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

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


Right, Walmart declared profits of 15+ billion while receiving subsidies of 2+ billion in the form of food stamps and medicaid for associates earning poverty wages.

You may like your tax dollars being used to cover the gap because of corporate greed but I certainly don't. I would rather see my tax dollars go to something more useful besides letting the owners live like fat cats at my expense.

You must be a Walton ...

Furthermore ...

Every time one of these threads gets started business owners, yes we know who you are, start whining and complaining about how hard they got it, let me make this very clear.

If you are paying people poverty wages with no medical insurance the dilemma we are facing is YOUR fault.

Oh, yes it is ...

You want to complain about food-stamps, Obama-care, the deficit and high taxes and guess what? Because you wanted to kick the can down the road, someone had to pick up YOUR slack and guess who it was? All of us, yes ... even you. Your business is costing ALL OF US money. So quit complaining.

ALL OF US are reaping what you sowed.

Thanks, BTW ...

No way it has to be that way. It has to be increased. Many people who fill those jobs are pretty slow. So just because someone is born without the brains you find on ATS doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to try and put a roof over there heads and food on the table for them and their kids. I've seen these families up close and I've seen them been taken advantage of so bad, it's got to stop.

reply to post by Tazkven


Well said....I wonder If some here would be happy with owning slaves because then they wouldn't have to pay them.
Slaves and they are the Masters thats how some people treat their workforce.
All people want is fair pay for a fair days work, I don't want a big car an expensive house, gold jewels none of that.
I just want to be able to live my life and not get into debt, and not worry how Iam going to pay a bill.

Originally posted by buster2010
Jobs should pay a livable wage.

Not all jobs are worthy of a 'iivable wage' Someone who bags groceries for a living isn't worth paying $50,000 a year. It's a mindless task and any kid in high school can do it. Someone who goes to school and learns a trade to be an electrician, IS worth $50,000.

If forced to pay a 'livable wage' to every cashier ... then those who go to college and learn high skill jobs will need to be paid a whole lot more than they are now. And then those cashiers who make $50,000 will no longer have a 'livable wage'. And all prices and wages will go up, leaving that cashier on the bottom again not making much money. It's a cycle.

The fact is .... not all jobs are worthy of a 'living wage' and those jobs shouldn't be expected to be.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Who are you to decide someone is or is not worthy of a livable wage? Let me guess ... You are a business owner? These people you deem "not worthy" are living off of foodstamps and medicaid costing us all money ... Why is this so hard to understand?

Why is it that Costco can pay a living wage for jobs you deem "unworthy"?



And still manage to be the 5th largest retailer in the Country ...



... and keep their employees off of Government assistance?

Mind blowing isn't it?

reply to post by FlyersFan


I agree with you. Once I owned my own business and paid minimum wage to all but one person, who had more responsibilities. The people I hired were college or high school kids looking for after school work or women who wanted to work while their husbands and children were in school. It was a job that was skill-less and I hired those who just wanted a bit of cash in their pocket.

If I had to pay more it would have put me out of business. I worked 12 hours a day there in order to run it, and only hired a few people for a bit of extra help.

People seem to forget that minimum wage was just recently raised, and with that raise came higher prices, and the people making this higher minimum wage are in the exact same boat they were previously. And each time the wages get raised, so do the prices.

I remember making 165 a week take home pay and living on that, granted not easily, but I was able to... now, the wages are higher and so is the cost of living.

I believe minimum wage jobs are there as a stepping stone to something else. They give you experience and a good reference if you make it so. I recently took a job where I work 50 hours a week and make minimum wage. In this economy my boss couldn't pay more, and the experience I gain here is priceless. He has always said to use him as a stepping stone to something better, and when something better comes along he will give me a glowing reference and wish me well....

I promised him one year and two weeks notice, and that promise I am keeping. As it gets closer to that year I have made my resume and am spending time putting in applications for that something better and higher paying... taking my experience with me.

Minimum wage is never intended to be the end all, just a starting point when you are making a change in career paths, or a bit of extra money for the children and women. When you do not set your eyes on the larger prize, you will always be poor.... no matter how high the minimum wage gets.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

People seem to forget that minimum wage was just recently raised, and with that raise came higher prices, and the people making this higher minimum wage are in the exact same boat they were previously. And each time the wages get raised, so do the prices.

