It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

D.C. Council votes to Force Walmart to pay "living wage"--50% over minimum wage.

page: 22
19
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by macman
 


I have read every post in this thread and my conclusion is thus. These people who are against a company with only a 3.5% profit margin are those who are collectivists.

Maybe they should try for 4% then, and have 0.5% slated for the front end workers?


They appear to have a jealousy of people who make money. They appear to think working to get ahead is evil and they want rich people to distribute everything to those not as well off. Basically, they have a socialist mindset.

Is there any reason why people shouldn't think that way? In this day and age where the rich get rich by siphoning off regular people by either overpriced for profit margined goods or pay that is too low?
Are we supposed to feel good about that and just shut up, go to work and be happy and use a credit card to pay the rent, have the bank charge you X amount of dollars for overdrafting your bank account (the banks poor bastard fee)?
Just be happy that you are not in control of the labour you sell to make a living with.

Yeah, there is something definitely wrong with a socialist mindset, people should just shut up and accept what is shoved down their throats, we should be happy to work for peanuts and make every drop of cheap drop of sweat count to make Mr.Buckstuffer comfortably rich.
We only live once, may as well serve the man and pretend we love bending over for him and taking it.
Right?


Because of this, nothing we can say will help them understand. They have an agenda which is against the very model this country was built on....

Your right, your country was built on slavery, people are against that.




posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


My Grandparents were alive during the great depression, I do not know about yours. But lets look at what has happened since that time.

In 1933 we lost the gold standard in America. At that time a troy ounce of gold cost 20.67, shortly after gold inflated to 35.00 and held there until 1971 when Nixon took us off the gold standard completely. Today, an ounce of gold is 1280 dollars.

Link: www.history.com...
Link: www.goldpriceoz.com...

Back in 1933, and even before that in the 1700's.... an ounce of gold would purchase a man's suit. Today, an ounce of gold will still purchase a man's suit

Link: www.idexonline.com...

It is not Walmart's fault that our dollar is worth so little, you can thank this countries leaders for that long long ago before you were even born. Your dollars worth of pay, not being worth what it was back then is inflation due to the devaluation of the dollar.....

When you look at gold, and what gold will buy, nothing has changed much... its only when you look at the dollar and its apparent devaluation.

NO ONE can apparently fix that...I honestly dont know what could fix it at this point without it all coming to a head and us hitting an economic bottom where we really rethink our monetary and banking system..... but I do know with certainty that printing up more dollars indiscriminately wont fix it, this will and is only making it worse.

If you want someone to blame for this, look to your government, not the corporations you shop at.... look to our broken banking system and the government which supports it.....

Becoming a socialist type of society is not the answer btw. THAT is not an option or an answer.

edit on 2-8-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB

If you want someone to blame for this, look to your government, not the corporations you shop at.... look to our broken banking system and the government which supports it.....


edit on 2-8-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


see the problem with this logic is that corruption in the government can be attributed to corporate involvement
so if walmart lobbies the government for these things and the government delivers why should they not be held as accountable?
and the entire purpose of our "broken banking system" is to facilitate the transfer and accumulation of capital which (shocker) seems to be working quite well for corporations.... funny that
im astounded at the mental hoops youre jumping through to convince yourself that corporations do not share a good portion of the responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in


Originally posted by OpinionatedB

Becoming a socialist type of society is not the answer btw. THAT is not an option or an answer.

edit on 2-8-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


look im not going to sit here and tell you socialism is perfect and is going to solve all our problems (any economic system is as flawed as the people participating in it) but these kinds of comments are as disturbing as the are telling
edit on 2-8-2013 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB

If you want someone to blame for this, look to your government, not the corporations you shop at....



It's funny that you think there's a difference between the two.
That being said; when the six members of the Walton family earn more than 30% of American population combined, there's a problem.

The issue isn't the value of the dollar, which is in decline I agree. It's that CEOs fancy themselves 12.5x more important that they used to. It's a Rock Star attitude, plain and simple.

The failing value of the dollar, coupled with the uneven inflation-to-wage ratio is a reason to pay people more not less.



edit on 2-8-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by sirhumperdink
 


Have you ever heard:

"Mellon pulled the whistle
Hoover rang the bell
Wall Street gave the signal
And the country went to hell."

It was the communist lobby and the bankers who originally lobbied for the loss of the gold standard... the result? Corporations took advantage of it.....

