[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
So you agree government is the problem that is causing low wages.
[/quote]
no
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[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]
http://livingwage.mit.edu/[/quote]
So you truly believe an employer should base a person’s salary not on their added value to the company but on how many people that person has living at home?
[/quote]
The value of an employee is skewed , Walmart get the advantage of paying a substandard wage because the Government will subsidize people that do not make enough money.
[/quote]
Wait, what?? How would government NOT subsidizing people who do not make enough money help Walmart? If the gov’t didnt subsizie those people walmart would STILL pay them what they are now. That’s ridiculous.
yes that’s correct…
and if walmart paid out it’s entire profit(24 billion) to their workers, it would actually put their workers in a worse position. As they would no longer qualify for benefits and would have to buy everything they were provided by the US gov in the open market now. Due to sheer size of the US Gov and their lack of a profit motive, the US gov is able to provide better benefits than what can be bought in the open market for the same amount of money. So, it’s not in the worker’s interest to make more.
The current system is better than what you are recommending…
And, it’s not Walmart’s fault…this is just the way that the society has developed…
Anybody can operate a cash register or stock shelves…not too many people in the US can write computer code or design an oil pipeline…
If you are not attempting to learn a perceived to be rare and sought after skill, then you won’t make money in this society…
Because nothing is free in this world…you need to take risk and sacrifice to get what you want…
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[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]
http://livingwage.mit.edu/[/quote]
So you truly believe an employer should base a person’s salary not on their added value to the company but on how many people that person has living at home?
[/quote]
The value of an employee is skewed , Walmart get the advantage of paying a substandard wage because the Government will subsidize people that do not make enough money.
[/quote]
Wait, what?? How would government NOT subsidizing people who do not make enough money help Walmart? If the gov’t didnt subsizie those people walmart would STILL pay them what they are now. That’s ridiculous.[/quote]
this post makes no sense, pleases explain
[quote]D Public wrote:
yes that’s correct…
and if walmart paid out it’s entire profit(24 billion) to their workers, it would actually put their workers in a worse position. As they would no longer qualify for benefits and would have to buy everything they were provided by the US gov in the open market now. Due to sheer size of the US Gov and their lack of a profit motive, the US gov is able to provide better benefits than what can be bought in the open market for the same amount of money. So, it’s not in the worker’s interest to make more.
The current system is better than what you are recommending…
And, it’s not Walmart’s fault…this is just the way that the society has developed…
Anybody can operate a cash register or stock shelves…not too many people in the US can write computer code or design an oil pipeline…
If you are not attempting to learn a perceived to be rare and sought after skill, then you won’t make money in this society…
Because nothing is free in this world…you need to take risk and sacrifice to get what you want…
[/quote]
I don’t understand this one either ?
I like how people talk about most American’s standards of living as if they are some sort of “right”. Damn ridiculous.
If I work 40 hrs/week at Walmart, making, say $5.50 after taxes, that’s $220 per week. This comes to, on average, about $940/month you’re earning. Find a studio apartment for $500/month, let’s say another $100 for utilities. You have $340 left over for the month. You ride a bicycle to work, you own and minimally use a pay-as-you-go cell phone, let’s say that runs up $15 per month. $325 left still. You can eat off about $150 a month, so down to $175. At this point, your living space, utilities, communication, transportation, and food are paid for. Of course there’s toiletries and cleaning supplies and random other little things you need, but you’ve got about $40-45 to spare each week for that stuff.
And this is a bottom-level job, with no education requirements, assuming you are the sole income. Problem is, people in a similar situation think they are entitled to a car, an unlimited phone plan with an iphone of course, all sorts of gadgets they don’t need, all sorts of electronics they don’t need, etc. Oh, and give this theoretical person a roommate to split rent and utilities with, and suddenly you can actually afford a car to get around town, and decent health coverage. If you ask me, the biggest issue we have is people living beyond their means. Civilians, government officials, the programs they run, etc.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I like how people talk about most American’s standards of living as if they are some sort of “right”. Damn ridiculous.
If I work 40 hrs/week at Walmart, making, say $5.50 after taxes, that’s $220 per week. This comes to, on average, about $940/month you’re earning. Find a studio apartment for $500/month, let’s say another $100 for utilities. You have $340 left over for the month. You ride a bicycle to work, you own and minimally use a pay-as-you-go cell phone, let’s say that runs up $15 per month. $325 left still. You can eat off about $150 a month, so down to $175. At this point, your living space, utilities, communication, transportation, and food are paid for. Of course there’s toiletries and cleaning supplies and random other little things you need, but you’ve got about $40-45 to spare each week for that stuff.
