In the interest of truth and justice, I will counter with this (without challenging the premise that the Jets are absolutely pathetic).
[quote]smh23 wrote:
In the interest of truth and justice, I will counter with this (without challenging the premise that the Jets are absolutely pathetic). [/quote]
haha, I’m surprised he can lift up his hand that high with the wieght of 3 rings on it.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Not this minimum wage bullshit again.
Do you guys seriously still not get that a minimum wage law is not a mandatory employment law?
If you are not worth the new and improved minimum wage you will lose you job, that is all that is going to happen.[/quote]
It’s about ethics and intention. The letter of the law can always be altered to meet the desires of certain interest groups, usually the ones holding all the loot in order to spite the ethics and intention of whatever justice the law is supposed to serve. Are we playing this game?[/quote]
The same way Unions bought and paid for every single Democratic election and victory in California ?
You walk about ethics, yet when we try to implement our own “Citzens United” decision on a state level it was the UNIONS who killed it ?
If you think corruption is limited to business, take a look at our (California’s) newest crown achievement, rated the worst run state in the Union, for the 2nd year in a row.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Again, what are you talking about?
Wages are determined by productivity.
There is no magic wage fairy determining the price of labor.
You iz producing 5$ of worth an hour, you no make more.
[/quote]
Who exactly determines what each worker is producing an hour? Is there some sort of committee? Are we talking complicated mathematical calculations here? Are we sure that a Walmart employee is producing $7.10 and not $7.50? How are we sure? Is it that elusive genius known as the market? What calculations does he use to come to his infallible conclusions? Has he ever been wrong?
Or is it more like, “alight, I’ve got to put somebody behind my cash register…the desperate fucks around here will settle for $6 an hour, don’t you think?”
According to your logic, there are no fair or unfair wages. All wages are and should be exactly what they are. Surely this logical rhyme and reason in wage determination is not a specifically American phenomenon. It applies just as well to a Cambodian child cutting fake leather for Nike shoes at $11/week, right?
I’m not big on ensuring that people make “a fair living” beyond what they already earn in this country. But let’s not pretend that all wages are Goldilocks-perfect bowls of porridge–perfect and precise reflections of what their earners produce–and ipso facto fair without room for doubt or debate.[/quote]
The market.
No.
No.
No.
We arent.
Yes.
None.
Not in the long term.
Yes, so?
Yes it does.
Let’s look at some numbers to see how feasible it would be for a company the size of Walmart to pay employees more than they already are. Walmart employs around 1.4 million people in the US. Let’s assume only 60% are hourly employees. That leaves us with 840,000 people. I read about half are part time workers so lets say these workers work an average of 30 hrs/wk. Let’s give them all a raise of $2.
840,000 workers x $2/hr x 30 hrs/wk x 52 wks/yr = $2.6 billion. Walmart’s 2011 net profit was $16B. A paltry $2/hr raise wipes out 1/6th of Walmarts profit.
But hey, I see no reason they can’t double everyone’s pay.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Let’s look at some numbers to see how feasible it would be for a company the size of Walmart to pay employees more than they already are. Walmart employs around 1.4 million people in the US. Let’s assume only 60% are hourly employees. That leaves us with 840,000 people. I read about half are part time workers so lets say these workers work an average of 30 hrs/wk. Let’s give them all a raise of $2.
840,000 workers x $2/hr x 30 hrs/wk x 52 wks/yr = $2.6 billion. Walmart’s 2011 net profit was $16B. A paltry $2/hr raise wipes out 1/6th of Walmarts profit.
But hey, I see no reason they can’t double everyone’s pay.[/quote]
1/6th is lite. A short list of additional costs you’re forgetting:
FICA increases
Insurance increases
SUTA increases
FUTA increases
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/bigbox_livingwage_policies11.pdf
Here is a case study for you.
Cwill - I sold the business to a guy with multiple locations and no one retired millionaires
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…I’m not big on ensuring that people make “a fair living” beyond what they already earn in this country. But let’s not pretend that all wages are Goldilocks-perfect bowls of porridge–perfect and precise reflections of what their earners produce–and ipso facto fair without room for doubt or debate.[/quote]
That’s not the point. The point is that some bozos think the government of all things can figure this out.
The government is the biggest, stumbling, bumbling retard on the block.[/quote]
^ THIS, times a million.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Let’s look at some numbers to see how feasible it would be for a company the size of Walmart to pay employees more than they already are. Walmart employs around 1.4 million people in the US. Let’s assume only 60% are hourly employees. That leaves us with 840,000 people. I read about half are part time workers so lets say these workers work an average of 30 hrs/wk. Let’s give them all a raise of $2.
840,000 workers x $2/hr x 30 hrs/wk x 52 wks/yr = $2.6 billion. Walmart’s 2011 net profit was $16B. A paltry $2/hr raise wipes out 1/6th of Walmarts profit.
But hey, I see no reason they can’t double everyone’s pay.[/quote]
A $2 raise costs the company much more than $2. Figure total payroll costs and things look even worse.
