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: 26
19
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


Other people who have experience in this country in my field make more money than I do... some a lot more....

I am not the slightest bit bothered because I (and only I) accepted this job with this pay.... no one forced me to, no one held a gun to my head and made me accept something.... I did, and at that time it was quite acceptable and reasonable for me to accept it.

My boss is allowing me the platform for experience on top of education, where I can take that experience, if I use it wisely, and leave here making twice my pay working less hours when I find the right company to work for who would find me an asset to their company....

Until then, I live just fine, have all my needs met, and am gaining experience that is, to me, priceless.....

I do not feel anyone has wronged me or taken undo advantage.


I'm not talking about people in your field with more experience. I'm talking about minimum wage.
Are you not upset that minimum wage is now half what it was in the 60s? Do you feel that an entry level person in your field is now half as valuable as they were then?




posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
When they do I bet that the DC Walmart raises prices above that of those in VA and MD.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I worked as a stock-boy/checker at Walmart in 1966 after school and on weekends. Although minimum wage at that time was $1.25, there were workers who were exempt. I was paid $0.89/hr. Still made enough in one year during high-school to pay for a semester at college.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 


That 89¢ would come to $11.57 per hour today. That's far more livable than $7.25 per hour, which would've been 55¢ back then, wouldn't you agree?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 


That 89¢ would come to $11.57 per hour today. That's far more livable than $7.25 per hour, which would've been 55¢ back then, wouldn't you agree?



www.measuringworth.com...
From measuringworth.com


If you want to compare the value of a $0.89 Income or Wealth , in 1966 there are three choices. In 2012 the relative:
historic standard of living value of that income or wealth is $6.30
economic status value of that income or wealth is $11.10
economic power value of that income or wealth is $17.70


The standard of living value is $6.30. The "status" value is a bit vague.
edit on 3-8-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak


If you want to compare the value of a $0.89 Income or Wealth , in 1966 there are three choices. In 2012 the relative:
historic standard of living value of that income or wealth is $6.30
economic status value of that income or wealth is $11.10
economic power value of that income or wealth is $17.70


The standard of living value is $6.30. The "status" value is a bit vague.


Status value is a direct currency translation. Meaning, if you were paid 89¢ in 1966, then in equal terms, you should be paid $11.10 by your employers today. Your "standard of living value" is actually the buying power of that $11.10, which is only $6.30. That's because the Fed has weakened the value of the dollar.

Basically, if you were paid 89¢ for one hour's labor in 1966 then you should receive a check for $11.10 per hour for doing that same amount of work today.

That's all people are asking for here. Equal dollar value. If a corporation wanted to be truly fair, they'd factor in the declined value of the dollar and pay their workers the $17.70 ph to compensate that dwindling buying power.



edit on 3-8-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


I'm not sure I agree with your definition of "status' as a direct currency translation. I think it more accurately describes the relative position/prestige amongst wage earners. In the sixties, there were many very low "income" farmers who still had plenty to eat and trade and sell without reporting income.

The Consumer Price Index value and Commodity value of $0.89 in 1966 in 2012 were both $6.30.


But whatever it is or was, this decision by DC council will likely be found to be illegal. And, as has been the case for decades, every decision made by this group will continue to be based on how much they can make "not-thems" pay.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by VaterOrlaag
 


Are you slow or something?

Wal-Mart costs taxpayers plenty of money because their employees have to go on food stamps just to live.


No, I'm not slow. I am getting exceptionally tired of the personal attacks leading a reply as a regular level of discourse around here though. Perhaps you can leave out the attack next time? I'd appreciate the decorum.

On the primary point? The intense and almost physical hatred some have for Walmart seems to be blurring the issues here so completely as to make debate nearly impossible.

I'm not defending Walmart. I have no desire to defend them. The city I reside in has 4 full blown, full size Super Centers. 4 of them. I'm not in Kansas City or St Louis, to say the very least. I'm just close enough to Bentonville to be considered their backyard, I guess.

The point is....does Government have the right *IN ANY CASE*, regardless of who the business is or what their issues are, to pass wage or benefit laws which *TARGET* that specific business or area of business while leaving competition alone?

In other words, to simplify this to it's most basic terms? Does the State have the right to dictate winners/losers and the environment that happens in for the private sector in a way that is not blind to the individual entities involved? In my opinion, No. They absolutely do NOT have that right. It could be Walmart, Starbucks or Toys R Us for all I care. Want to talk issues? Ask the Mom and Pop or a small chain like Ace Hardware how Lowes and Home Depot feel. I have TWO Lowes and 1 Home Depot in this city as well. It's the specific targeting that I believe fails every principle our nation and economy is built to function on.
edit on 3-8-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


I am starting out in life now (granted for the second time but it is from the very bottom and with nothing) and my parents were starting out in the 1960's.... I live about the same as my parents did then, with about the same amount of purchasing power....