And this is a bottom-level job, with no education requirements, assuming you are the sole income. Problem is, people in a similar situation think they are entitled to a car, an unlimited phone plan with an iphone of course, all sorts of gadgets they don’t need, all sorts of electronics they don’t need, etc. Oh, and give this theoretical person a roommate to split rent and utilities with, and suddenly you can actually afford a car to get around town, and decent health coverage. If you ask me, the biggest issue we have is people living beyond their means. Civilians, government officials, the programs they run, etc. [/quote]
You seem quite content to let the employer set all the terms of employment ,what if you live 20 miles from Walmart ? There are all kind of variables
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You seem quite content to let the employer set all the terms of employment
[/quote]
They dont.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You seem quite content to let the employer set all the terms of employment
[/quote]
They dont.
[/quote]
I am assuming you mean the employees . I know i would not
Pitbull, you are totally missing the point. No one is being forced to work at Walmart, and those that chose to do so at their own discretion.
You are equating Walmart to a slave labor camp. Unskilled laborers should be paid as such, and Walmart pays and treats them appropriately.
If you live 20 miles from Walmart … DON’T apply for a job at Walmart, perhaps? What is Walmart supposed to do, give you a car? No employer cares where you choose to live, so long as you show up on time and do your job.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Pitbull, you are totally missing the point. No one is being forced to work at Walmart
[/quote]
Oh i get it now , they can sit at home and collect welfare , thanks for the help
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I like how people talk about most American’s standards of living as if they are some sort of “right”. Damn ridiculous.
If I work 40 hrs/week at Walmart, making, say $5.50 after taxes, that’s $220 per week. This comes to, on average, about $940/month you’re earning. Find a studio apartment for $500/month, let’s say another $100 for utilities. You have $340 left over for the month. You ride a bicycle to work, you own and minimally use a pay-as-you-go cell phone, let’s say that runs up $15 per month. $325 left still. You can eat off about $150 a month, so down to $175. At this point, your living space, utilities, communication, transportation, and food are paid for. Of course there’s toiletries and cleaning supplies and random other little things you need, but you’ve got about $40-45 to spare each week for that stuff.
And this is a bottom-level job, with no education requirements, assuming you are the sole income. Problem is, people in a similar situation think they are entitled to a car, an unlimited phone plan with an iphone of course, all sorts of gadgets they don’t need, all sorts of electronics they don’t need, etc. Oh, and give this theoretical person a roommate to split rent and utilities with, and suddenly you can actually afford a car to get around town, and decent health coverage. If you ask me, the biggest issue we have is people living beyond their means. Civilians, government officials, the programs they run, etc. [/quote]
You seem quite content to let the employer set all the terms of employment ,what if you live 20 miles from Walmart ? There are all kind of variables
[/quote]
Lol. Balancing a budget is equal to letting employers use slave labor, huh? No wonder Dems don’t seem to comprehend the concept of a budget. You are delusional.
Fuck you 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Fuck you :)[/quote]
Good rational response friend. And you wonder why people just laugh at your posts. Ever heard the tale of the boy who cried wolf? Same idea applies…when you get a reputation for acting like an idiot and half-assing arguments, even when you have a potentially good idea, nobody takes you seriously.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I like how people talk about most American’s standards of living as if they are some sort of “right”. Damn ridiculous.
If I work 40 hrs/week at Walmart, making, say $5.50 after taxes, that’s $220 per week. This comes to, on average, about $940/month you’re earning. Find a studio apartment for $500/month, let’s say another $100 for utilities. You have $340 left over for the month. You ride a bicycle to work, you own and minimally use a pay-as-you-go cell phone, let’s say that runs up $15 per month. $325 left still. You can eat off about $150 a month, so down to $175. At this point, your living space, utilities, communication, transportation, and food are paid for. Of course there’s toiletries and cleaning supplies and random other little things you need, but you’ve got about $40-45 to spare each week for that stuff.