Myth ...

Prices of goods have went up while wages have stagnated.



To 1999,



Now today

2013

Gallon of Gas - $3.56
Dozen eggs - $2.50
Gallon of Milk - $3.44
First Class Stamp - $0.46
New Home - $500,000

Now lets take a look at wages from 1979



The fact is that prices have gone up in spite of what the minimum wage is or was.

Why do you think so many more people are using government assistance than ever before?

Think man, THINK!

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by buster2010

 

Awesome, Buster. I am a big fan of local businesses. Think about it - if Wal Mart leaves, the guy selling guns in the back? He could open up his own gun store. The guy selling video games? He has enough experience to open up his own game store. The store manager?

He or she could open up his or her own variety store or grocery store! The janitors? They could open up their own janitorial services.

edit on 30-7-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

My thoughts entirely.

Walmart can take your jobs from you - but it can't take your hands. Walmart needs OUR hands in order to survive and operate. We are Walmart's hands.

Don't give in to blackmail. If Walmart is threatening to pull out altogether if it can't get it's own way, then tell it to piss off and don't come back. There was life BEFORE Walmart - and there is life AFTER Walmart.

reply to post by Tazkven


Minimum Wage in 1968 was 1.60 per hour. Minimum wage today is 7.25. That is approximately a 350% increase in the minimum wage. The cost of a dozen eggs from 1979 to today is only a 200% increase..... so the federal minimum wage is still proportionate to cost of living.

Yes.. yes... I see...

"The world needs ditch diggers too".

Yes... everyone has the wherewithall to go into debt for a college degree. As if there isn't already a glut of people that are college grads working that minimum wage job or two to pay back loans, rent, car insurance... blah blah blah.

Nevermind the fact that good paying jobs are a rarity in a lot of places in this great nation. Where, as in the case in my small neck of the woods, when a good paying company announces they are hiring you have 8,000 people show up eager and waiting.

Nevermind the fact that a lot of people just do not have the capacity to become "skilled". Who have to live with the lotto of genetics and/or circumstances that prevent them by time restraints such as taking care of the mother whose husband just died and lives off oxygen and bouts of gout, or a child that has MS, or that eats up time and energy.

Yes, I see... we must all be perfect in our births and lives as to have the full opportunities available to us. If you don't then you are lazy and "not worthy" of decent employment when you can work at something even though the cost of living is higher than the paycheckso you must rely on government assistance. Oh yes... those "government wh*res" that suck money from everyone that pays any kind of tax... they are worthless too.

Stepping stone jobs are fine when there are jobs that provide upward mobility nearby but what if the only things available ARE stepping stone jobs? Move you say? Would be nice if one didn't have to live paycheck to paycheck, stuck in a rental agreement or have to leave grandma to fend for herself. Maybe the exercise of mowing her lawn and building that ramp so she doesn't have to climb stairs will do her some good. Be careful with that hammer grandma! I gotta go... you are on your own.

Yes.. I do see. We live in a perfect world where everyone has opportunities and are not saddled with circumstance. That can "move" where the jobs are and have never made mistakes in life. If you cannot live in this perfect world then you are not worth living in it with any sort of dignity and generally are scorned as worthless, lazy people who do not deserve anything. They should just accept their lot in lofe of working 2 part time jobs just to make ends meet and just bow their heads to the upper middle class and higher. After all, it is they who have provided such a perfect world for us all to live in.

Seriously... though I rant a bit here and I realize there are exceptions to every rule, the reality is something is not right. I wish life were as simple as some would suggest but it isn't.

I wish I knew the answers...

reply to post by OpinionatedB


The model used being from 1979 to 2013 would actually be a 150% increase in wages.

And eggs being one of the products listed that has risen the least ...

Thank god people in working poverty can still afford eggs!

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by buster2010
Jobs should pay a livable wage.

Not all jobs are worthy of a 'iivable wage' Someone who bags groceries for a living isn't worth paying $50,000 a year. It's a mindless task and any kid in high school can do it. Someone who goes to school and learns a trade to be an electrician, IS worth $50,000.

If forced to pay a 'livable wage' to every cashier ... then those who go to college and learn high skill jobs will need to be paid a whole lot more than they are now. And then those cashiers who make $50,000 will no longer have a 'livable wage'. And all prices and wages will go up, leaving that cashier on the bottom again not making much money. It's a cycle.