When my brother was born his 'crib' was a dresser drawer and they had very very little. Through hard work and determination they made it....a promotion here a promotion there, a class here and a class there, they struggled but eventually did make it.

Through hard work and determination so will I. Little by little I will make it.....

We are not worse off now than we were then, my father made sure I knew how hard it used to be. Heck, his first pair of shoes he was 12 years old and he earned the money to buy them himself.... my father never let me forget the meaning of hard work and determination. I always heard what life was like for them just starting a family with nothing.... and I remember my own struggles the first time around in my life too...

Nothing worthwhile in life is ever easy
edit on 3-8-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB

Nothing worthwhile in life is ever easy


I agree.



I am starting out in life now (granted for the second time but it is from the very bottom and with nothing) and my parents were starting out in the 1960's.... I live about the same as my parents did then...


I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to sound disrespectful, but no you are not.
Back in 1960 a dollar was worth quite a bit more, and minimum was $1.00 ph.
In order to be doing the "same" as your parents, and to counter the
effects of today's weakened dollar, you'd have to make around $17.00 ph.



...with the same amount of purchasing power.


How? Factoring the deminished value of the dollar, you're making 13¢ to every dollar they earned.



Through hard work and determination I will make it.....


I have no doubt. But don't you think you should earn at least the
same amount of money for your minimum wage that your parents did
for theirs; I won't even include deminished dollar value to this question;
just an equal amount in regards to inflation?





edit on 3-8-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I just ran some numbers here I wanted to share which are specific to Walmart and might help some people put the debate here into better perspective. To just 'order' Walmart to raise wages to Costco level, as some have suggested here, would destroy Walmart in the time it takes to put the policy into effect. Now I know no one against Walmart will believe that. So, that is why I did some digging and some math...as much as I really DO dislike math.

First, Walmart has roughly 2 Million Employees

Next, Walmart's average hourly wage is $12.67/Hour

Finally, the average wage at Costco is $19/Hour

These numbers don't seem to be a point of dispute that I can find. So lets get to that yucky math, shall we?

Well, assume for the purposes of this that every single employee Walmart has is only working 29 hours. No more than that. No less than that. The numbers being changed to reflect reality, if I dug hard enough to get them, would likely make what follows worse...not better. So it's to the benefit of the opposing side of this argument that the assumption of data is made. That's important to keep in mind.

* 2 Million employees working 29 hours a week comes to 58 Million man hours per week across Walmart's operations. That in turn comes to 3,016,000,000 (3 billion) man hours per year.

* Going by the profit and loss numbers of a recent quarter, we can figure a ROUGH estimate of $15.12 billion in real profit per year for Walmart. That's a rough estimate as HuffPo isn't their 10q reports by any stretch. Close enough on this though, as you'll see.

* The difference in average pay between Costco and Walmart across the board is $6.33/Hour

* The cost to Walmart to bridge the gap for their employees between what they pay and Costco pays comes to $19,091,280,000 (19 Billion). Thus putting Walmart in the hole by roughly 4 billion dollars annually.

Now..How do people figure that would play out? Would Walmart "take one for the team" on that kind of bleed of capital? Of course not. It would pretty well put them out entirely within a year on paper. Likely longer, but not by much, in reality.

Walmart will almost certainly make up such a shortfall in across the board price increases on every item in every store and to a degree that will leave most who shop there by necessity choking on the new reality.

I figured this might help at least paint the accurate picture of what the stakes are and what the REAL economics of this situation consist of vs. some of the wishful thinking and outright imaginings I think some of the speculation here represents. It took longer to find a calculator that would do the trillion's places to run all this than it did to get the data supporting the conclusion. I'm surprised I'm the first to have bothered trying? (Unless I missed someone else...in which case, my apologies)



edit on 3-8-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: typos



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
I worked as a stock-boy/checker at Walmart in 1966 after school and on weekends. Although minimum wage at that time was $1.25, there were workers who were exempt. I was paid $0.89/hr. Still made enough in one year during high-school to pay for a semester at college.


that 89cents was worth far above what minimum wage is today and college tuition as been raised by 1200% in the last 30 years
we had a stronger economy and higher wages in the 60s..... we still had a lot of industry and companies producings goods domestically unlike walmart which was in its infancy at the time (and many things....such as college were far cheaper in relation to the amount earned) acting as if what applied in the 60s still applies now is just ridiculous
more people getting paid higher wages means you need a lower tax rate to pay for necessary expenditures..... a large part (the other being waste an mismanagement) of the reason for high taxes is because of companies like walmart that outsource labour for slave wages then return and sell their products domestically while paying domestic employees a wage too low to live on
but i appreciate your lack of understanding in the situation and hope this apparently new information will change your outlook

edit on 3-8-2013 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I think the problem that we are having on this thread is that some think EVERY job should pay enough to support a certain lifestyle, regardless of the education or ability level of the person. It's not like that. Some jobs are ENTRY level positions, they exist for people to make some money while picking up job related skills that will help them to gain better paying employment. Just because someone sticks around at a entry level job for 5 years should not dictate that they make $X.XX more for that job. Some jobs are only worth a set dollar amount to an employer. If that person want's to advance, there should be opportunities for them to grow into a better paying position that is worth a higher dollar amount to their employer. Everywhere I used to work, had opportunities like that.