And this is a bottom-level job, with no education requirements, assuming you are the sole income. Problem is, people in a similar situation think they are entitled to a car, an unlimited phone plan with an iphone of course, all sorts of gadgets they don’t need, all sorts of electronics they don’t need, etc. Oh, and give this theoretical person a roommate to split rent and utilities with, and suddenly you can actually afford a car to get around town, and decent health coverage. If you ask me, the biggest issue we have is people living beyond their means. Civilians, government officials, the programs they run, etc. [/quote]
Bingo. I lived off a similar amount myself for some time (several years). I had a tight budget, but ends were met month to month. I also know a couple people who work at Walmart full-time, not as managers or anything, who are making ends meet month to month. It is difficult, but doable in many places. If you need cheaper housing, find a roommate or two. It’s not glamourous. But it’s possible. This guy even has a flat screen tv and xbox and netflix. It is doable.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Fuck you :)[/quote]
Good rational response friend. And you wonder why people just laugh at your posts. Ever heard the tale of the boy who cried wolf? Same idea applies…when you get a reputation for acting like an idiot and half-assing arguments, even when you have a potentially good idea, nobody takes you seriously. [/quote]
Exactly. Phaeton made an argument that was sensibly written, logically put together, and easy to follow (even if I believe it to be incorrect for a variety of reasons.) Pittbull has done none of that, and moreover seems to be completely confused by simple responses. That or he’s doing it on purpose, which is even more ridiculous.
Pitt–as for my last statement, it is easy to follow: you said that Walmart gets away with paying employees what they do BECAUSE Uncle Sam subsidizes the ones who don’t make enough money (your words not mine). Well, if Uncle Sam were to withdraw all the support for the ones that don’t make enough money according to you, Walmart would STILL pay them the same wage they are now. In other words, that argument is incorrect and that is not the reason Walmart can pay workers what they do.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Fuck you :)[/quote]
Good rational response friend. And you wonder why people just laugh at your posts. Ever heard the tale of the boy who cried wolf? Same idea applies…when you get a reputation for acting like an idiot and half-assing arguments, even when you have a potentially good idea, nobody takes you seriously. [/quote]
You are so wise please tell me more
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Fuck you :)[/quote]
Good rational response friend. And you wonder why people just laugh at your posts. Ever heard the tale of the boy who cried wolf? Same idea applies…when you get a reputation for acting like an idiot and half-assing arguments, even when you have a potentially good idea, nobody takes you seriously. [/quote]
Exactly. Phaeton made an argument that was sensibly written, logically put together, and easy to follow (even if I believe it to be incorrect for a variety of reasons.) Pittbull has done none of that, and moreover seems to be completely confused by simple responses. That or he’s doing it on purpose, which is even more ridiculous.
Pitt–as for my last statement, it is easy to follow: you said that Walmart gets away with paying employees what they do BECAUSE Uncle Sam subsidizes the ones who don’t make enough money (your words not mine). Well, if Uncle Sam were to withdraw all the support for the ones that don’t make enough money according to you, Walmart would STILL pay them the same wage they are now. In other words, that argument is incorrect and that is not the reason Walmart can pay workers what they do.[/quote]
Holy shit two wise people that think exactly alike , what if Walomart is the only emplyer around for 20 miles , I guess you are back to welfare
Well I agree with pittbull about pot, but not about unions. Unionization IMO is antiquated and counter-productive these days. There was a time and place for it, but not anymore. If WalMart unionizes now all that will come of it is increased prices due to artificially inflated labor costs.
Exactly. Phaeton made an argument that was sensibly written, logically put together, and easy to follow (even if I believe it to be incorrect for a variety of reasons.) Pittbull has done none of that, and moreover seems to be completely confused by simple responses. That or he’s doing it on purpose, which is even more ridiculous.
Pitt–as for my last statement, it is easy to follow: you said that Walmart gets away with paying employees what they do BECAUSE Uncle Sam subsidizes the ones who don’t make enough money (your words not mine). Well, if Uncle Sam were to withdraw all the support for the ones that don’t make enough money according to you, Walmart would STILL pay them the same wage they are now. In other words, that argument is incorrect and that is not the reason Walmart can pay workers what they do.[/quote]
Holy shit two wise people that think exactly alike , what if Walomart is the only emplyer around for 20 miles , I guess you are back to welfare
[/quote]
I would find it quite unlikely Walmart would be the only employer within a 20 mile radius of anywhere. But for arguments sake, as an adult it would be a person’s responsibility to move to where the jobs are instead of sitting on their ass collecting welfare.