The fact is .... not all jobs are worthy of a 'living wage' and those jobs shouldn't be expected to be.

Who said anything about paying cashiers 50K a year? And if the job isn't worth a livable wage then the owner of the company should do the job themselves. So if a person doesn't go to college then they should be treated like a base wage slave huh?

Many of you don't seem to realize, or are ignoring...

Minimum wage is a starting point at most, maybe even all, jobs. Starting. It goes up from there, if you can be bothered to stick around.

reply to post by Tazkven


Plus the fact that average wages are not what the average person earns because they include the top 1% earners in those figures which make the average wage appear higher.

In the UK it is supposed to be 31 thousand pound per year.
I know a few people on that but most people I know are on 12/18 grand a year.

A nurse earns about 21/27 grand a year.

A living wage is a wage that enables that person to have a normal standard of living, to have the basic needs to survive socially and economically.

I don't mind If people who have been to uni etc get a better wage or the more skilled do but I like I said a fair pay for a fair days work...what is wrong about that?

Originally posted by Tazkven
Who are you to decide someone is or is not worthy of a livable wage?

A college education AND common sense. Basic economics. Learn it.
Not all jobs are worthy of a 'living wage'. If the country pays check out clerks $50,000 a year, then naturally those other jobs that require extensive learning and extensive skills will have to be paid even more than they are now. Their salaries will bump up to $200,000 a year. And then those check out clerks who make $50,000 will no longer be earning a 'living wage' and they'll need $200,000 a year. and so on and so on.

Go to college. Take an economics course.

The country needs entry level jobs for unskilled people.
Those entry level jobs will not be a 'living wage'. They aren't supposed to be.
People in those jobs aren't supposed to stay in them, but instead are supposed
to get an education and learn skills and move on to better jobs eventually.

Let me guess ... You are a business owner?

Nope.

Originally posted by buster2010
Who said anything about paying cashiers 50K a year?

If you want ALL people to have a 'livable wage' ... then cashiers and janitors and lifeguards at the beach and ______ should all be paid at least $50,000 a year.

And if the job isn't worth a livable wage then the owner of the company should do the job themselves.

:shk: Oh stop. An owner of a company can't do all the jobs ... don't be silly.

So if a person doesn't go to college then they should be treated like a base wage slave huh?

Maybe YOU should take a college course in economics. It would help you understand basic economics. Not all jobs are worthy of a 'living wage'. Not all jobs are set up to be 'living wage' jobs. And people in the jobs that aren't 'living wage' aren't expected to stay in them OR they are second income jobs for families with other incomes. People in 'non living wage jobs' are supposed to be using them as temporary income or stepping stones until they get their trade or education or skills to move on to higher paying jobs.

Again .. the country needs entry level non skilled non-living wage jobs at the bottom of the job-chain. And not all jobs are of equal worth. That's the truth of the matter.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Tazkven

 

Minimum Wage in 1968 was 1.60 per hour. Minimum wage today is 7.25. That is approximately a 350% increase in the minimum wage. The cost of a dozen eggs from 1979 to today is only a 200% increase..... so the federal minimum wage is still proportionate to cost of living.

You relate cost of living to the price of eggs?

Cost of gasoline in 1968; $0.34/gallon.
Cost of gasoline down the street from me today; $3.799.
That is >1100% increase; and much more cumulative/costly, which affects the cost of everything, food, taxi, public transportation, etc.

ok, let's try something else ...

average monthly rent in 1968 was $130/mo
average monthly rent in 2010 was $1029/mo
extrapolating from their estimate of 2.5% increase a year, that would be $1108/mo in 2013
That is another >1000% increase
(source: In 2010, the average rental unit saw its rent increase by 2.5 per cent, to a national average of $1,029.
source for rent price and more on this response: cost of living 1968 )

hmm ... ok, want more?

average cost of new car 1968 was $2822
average price of a new car today is $40884. link to source of estimate
>1400% increase


Movie ticket in 68, $1.50
Movie ticket in 13, $8.38 link
>550% increase

average cost of new home 1968, $14950
average cost as of June 2013, $295000
nearly a 2000% increase.


I think you will lose this argument, unless you just want to compare egg prices to minimum wage.