I have no doubt you would also. Most people here that are complaining are only doing so because they have yet to figure it all out and be in the category of the rich, or they are in the category of the communists / socialists... why, because people think a socialist country could fix all this for them....

but it wont, it never will... (and I am really NOT sorry my antisocialist mindset disturbs you!) I am on the side of Hoover, he fought against the loss of the gold standard....Now, we need to figure out how to make our dollar worth something again, something real and something more than just toilet paper.
edit on 2-8-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


you appear to be stuck living under the influence of propoganda from a world that hasnt existed in 80 years and this conversation is at an end



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by sirhumperdink
 


That "world" and those actions are the root cause of what is happening today.... I am not sorry for looking for the root cause and seeking ways to fix that rather than blaming anyone you feel like blaming in order to further your own personal agenda...

Do you really think that temporary fixes on top of temporary fixes on top of temporary fixes will solve the problem? I am of the opinion that you have to fix the cause or the problem just keeps redeveloping.


edit on 2-8-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss

Originally posted by Bearack

Originally posted by Garkiniss

Originally posted by Bearack

Just an FYI, Walmart doe snot control the conditions in the work place in China. All facilities are government run. They can use oversight of product, but have little control on conditions. Not condoning it, just stating a mere fact.


Wrong. Walmart chose to place that factory in China.
If I chose to place a baby in a shark tank, I can't say it's not my fault the baby was treated "badly" by the shark.

Even if it saved me 5 billion dollars a year, I wouldn't open a factory under those conditions. There's such a thing as ethics and morals.


I don't disagree hence why I did not condone the practice. However, I still put a portion of the blame on the consumer as they demand as cheap of products as possible. If we would just pay a little more at a place that manufactures in the US, eventually Walmart would need to follow suit. However, we will price shop a 60" TV and see that Walmart has it $200 cheaper for a name brand produced out of china and buy it without batting an eye.



Have you ever given much thought as to why people demand cheaper products? Could it be that people are earning half of what they earned 50 years ago? The "demand" in Supply & Demand is much more desperate than it used to be.
That's not the fault of the consumer. That isn't "choice" by the American people.




It surely is the consumers fault. People have to have the newest, biggest, brightest thing they can get their hands on. I see people with EBT cards dialing their homies on their brand new IPhone 5 while their getting into their 2013 Escalade. My old neighbor who recently foreclosed on his house just bought a 60" TV because his friend just bought one. We are a NATION OF CONSUMERS that have a propensity for greed. I've even fallen prey to this mentality as I just put my preorder in for the new PS4 (Granted, I no longer pay for cable and use Netflix and Hulu plus on these systems) while I also drive my new car. But by the same token, we make dinner from near scratch (so much cheaper this way and healthier as well). We rarely go to fast food joints (for a treat every now and then) and with every paycheck, we automatically put 10% of our paycheck into savings regardless if we can or not. My retirement might not be lavish, but I'll be able to afford it comfortably.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


and how confident are you that your assessment is correct and that you truly have found the root? (despite the fact these same problems have plagued humanity in the past long before communism, socialism, or leaving the gold standard had ever been concieved)

really though i have to go soon
edit on 2-8-2013 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Metallicus
 


The FIRST problem there is calling it a LIVING WAGE.. STUPID. you work for what the Job is worth.. If you can not live on it.. GET A BETTER JOB OR LEARN SOMETHING TO get a better job. If you want a career at Walmart.. stop bitching.. And if I were TOLD TO DO SOMETHING that was NOT what I wanted to do..I would just CLOSE THE DAMM STORE AND GO WHERE THEY WANTED ME.. HELL WITH THEM.. Let them eat cake...



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll

Why do you think that you should be paid more than a living wage, but unskilled workers should work for less than they need to live on?

Because I have spent the time and energy to become a senior person in my career field. That is why.
I have more working knowledge and experience then the low skilled worker.
I took 4 years to learn my trade, and have continued to progress in it, learn more and take on more responsibility.
I can't even begun to comprehend how or why someone like you, would think that a burger flipper should be making what I make. Or that the mail clerk should make what I make.
What you want, is a society that really doesn't promote or want people to work to better themselves, thus providing more for themselves. You want a world where everyone gets the same, no matter what they do.
That is maddening.


Originally posted by doobydoll
They may be uneducated and unskilled but they work hard too, just as you do. And for the same reasons - to provide a living for their families, same as you.