[/quote]
Yep. I figured in just the simple act of raising wages by $2/hr to show how absurd it is to arbitrarily claim a company like Walmart is exploiting slave labor. Many here would say $2/hr raise is not enough. A 1/6th loss in profits would be catastrophic on Wall Street. It clearly would be even worse when you figured in the additional costs. The same goes for all the people who complain not all employees get to work 40hrs/wk.
What line of work are you guys in, out of curiosity?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…I’m not big on ensuring that people make “a fair living” beyond what they already earn in this country. But let’s not pretend that all wages are Goldilocks-perfect bowls of porridge–perfect and precise reflections of what their earners produce–and ipso facto fair without room for doubt or debate.[/quote]
That’s not the point. The point is that some bozos think the government of all things can figure this out.
The government is the biggest, stumbling, bumbling retard on the block.[/quote]
This is fair enough. I’m inclined to agree, though I do support a (relatively low) minimum wage.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
What are you talking about?
You make the claim that wages are determined by productivity. Then where do I collect my wages when I was working 12+ hour shifts 7 days a week as an e3 with an e7 billet as a quality assurance inspector of aircraft maintenance? Hardest I ever worked, least I was ever paid.
Now, please explain your claim about wages determining productivity. This is rich 
[/quote]
Holeee Excrement, did you just equate military service with civilian free [cough] market jobs?[/quote]
Here’s a bib, control your drool Opie. Look at the post, I’m not the one who made such a broad and general assertion, I simply replied to it.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Let’s look at some numbers to see how feasible it would be for a company the size of Walmart to pay employees more than they already are. Walmart employs around 1.4 million people in the US. Let’s assume only 60% are hourly employees. That leaves us with 840,000 people. I read about half are part time workers so lets say these workers work an average of 30 hrs/wk. Let’s give them all a raise of $2.
840,000 workers x $2/hr x 30 hrs/wk x 52 wks/yr = $2.6 billion. Walmart’s 2011 net profit was $16B. A paltry $2/hr raise wipes out 1/6th of Walmarts profit.
But hey, I see no reason they can’t double everyone’s pay.[/quote]
A $2 raise costs the company much more than $2. Figure total payroll costs and things look even worse.
[/quote]
Yep. I figured in just the simple act of raising wages by $2/hr to show how absurd it is to arbitrarily claim a company like Walmart is exploiting slave labor. Many here would say $2/hr raise is not enough. A 1/6th loss in profits would be catastrophic on Wall Street. It clearly would be even worse when you figured in the additional costs. The same goes for all the people who complain not all employees get to work 40hrs/wk.
[/quote]
The difference is people who work poverty wages don’t have a stock option or anything invested in stock or Wall Street. Walmart isn’t just a corporation, it’s a model of a corporation. If you have a store that covers just about all facets of commercial shopping, groceries, appliances etc, where else are people going to go? Maybe they go to Lowe’s or Costco, Costco seems to have a more people friendly business model as far as what I have heard from those that work there. But if every Corporation took their model as far as employee payment, it’s awful for the economy as a whole, all you have to do is think it through and you will see it is a parasite of a Corporation.
End of the day, when everywhere you shop ends up being from a Corp, and every laborer is paid a poverty wage, why don’t you tell me the rest of this story? It’s not going to matter what the value of the stock is when the people living at the very bottom live in poverty. Think about this prophecy, the Company is expanding and it offers nothing but poverty jobs by design, and this is THE corporate model so many look to copy. Is this something you want in your neighborhood? Do you want your sons or daughters working there, and climbing that bullshit ladder? I’ll say this, I wouldn’t want your kids to work there, but maybe you would want me and mine to? Some of you call yourselves patriots. Ha!
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Let’s look at some numbers to see how feasible it would be for a company the size of Walmart to pay employees more than they already are. Walmart employs around 1.4 million people in the US. Let’s assume only 60% are hourly employees. That leaves us with 840,000 people. I read about half are part time workers so lets say these workers work an average of 30 hrs/wk. Let’s give them all a raise of $2.
840,000 workers x $2/hr x 30 hrs/wk x 52 wks/yr = $2.6 billion. Walmart’s 2011 net profit was $16B. A paltry $2/hr raise wipes out 1/6th of Walmarts profit.
But hey, I see no reason they can’t double everyone’s pay.[/quote]
A $2 raise costs the company much more than $2. Figure total payroll costs and things look even worse.
[/quote]
Yep. I figured in just the simple act of raising wages by $2/hr to show how absurd it is to arbitrarily claim a company like Walmart is exploiting slave labor. Many here would say $2/hr raise is not enough. A 1/6th loss in profits would be catastrophic on Wall Street. It clearly would be even worse when you figured in the additional costs. The same goes for all the people who complain not all employees get to work 40hrs/wk.
[/quote]
The difference is people who work poverty wages don’t have a stock option or anything invested in stock or Wall Street. Walmart isn’t just a corporation, it’s a model of a corporation. If you have a store that covers just about all facets of commercial shopping, groceries, appliances etc, where else are people going to go? Maybe they go to Lowe’s or Costco, Costco seems to have a more people friendly business model as far as what I have heard from those that work there. But if every Corporation took their model as far as employee payment, it’s awful for the economy as a whole, all you have to do is think it through and you will see it is a parasite of a Corporation.