The gall of people saying that one should not be able to have a roof over their head and food in their stomach when working at a 'menial' job is sickening. These people aren't asking for big screen tvs, fancy cars, big houses. They are asking for a meager apartment and basic food for themselves and their families.

What you are also forgetting in the argument is it was viable to have a stay at home spouse in those days as well. You could fully support your wife and kids, buy a house, take vacation; now we have two working parents who can barely afford anything.


But yes, let us take out all the world problems on the working class that supports society, by working these basic jobs. Let us pay them less than a livable wage, because they should've done better with themselves.

Now riddle me this; if everyone has a harvard degree, who is going to do your services?


I almost believe that if slavery was legal, these same people would tell us that the slaves should be fortunate to eat and have a shack to sleep in; except they don't even want that for the people who make minimum wage!!!

The greed of the business owner is what is creating this problem in our society. People can't afford to eat or pay rent, so they have to go onto programs to afford to live. They can't afford insurance or medical care, so they have to go to the emergency room and add to the problems of high cost because they can't pay that either.

By not supporting the working class, you are crumbling your foundation. There are plenty more of them, than there are anyone else. What would you really do if they all woke up and just stopped at once? What would you do when you had no one to sell you your clothes and groceries? There was no one to operate the gas stations or restaurants? You'd lose your # because you had no idea how dependent the society is on these 'bottom feeder, mouth breathers' as some put it.

Every person should have the right to a living wage. To afford rent, food, medical care, and the basics of life including minor entertainment (transportation to a library, a movie once in a while; not cable tv, not smart phones, nothing 'fancy'). The fact we are here, on the internet debating this, means we are more well off than most. We most likely have a nice roof over our head and full bellies, because we are spending excess money on internet access and have the time to waste to have the discussions in the first place.


Don't lose empathy for those on the bottom rung, for you might find yourself there one day, through no fault of your own. Economy crashes are a bitch, and they don't care how much better you think you are than everyone else.

reply to post by FlyersFan


So you are saying that the way you just described is actually the best way to go about things, right? Which just so happens to be exactly how things have been going the past few decades, right?

How is that working out for the majority of people?

So, everything should be fine and dandy? No one on government assistance, no one starving, a roof over every head and a car in every driveway ... The American Dream.

That college course you went through that you are recommending to me, let me know the location so I can advise everyone I know not to go there ...

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
reply to post by Darkblade71

 

Why would I want to buy something more expensive and just as unreliable that says made in America when I can buy cheap stuff at Walmart, use it for a year or so and throw it in the dumpster and get something new. A trip to Walmart is practically one stop shopping for everything. If they sold cars and pickups they would be perfect.

edit on 7/31/2013 by Bramble Iceshimmer because: because

You really want me to list the reasons?

If you are an American and lived back when we had pride in our products, then this is kind of a trolling question, however if you are young enough to not be around in the 70's/early 80's, I can explain.

There was a time when "Made in America" actually meant higher quality goods built to a higher standard than most of the world's products. Yep, they cost a bit more, but all of that money went back into the shops and the workers pockets who helped make those products. Our economy was much stronger at that point because of this,and a stamp that said made in America meant it would last a long time. There are very few products like that now. (Zippo lighters are one that is still around)

The problem with Walmart is multiple issues.

1:They sell almost nothing but products made in China (if they sold more American made products, I actually would not have a big issue with them)

2: They run smaller businesses out, and I have seen this happen first hand where I am living as they opened a Walmart super store and every small business in the area closed, even some of the bigger ones like K Mart,the entire Mall closed down and never was able to re-open.

3:It encourages it's workers to sign up for welfare medical. Wal Mart could very well afford to insure it's workers, and still make huge profits, but it chooses to go the opposite route and keep it's workers part time, discourages a 2nd job and offers no insurance.

How a person runs their business is their business, until it starts to harm local economies, which Wal Mart does, it kills anything that is not Wal mart around it. It kills small business. The only places left i n town now are gas stations, A Lowes because Wal Mart doesn't offer building supplies, and restaurants, everything else is gone.
This all occurred within 1 year of Wal Mart's opening in my town.

This is why Wal Mart, IMO, should be ran out of every city it exists in (with a population of under 500,000), because it kills the chances for smaller businesses to function, and pushes products that are crap in the long run, that do not support our economy, but supports some other countries instead.