No, no they don't. I don't see the whopper flopper doing 10 hours days, and then turning around to do 5 hours at a personal business and go home to a family.
No, no they do not.
If you think that they are, then it is obvious that they are not applying the correct "hard work" to what is needed for expanding ones career.


Originally posted by doobydoll
Yes, I agree you should be paid more than living wage as a company senior, I'm not saying otherwise and I am happy some earn huge wages, good on them I say. But you people on high earnings seem to resent unskilled workers anything better than a working life of destitution and outright poverty, and I am really finding it difficult to understand why that is.

There is no resentment.
If you want to make the income that I make, put forth the effort, take 4 years of your life to learn a career and go forth and be prosperous.
I want people to raise themselves up, to be better.
YOU want to just rip people like me down, to wallow in the crap with everyone else.



Originally posted by doobydoll
It's as if you all hate minimum-wage earners just because they're uneducated and poor, and for that they deserve nothing but scummy hard work, discrimination and poverty wages. How could you be so hateful to other human beings. I just don't understand it.

Oh, so you can provide proof and examples that I hate said people????
Worry less about what I have, and more about what you need to do to be successful.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund


Maybe they should try for 4% then, and have 0.5% slated for the front end workers?
......

Is there any reason why people shouldn't think that way? In this day and age where the rich get rich by siphoning off regular people by either overpriced for profit margined goods or pay that is too low?



Make up your mind......First people here are whining about Walmart's profits and then you want them to increase profits to share that profit with employee's, then you start again complaining about high profit margins. Boy, your neck must hurt from your head spinning so much.

Just to be clear, you would be ok with higher profit margins on overpriced goods as long as that money goes to the employees, right? So blood sucking business can charge more for the same service or good as long as they pay their people more?

No one will bat an eye at paying more?

You aren't complaining about how expensive gas or healthcare or higher learning is, right?

You personally have money in your pocket that shouldn't really be there, it should go to other more deserving people, who are in minimum wage jobs? What percentage of your income will you be willing to part with so everyone has a living wage?


Do you see why your argument doesn't seem very rational?

Everyone is always for programs when it's other people's money they are spending.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss


It's funny that you think there's a difference between the two.
That being said; when the six members of the Walton family earn more than 30% of American population combined, there's a problem.

WHAT problem is there.

They built a business. YOU didn't.
All of this crap stems from jealousy. Plain and simple. You want what they have. You have been told you can't obtain it, except to bring them down.


Originally posted by Garkiniss
The issue isn't the value of the dollar, which is in decline I agree. It's that CEOs fancy themselves 12.5x more important that they used to. It's a Rock Star attitude, plain and simple.

Oh, like all of the Progressive Superstars like Al Gore and such.
They built the company. You did not.



Originally posted by Garkiniss
The failing value of the dollar, coupled with the uneven inflation-to-wage ratio is a reason to pay people more not less.


F-R-E-E M-A-R-K-E-T

If you don't like what you are making at Job X, go to Job Y.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bearack

It surely is the consumers fault. People have to have the newest, biggest, brightest thing they can get their hands on. I see people with EBT cards dialing their homies on their brand new IPhone 5 while their getting into their 2013 Escalade. My old neighbor who recently foreclosed on his house just bought a 60" TV because his friend just bought one. We are a NATION OF CONSUMERS that have a propensity for greed. I've even fallen prey to this mentality as I just put my preorder in for the new PS4 (Granted, I no longer pay for cable and use Netflix and Hulu plus on these systems) while I also drive my new car. But by the same token, we make dinner from near scratch (so much cheaper this way and healthier as well). We rarely go to fast food joints (for a treat every now and then) and with every paycheck, we automatically put 10% of our paycheck into savings regardless if we can or not. My retirement might not be lavish, but I'll be able to afford it comfortably.


