paying more initially and getting something that will last a lifetime. It’s also more satisfying for workers to build something that’s really high quality. To me Walmart and the other big box retailers represent a disposable culture that I don’t agree with.
james
James,
Buying really high quality items instead of Walmart ?
What the hell are you looking to buy there, a car ?
Most people I see in the checkout line at Walmart usually have mindless shit in their carts…toiletry stuff, paper towels, diapers, cleaning supplies, maybe some food items.
If they can sell me toilet paper that will not sand my ass down to a mirrored finish, then I’m good with that.
So tell us Pittbull, how much should menial labor jobs pay? $15, $20, $30/hr? How would you determine what a “living wage” should be at? What would the result of arbitrarily increasing wages be in your opinion?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
So tell us Pittbull, how much should menial labor jobs pay? $15, $20, $30/hr? How would you determine what a “living wage” should be at? What would the result of arbitrarily increasing wages be in your opinion?[/quote]
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Pitt, you are at the losing end of the argument. [/quote]
I beg to differ 
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
These jobs were never intended to pay living wages, never have never will. They aren’t intended to provide people with a living. They didn’t when I worked them in high school and they won’t when my kids do.
[/quote]
Because Americans, in general, have no solidarity. One of the main reasons why this country is going to shit. In other countries, including countries doing far better at the moment than the US, these kinds of jobs do pay living wages.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No shit. Has nothing to do with my post.
[/quote]
I’m trying to relate your posts back to pittbullls thread.
You seem fixated on market wage. Which in context is fairly meaningless. We all understand, hopefully, the concept of a market wage. And so we all understand that it is influenced by a fair few factors, the big ones being culture, laws, unions, debt levels, supply and demand, and alternatives.
Pittbullls is talking about changing/influencing the market wage for these workers by altering the above factors (focusing on unions).
You could instead focus on the supply side of employment by cracking down on illegal immigration. Or focus on changing the culture to being less price sensitive and care more about treatment of workers. You could focus on the legal system, and implement import laws stopping local stores from having to compete with slave labour (actual slave labour).
Or change the culture so that college degrees are not the be all end all (thereby giving non-college degree holders a better shot a skilled work, much of which does not require a college degree at all). There are literally hundreds of things we can change to help lower income workers.
Lets talk about the real issue, and point of the thread: You, and many other posters, appear to be opposed to changing any of these factors to shift wages in favour of lower income workers. Why?
I personally don’t think it can be done with unions. I think we need a huge cultural shift.
In this thread, and pretty similar threads on sherdog and reddit, there are a ton of people talking about how these workers are not worth more, and do not deserve more. Many of the posters sound angry at the idea of Walmart workers being paid a living wage.
And it isn’t a left wing/right wing issue. As although T-Nation leans right, reddit leans left, and sherdog is in the middle with a fairly good mix, I see a lot of these anti-living wage posters in all three threads.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Of course it has a bearing on COL. I never argued otherwise. However, for the lower wage earners cost of living increases will be more than offset by increased wages.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol… So higher prices suddenly hurt higher wage earners more than lower wage earners now?[/quote]
Yes, when combined with increased wages for lower wage earners.
I lived in Australia for ~5 years. The cost of living is significantly higher there than in the US. However, the poor are much, much, better off. In large part because of higher wages.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Lets talk about the real issue, and point of the thread:[/quote]
Hear Hear
I just dont get why some unskilled worker who has not gained any skills should get a raise? I’m not trying to argue but from where I am, I’ve worked my ass off to pass certifications in my trade in order to make more money and be presented with more opportunities. Just curious, thanks for any responses.