End of the day, when everywhere you shop ends up being from a Corp, and every laborer is paid a poverty wage, why don’t you tell me the rest of this story? It’s not going to matter what the value of the stock is when the people living at the very bottom live in poverty. Think about this prophecy, the Company is expanding and it offers nothing but poverty jobs by design, and this is THE corporate model so many look to copy. Is this something you want in your neighborhood? Do you want your sons or daughters working there, and climbing that bullshit ladder? I’ll say this, I wouldn’t want your kids to work there, but maybe you would want me and mine to? Some of you call yourselves patriots. Ha!
[/quote]
Back in the real world there are hundreds of stores that don’t operate like WalMArt, you even mentioned one earlier. So your chicken little rant is moot and void of fact.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Again, what are you talking about?
Wages are determined by productivity.
There is no magic wage fairy determining the price of labor.
You iz producing 5$ of worth an hour, you no make more.
[/quote]
Who exactly determines what each worker is producing an hour? Is there some sort of committee? Are we talking complicated mathematical calculations here? Are we sure that a Walmart employee is producing $7.10 and not $7.50? How are we sure? Is it that elusive genius known as the market? What calculations does he use to come to his infallible conclusions? Has he ever been wrong?
Or is it more like, “alight, I’ve got to put somebody behind my cash register…the desperate fucks around here will settle for $6 an hour, don’t you think?”
According to your logic, there are no fair or unfair wages. All wages are and should be exactly what they are. Surely this logical rhyme and reason in wage determination is not a specifically American phenomenon. It applies just as well to a Cambodian child cutting fake leather for Nike shoes at $11/week, right?
I’m not big on ensuring that people make “a fair living” beyond what they already earn in this country. But let’s not pretend that all wages are Goldilocks-perfect bowls of porridge–perfect and precise reflections of what their earners produce–and ipso facto fair without room for doubt or debate.[/quote]
The market.
No.
No.
No.
We arent.
Yes.
None.
Not in the long term.
Yes, so?
Yes it does. [/quote]
Way I’ve made sense is that he is just sharing his technical understanding of how things work, not how things should work. We were talking about business ethics and how things should work. Currently the employer decides in a sense when an employee decides to take on a job. What he never mentions is there are no ethics other than making the most profit you can get away with. If they could get away with paying people negative money, they would. But he would never volunteer that information out.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Let’s look at some numbers to see how feasible it would be for a company the size of Walmart to pay employees more than they already are. Walmart employs around 1.4 million people in the US. Let’s assume only 60% are hourly employees. That leaves us with 840,000 people. I read about half are part time workers so lets say these workers work an average of 30 hrs/wk. Let’s give them all a raise of $2.
840,000 workers x $2/hr x 30 hrs/wk x 52 wks/yr = $2.6 billion. Walmart’s 2011 net profit was $16B. A paltry $2/hr raise wipes out 1/6th of Walmarts profit.
But hey, I see no reason they can’t double everyone’s pay.[/quote]
A $2 raise costs the company much more than $2. Figure total payroll costs and things look even worse.
[/quote]
Yep. I figured in just the simple act of raising wages by $2/hr to show how absurd it is to arbitrarily claim a company like Walmart is exploiting slave labor. Many here would say $2/hr raise is not enough. A 1/6th loss in profits would be catastrophic on Wall Street. It clearly would be even worse when you figured in the additional costs. The same goes for all the people who complain not all employees get to work 40hrs/wk.
[/quote]
The difference is people who work poverty wages don’t have a stock option or anything invested in stock or Wall Street. Walmart isn’t just a corporation, it’s a model of a corporation. If you have a store that covers just about all facets of commercial shopping, groceries, appliances etc, where else are people going to go? Maybe they go to Lowe’s or Costco, Costco seems to have a more people friendly business model as far as what I have heard from those that work there. But if every Corporation took their model as far as employee payment, it’s awful for the economy as a whole, all you have to do is think it through and you will see it is a parasite of a Corporation.
End of the day, when everywhere you shop ends up being from a Corp, and every laborer is paid a poverty wage, why don’t you tell me the rest of this story? It’s not going to matter what the value of the stock is when the people living at the very bottom live in poverty. Think about this prophecy, the Company is expanding and it offers nothing but poverty jobs by design, and this is THE corporate model so many look to copy. Is this something you want in your neighborhood? Do you want your sons or daughters working there, and climbing that bullshit ladder? I’ll say this, I wouldn’t want your kids to work there, but maybe you would want me and mine to? Some of you call yourselves patriots. Ha!
[/quote]
Back in the real world there are hundreds of stores that don’t operate like WalMArt, you even mentioned one earlier. So your chicken little rant is moot and void of fact.[/quote]
Not when said company employs, and is expanding, and is the overt cause of over 1 million americans living in poverty. You don’t see that I’m trying to teach you ethics about business and what it is to be a good company for the country. Being a Patriot is doing right for the country as a whole AND still remain profitable. Not leaching from it in some convoluted way that you think nobody else would recognize. People aren’t as dumb as you think.