Some may have just purchased that new car, that new phone, and then lost their jobs. You don't know everyone's circumstance, so reserve judgement.
I'm sure there are some who abuse the system. Always have been. Always will be. None more guilty than the those at the top. However, I've driven the same car for 12 years, have no cell phone, and waited 6 years after marrying my wife to start a family. We wanted to wait until we knew we were secure before we added the expense of a child. So that's what we did. In 2006 my wife was managing a store and I was working in flooring for the no.1 tile/stone installation company in our area. We were doing well. So we decided it was time to have a child. Less than a month after my son was born in 2007 the economy took a dive and my wife's store was closed, the construction business dried up in our area because 80% of our work came from new home owners or people looking to sell, so there we were; new baby boy, no jobs. We ended up having to look to WIC and Food Stamps just to get by.
I have a friend who bought a brand new vehicle last year. Her husband was doing well, she was making good money, and they could afford the luxury. They even bought a nice big television and got some new phones. This year? My friend lost her job, and her husband's hours have been cut by 50%. She called me the other day inquiring about how to get on an EBT program to feed her two little girls while her husband took to the road chasing hours.
People feel secure one second, and are left on their asses the next, with not as much as a single batting of the eye by their employers. In an economic crisis, the wallets of the rich should be hit first, not last. They can afford it.
As I mentioned to another person on this thread: The Walton Family (6 people) rake in the same amount of money as 30% of the American population (that's 95 million people in case you were wondering).

Answer me this: Do you think it's fair that a worker today earns roughly half of what a worker earned 50 years ago doing the same job, while his employer earns 12½ times MORE than someone doing their exact job 50 years ago?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss


Answer me this: Do you think it's fair that a worker today earns roughly half of what a worker earned 50 years ago doing the same job, while his employer earns 12½ times MORE than someone doing their exact job 50 years ago?



YES. Because I don't own the company in this situation. It is not my place to worry about what a company makes.

You need to be reminded where you sit in the working world. This moronic idea that a worker gets to demand something out of a company is beyond the stigma associated with the self absorbed narcissism of the Y Generation.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

WHAT problem is there.

They built a business. YOU didn't.
All of this crap stems from jealousy. Plain and simple. You want what they have. You have been told you can't obtain it, except to bring them down.


They don't need to be brought down. Walmart could afford to pay a living wage and not have to raise prices, and still bring in billions in profits. You want to condone economic slavery, that's fine. I can't.



If you don't like what you are making at Job X, go to Job Y.


Except that job Y and Z have been removed by Job X. The Free Market is great in theory, but it requires honesty, restraint, ethics, and wisdom to work properly. Our republic requires the same standards. Unfortunately neither live up to their potential, thus our failing economy. Bankers and Corporations killed this economy. Remember that.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss

Originally posted by Bearack

It surely is the consumers fault. People have to have the newest, biggest, brightest thing they can get their hands on. I see people with EBT cards dialing their homies on their brand new IPhone 5 while their getting into their 2013 Escalade. My old neighbor who recently foreclosed on his house just bought a 60" TV because his friend just bought one. We are a NATION OF CONSUMERS that have a propensity for greed. I've even fallen prey to this mentality as I just put my preorder in for the new PS4 (Granted, I no longer pay for cable and use Netflix and Hulu plus on these systems) while I also drive my new car. But by the same token, we make dinner from near scratch (so much cheaper this way and healthier as well). We rarely go to fast food joints (for a treat every now and then) and with every paycheck, we automatically put 10% of our paycheck into savings regardless if we can or not. My retirement might not be lavish, but I'll be able to afford it comfortably.


Some may have just purchased that new car, that new phone, and then lost their jobs. You don't know everyone's circumstance, so reserve judgement.


If you've lost your job, you reallocate your priorities. You drop the phone service and get something more affordable. You trade in the 40K car and get a payment that won't strip your savings. Take personal responsibility for the situation you're in by conserving your resources and live within your means. Most people, even with a job today, still live well outside of their means. Why do people need 4 large screen TV's in their home?




Originally posted by GarkinissI'm sure there are some who abuse the system. Always have been. Always will be. None more guilty than the those at the top. However, I've driven the same car for 12 years, have no cell phone, and waited 6 years after marrying my wife to start a family. We wanted to wait until we knew we were secure before we added the expense of a child. So that's what we did.


And that is the responsible thing to do. I wish the rest of the nation was as responsible as you and your loved one.


Originally posted by Garkiniss In 2006 my wife was managing a store and I was working in flooring for the no.1 tile/stone installation company in our area. We were doing well. So we decided it was time to have a child. Less than a month after my son was born in 2007 the economy took a dive and my wife's store was closed, the construction business dried up in our area because 80% of our work came from new home owners or people looking to sell, so there we were; new baby boy, no jobs. We ended up having to look to WIC and Food Stamps just to get by.


And you paid into that system for that security blanket. That's exactly why it's there. The problem is, people have come to see these programs as not security blankets, but entitlements now and will opt for an easier job to ensure they do not disrupt the flow of their "entitlement".