Better yet, that employee should live life on the wild side and become a self-employed Entrepreneur. Then you will see how all those business classes and economic classes really play out in real life. Once you are solely responsible for your own income level and paying (yes actually paying) taxes, then you truly will see things for what they are.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Wal-Mart's issue is not economics, it's priorities. The reason Costco can afford to pay its employees more is because it holds its employees as a valued commodity.

Case in point; the CEO of Costco earns an annual salary of $650 thousand a year. Not a bad chunk of change, and plenty for any man to sustain himself, his family, and a lavish lifestyle.

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart's CEO just received a 14.1% raise which pushed his salary upwards of $20.7 million dollars. This while his minimum wage employees are making 50% below the living wage and his experienced employees are making thousands below the poverty line, all living on government assistance.

If Wal-Mart gave its CEO a pay cut instead of a raise, paying him 1.3 million dollars annually (still double what the CEO of Costco earns), and added that left over 19.4 million to its $22 billion of annual pre-tax income, and then used all of it to give each one of its 2.1 million employees a raise, this would amount to about $10,000 a year apiece.

In other words, if Walmart decided to use 100% of its operating profit to pay all of its employees more, the average store associate's salary would go from $20,000 to $30,000, pushing them above the poverty line. This would reduce the need for Government assist programs and lower taxes. Will this ever happen? Doubtful.

Wal-Mart's business model, its priorities, its greed are the problem. Sure it's the biggest store in the world, but just like the housing bubble, it seems it's out growing its ability to support itself, and will someday implode.







edit on 3-8-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


I hear what you're saying but at the same time, I can't help but see a near personal vendetta here with Walmart. Not every other business, as Walmart's $12.78 avg hourly wage is just a hair above the U.S. national average for the retail sector. (See below)

Nothing they are doing is unique, or even unusual. They have employees on Gov't assistance. Yes.. ...and does your outrage extend to EVERY other lower wage employer of size in the nation? If so, that's honest about it...if not, why is Walmart special?

In terms of CEO? I do see that point as well ....until I look at the numbers.

Costco Annual Financial Report / 2008 - 2012

Walmart Annual Financial Report / 2008 - 2012

Walmart is nearly 5x's the size in financials alone and many times the size in location count from stores to distribution centers to equipment. Walmart runs one of the largest private trucking fleets in the world. Costco doesn't have that to deal with (and Walmart drivers are paid among the best in the industry. Not everyone has entry level wages)

Walmart COULD cut the CEO pay ...and watch their CEO wish them the best of luck with things while someone else pays him what the market bears for that job. If you want the best, you pay the best and Walmart doesn't go cheap where they need the return on money. I'll give them that.

Also.. Costco and Walmart have different business models. Quite different for the base structures and target market they sell to.

BTW, the numbers according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:


(Source)

It's important to note that Walmart falls into more than one category but that one removes the executives and other areas which blow the curve for comparisons. So is this actually about Walmart reaching national norms for wages (Like they already are by that indication) or is this about Walmart being a big corp that "can afford to pay more" so by goodness, they should be forced to pay more whether their financials can handle it or not?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
.......

In other words, if Walmart decided to use 100% of its operating profit to pay all of its employees more, the average store associate's salary would go from $20,000 to $30,000, pushing them above the poverty line. This would reduce the need for Government assist programs and lower taxes. Will this ever happen? Doubtful.


Do you hear yourself???? If they decided to use 100% of their profits???? Why would they even be in business then? I'm sure Berkshire Hathaway, Vanguard and Blackrock will be happy with Walmart doing that. You seem to not have too good of a grasp of how businesses operate.

Maybe the government should take over Walmart then? I'm sure they will do a bang up job of running it.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


If the CEO wants more pay, let him high tail to the next guy. However, if everyone paid their workers a fair wage, he wouldn't find that salary anywhere else either, so he'd have to learn to accept the fact that his job, as important as it is, isn't 20 million dollars important.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe a CEO should earn more than his workers, and that an experienced worker should earn more than a novice, but I do still believe that someone working 35 hrs a week should be able to feed his/her family, pay their bills, buy some insurance, and not need government assistance to do so.

This isn't a personal vendetta against Walmart. Walmart just happens to be the subject of this thread. I hold every corporation responsible that can afford to pay its workers more, but don't.

These corporations increase the national unemployment rate, they increase yours and my taxes, they syphon millions from local economies, they ship our good paying jobs overseas, they raise our trade deficit, and put Main Street out of business. They're killing America, and they're killing the dream right along with her.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


I think you have the wrong "they" and "them" in your above post. It's the politicians who have made all of this happen. Blame the right people.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join