The answer to raising wages at Walmart and McDonalds.

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
There have been several threads, some claiming taxpayer sponsored wages. Some claiming minimum pay is all employees will ever get. Well it occurred to me for all you people who think they are not paid enough, probably union officials. There really is an easy solution, the next time you buy your happy meal or check out at Walmart reach in to your pocket and give the cashier a 10 dollar bill. Tell them to divide the money up among other employees to help with their cost of living.

This would make you proactive instead of waiting for government or corporations to create a livable wage for employees. This solves both sides of the argument, they get what they deserve, and the customer, you, get to pay for. If everyone does this, money will flow freely into the pockets of employees everywhere and the problem is solved.

Of course it will get interesting when the store video is watched to see who spread the 10 dollar bill around, and how many claimed the money on their taxes.




posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

This is a great idea. Now, you should make a video, get some publicity for this and start a movement. Maybe the video will go viral and the more fortunate can start helping those with these piddly wages earn a better living without waiting for government to solve the problem.



I'm heading to Walmart in a little bit, I'll be one of the first to try this (even though I find myself one of those on the side of needing an extra ten dollar bill once-in-a-while.)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace
Or the people can unionize like we had back when.
Do you suggest the quality of life is better now that corporations are done "union busting"??
I worked union all of my life and did pretty well, I'm not rich but I don't have to swing a sign on a street corner either.
I promise even with the union in the way, the company made some fat cash off of me.
More than I made myself!



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I suspect that most of that money will end up in ONE pocket, not divided amongst ALL the pockets.
A great idea in theory but not practical. That puts all your trust and faith in one person to do the right thing.
Minimum wage slaves around my area would not hesitate to pocket it all.

I worked at Dunkin, we received tips that were supposed to be broken up at the end of the shift.
On more than a few occasions i noted a full tip jar but got screwed on them. This was ten years ago when wages were lower and we were all getting 35-40 hours a week.

I also don think raising the minimum wage will be the answer. Companies cut hours like crazy when the wages go up.
The real answer is healthy competition not monopolization like Walmart is so great at doing.
My city is worse now that it has been in previous years before Walmart opened its doors.
Ive watched countless businesses close in this area since Walmart opened, including kmart.

The answer to wage inequality is to stop big companies from getting a stranglehold on all these markets.

Big business is the death of small companies. They remove money from local systems and transplants it elsewhere.
At least when little business prosper the employees money stays local for the most part and helps other little business to grow.

Thanks bush, your great outsourcing incentives gave big corporations all the wiggle room they needed to prosper.
All the while on the blood sweat and tears of us peons down below. We have no choice but to continue working and moving forward, never making any headway.

Sorry, i seem to have went astray.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace


Your thread reminds me of the recent Peter Schiff video.



It's funny to me that people are all about higher wages as long as it doesn't cost them anything.







edit on 24-6-2014 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

nice idea provided you want to get the employee FIRED. i don't know about McDo's but at Wal-Mart accepting a tip is a firing offense. so your idea is not workable.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: shaneslaughta

Bush's fault? LMAO, pretty sure ole slick Willie had something to do with the outscorcing of jobs.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Because, you know, God forbid somebody contributing faithfully to the bottom line of a profitable company should get a fair cut of the fruits of their labor.

And, no, fair isn't that arbitrary.

If your shop is making good money and the folks directly contributing to that, your employees, still could just barely eek by even if they worked 50 or 60 hours a week, then there is something wrong with how you are paying.

A man (or woman) is entitled to the fruits of his labor. Period. If he's not getting it, then you're engaging in wage theft. Period.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: seabag
Would this video be a "strawman" argument?
I truly am not sure as I am not fully up on political jargon.
The video is a bad example however, obvious scammer attempting to bilk folks out of their cash after the fact in a parking lot...
Many of us do pay more, I do as I see Walmart as the devil and just don't shop there.
Industry standard is 275% markup, I'm sure the billionaires at the top of that pyramid could eek out a few more dollars.
Tell me Seabag, do you believe the quality of life is better here in the US than it was 30 years ago?
Why, why not?



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: g146541
a reply to: MarlinGrace
Or the people can unionize like we had back when.
Do you suggest the quality of life is better now that corporations are done "union busting"??
I worked union all of my life and did pretty well, I'm not rich but I don't have to swing a sign on a street corner either.
I promise even with the union in the way, the company made some fat cash off of me.
More than I made myself!



I have always thought quality of life is what you make it, and not to depend on anyone else for your fulfillment.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: MarlinGrace

This is a great idea. Now, you should make a video, get some publicity for this and start a movement. Maybe the video will go viral and the more fortunate can start helping those with these piddly wages earn a better living without waiting for government to solve the problem.



I'm heading to Walmart in a little bit, I'll be one of the first to try this (even though I find myself one of those on the side of needing an extra ten dollar bill once-in-a-while.)