Originally posted by GarkinissI have a friend who bought a brand new vehicle last year. Her husband was doing well, she was making good money, and they could afford the luxury. They even bought a nice big television and got some new phones. This year? My friend lost her job, and her husband's hours have been cut by 50%. She called me the other day inquiring about how to get on an EBT program to feed her two little girls while her husband took to the road chasing hours.


Then I absolutely disagree they could afford those luxuries. The way I look at it a person can afford luxuries when they can be without a job for a year and still afford their existing bills and live comfortably. If you can't afford to live off one wage for a period, then you are living above your means. I could take a 50% pay cut today, as well as my wife, and yet I could still pay my mortgage, my car loan and provide for my family. That would be including having to shell out the inflated cost of Cobra insurance. We've planned for such events for over 15 years now.

If we were to lose our jobs, we have a full years savings (took a while to build and sacrifice) that would cover everything we currently have. I could even work for Walmart @ $10 an hour and push that to nearly 2 years with proper management.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Garkiniss


Answer me this: Do you think it's fair that a worker today earns roughly half of what a worker earned 50 years ago doing the same job, while his employer earns 12½ times MORE than someone doing their exact job 50 years ago?



YES. Because I don't own the company in this situation. It is not my place to worry about what a company makes.



We're not talking about minimum wage workers being elevated to a middle class salary. We're talking about making enough to get them off food stamps and other government assist programs. They'll still be poor, they just won't be destitute. I see nothing wrong with that, especially if the companys' CEOs want to complain about having to pay health insurance and in taxes for government aid. You can't have it both ways.

You either pay a living wage or you pay taxes to support your workers. Either way you're going to have to promote the common welfare.



You need to be reminded where you sit in the working world. This moronic idea that a worker gets to demand something out of a company is beyond the stigma associated with the self absorbed narcissism of the Y Generation.


I'm a few years older than Gen Y and I can tell you that this boils down to the value of human lives, not jealousy over "wealth." Walmart is abusive to the system and now they have to pay. I'm sorry if you're upset that there are consequences to inhumanity.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss


They don't need to be brought down. Walmart could afford to pay a living wage and not have to raise prices, and still bring in billions in profits.

With a 3.5% profit margin, paying more does not match to the business models needs.
Plus, the market does not press the need to pay an unskilled worker more.


Originally posted by Garkiniss
You want to condone economic slavery, that's fine. I can't.

Dramatic much???


Originally posted by Garkiniss

Except that job Y and Z have been removed by Job X.

Excuse me??? There are plenty of jobs to move to, from a current position. No one is forcing anyone to work at Walmart.
Want better pay, get a better paying job.



Originally posted by Garkiniss
The Free Market is great in theory, but it requires honesty, restraint, ethics, and wisdom to work properly. Our republic requires the same standards.
[/quoet]
Yeah, too bad Progressives are working hard to remove the basis of such a thing. Family and faith.



Originally posted by Garkiniss
Unfortunately neither live up to their potential, thus our failing economy. Bankers and Corporations killed this economy. Remember that.


No, Govt is the cause of the failure.
And before you get into who control this and that. Govt creates and enforces the law. If Corporations influence this, it is the fault of the Govt, as they allow, accept and even welcome it.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
So people here think the minimum wage should be $12.50 an hour. Some here on Detroit radio are calling in saying $15.

Just to put this into perspective:


According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, or BLS, all paramedics and EMTs made an average annual wage of $34,030, or $16.36 per hour. The middle 50 percent of this group earned between $24,420 and $40,440, or $11.74 and $19.44 per hour. The median salary was $30,710 per year, equaling $14.77 per hour.

In its May 2011 figures, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports an average hourly wage of $12.22 for nursing assistants and related staff, or $25,420 per year. There is a considerable variance between the highest and lowest earners, with 10 percent of nursing assistants earning $8.68 per hour or less, and 10 percent earning $16.91 per hour or more. Assuming a 40-hour work week, this represents earnings of $18,060 per year at the low end of the scale and $35,170 at the high end. Their median income was $11.63 per hour, or $24,190 per year.



So someone working at a Minimum wage job should earn the same money as an entry level paramedic or a nurse's assistant?

How much will you now pay the current managers at McDonalds or other mainly minimum wage businesses? Surely they should make a wage that is more than the entry level employee, no?



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join