Hey let us all know how it went and the reaction they gave you.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace
Nice avoidance there, will you answer the question?
Is the quality of life OVERALL better than it was 30 years ago?



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9

Bush's fault? LMAO, pretty sure ole slick Willie had something to do with the outscorcing of jobs.


You may be correct to a point. Clinton and Bush Sr laid the groundwork for NAFTA. Bush had the opportunity to correct that monumental piece of stupidity and did nothing. Bush was supported by NAFTA corporations during his election run, that stood to make big bucks from Clinton's framework.

You think it was the bush family's oil money that got him in? It was backers that had money to be made by killing the american dream.

Now we have walmart who buys warehouses of junk from china and other asian countries at pennies on the dollar and make a huge profit.

Bush supported NAFTA and signed off on NAFTA after he was elected. He is the reason we are in this mess.

Just my opinion of course.

Edit: Clinton signed the bill. My mistake.


In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994. Under NAFTA, the United States, Canada, and Mexico become a single, giant, integrated market of almost 400 million people with $6.5 trillion worth of goods and services annually. Mexico is the world's second largest importer of U.S. manufactured goods and the third largest importer of U.S. agricultural products. Prior to NAFTA, Mexican tariffs averaged about 250% as compared to U.S. duties. After the pact, about half of the tariffs on trade between Mexico and the United States were eliminated, and the remaining tariffs and restrictions on service and investment (as far as it is possible) will be phased out over a 15-year period. The United States and Canada have had a free-trade agreement since 1989. The treaty provides full protection of intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, and trademarks) and also includes provisions covering trade rules and dispute settlement and establishes trilateral commissions to administer them. NAFTA also marks the first time in the history of U.S. trade policy that environmental concerns have been directly addressed. Read more: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) | www.infoplease.com...
edit on 6/24/2014 by shaneslaughta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: shaneslaughta

Bush's fault? LMAO, pretty sure ole slick Willie had something to do with the outscorcing of jobs.


Although Bush started NAFTA negotiations it was Clinton who signed it into law.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Except that it's against company policy for them to do such things and will be fired.

McDonald's has a policy of having all tips go to their charity



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: g146541



Would this video be a "strawman" argument?
I truly am not sure as I am not fully up on political jargon.
The video is a bad example however, obvious scammer attempting to bilk folks out of their cash after the fact in a parking lot...

I think the video cleverly illustrates a point that many overlook, especially those who support higher wages for entry level positions…and that point is…the 'extra money' to pay these wages comes from somewhere, and it CERTAINLY won’t be from the pockets of the fat cats on the Board of Directors. NOPE!!! It will be added to the cost of goods and we’ll all pay it!




Many of us do pay more, I do as I see Walmart as the devil and just don't shop there.
Industry standard is 275% markup, I'm sure the billionaires at the top of that pyramid could eek out a few more dollars.
That’s where you become supremely arrogant. What gives you (or anyone) the right to limit the amount of money another American can earn?




Tell me Seabag, do you believe the quality of life is better here in the US than it was 30 years ago? Why, why not?
That is a very open question. I can only speak for myself. Yes, my quality of life is better than it was 30 (20, 10, or even 5) years ago. For those whose quality of life is on the decline, maybe that has more to do with the fact that for every “job” created under the Obama administration 75 people went on food stamps. Are Walmart’s low wages to blame for the US economic downturn that has led to a standard of living decline or could it be bad economic policy in DC?

edit on 24-6-2014 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
How about we put our big boy pants on, and do what we need to do, to live the way we want to live?

Way back when, I had to have 2 jobs, to make due, with the extras I wanted.
And today? A co worker has taken a second job. She can live on this one, but needs some extra to pay for a surprise expense.

What is so wrong with that?

Or, just get on welfare. Then you can afford the newest phone.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: KawRider9

Come on now Rider, a little respect here...
Thats "slick" with a capital S. Say it. Slick Willie. See?



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: chiefsmom
How about we put our big boy pants on, and do what we need to do, to live the way we want to live?

Way back when, I had to have 2 jobs, to make due, with the extras I wanted.
And today? A co worker has taken a second job. She can live on this one, but needs some extra to pay for a surprise expense.

What is so wrong with that?

Or, just get on welfare. Then you can afford the newest phone.


Exactly.

Instead of talking about "living wages" how about you go earn one!!

Nobody should be led to believe that work done at an entry level position, such as McDonalds or a Walmart cashier, somehow rates a "living wage". Just because you show up and do a little work doesn't mean you get a new car, house, 401K, etc. It takes more than that, children. Time to face reality!



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

I've seen a large amount of charitable organisations start up on the net.

Why doesn't someone start an on-line charity (start with Walmart) and simply state that if you think the minimum wage is not enough, put your money where your mouth is.

This charity will then allow Walmart employees to take from it what they need. All those who complain about the poor wages can then feel good that they are providing for people that cannot provide for themselves.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join