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: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 
All this will do is cause Walmart to move their businesses elsewhere, taking the jobs they brought with them. I'm sorry but all this will do is hurt the people by taking away jobs in an already struggling jobs market.


In the UK there was a show on called The Mill. About life in the cotton mills of northern England. The owners used the same excuse as your using for not wanting to ease the rule on 10 hr working days for children.




posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

D.C. lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill requiring some large retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s minimum wage, a day after Wal-Mart warned that the law would jeopardize its plans in the city.

The retail giant had linked the future of at least three planned stores in the District to the proposal. But its ultimatum did not change any legislators’ minds. The 8 to 5 roll call matched the outcome of an earlier vote on the matter, taken before Wal-Mart’s warning.


articles.washingtonpost.com...

Forget supply and demand. Typical childish thinking from Usual Suspects. Some jobs that require little skills or knowledge simply aren't worth even minimum wage. No one should expect to be able to live independently on minimum wage jobs. Without incentive, motivation, our society will be more screwed than it is.


holly crap buddy you know very little about walmart. First off full time walmart employees get 28 hours a week yeah thats their full time employee. #2 they made 3.7 billion with a B for just one year profit. #3 They purposefully under employ and ask for overtime hours that are not counted. #4 "In state after state, the largest group of Medicaid recipients is Walmart employees. I'm sure that the same thing is true of food stamp recipients. Each Walmart ‘associate’ costs the taxpayers an average of more than $1,000 in public assistance," Grayson wrote in a Huffington Post column on Nov. 24, 2012. #5 when walmart employees pitched in to raise a fund to help other employees that had a hard time paying bills and other thing the employees raised like a million dollars. The owners of walmart or should I say the children of the original owners pitched in a whopping 5,000 dollars

Christy Walton total net worth = 24.5 billion – As of September 2011
Jim Walton total net worth= 21.1 billion – As of September 2011
alice walton total net worth= $20.9 billion – As of September 2011
S.robinson walton net worth= $20.5 billion – As of September 2011
Ann walton net worth=$3.3 billion – As of September 2011
Nancy walton net worth=$2.7 billion – As of September 2011

These people are a cancer they kill mom and pop shops then hire its workers at 8 dollars an hour and only work them 28 hours a week. wow a total of 228 dollars a week times 4 =889 dollar a month even if rent is 600 dollars a month lol you are lucky to find that in a state that pays 8 dollars an hour mwage that leaves you 289 dollars for everything else.

edit on 31-7-2013 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2013 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by benrl
 


It's not about crying for Walmart. I could care less about the Walton family and they will have money like nothing more than an abstract concept at those levels, whether they pay Min. wage or $500 an hour. If they are artificially forced to raise wages outside market forces though? Two things will happen. They always do, historically.

Stores and operations (like distribution centers out in rural areas giving badly needed jobs out there) will close where they were borderline or questionable to begin with. In a case like this, with local stupidity, they'll just close the whole operation. Is Walmart hurt? Hardly... They count pennies and make Lincoln scream like a school girl on each one of them, but that's given them enough pennies to throw dollars and not personally care either way. WORKERS get hurt. No one else.

Where they don't shut down? They raise prices. The cute little price chopper with the sword becomes the little price fixer with the hammer and nails. Inflation and economics 101 tho...and rooting for the fall of the big guy is self defeating when the big guy is THAT BIG and tends to fall ONTO the little people it was all supposed to be about. '

edit on 30-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


I disagree when you have another empire like Target just waiting for the opportunity to grow to the scale of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart increases their prices, people start shopping at Target more. Target builds more stores in more rural areas, employs more people, and the balance is even with Wal-Mart losing it's grip. Wal-Mart is not the end of places to get inexpensive stuff.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

In the UK there was a show on called The Mill. About life in the cotton mills of northern England. The owners used the same excuse as your using for not wanting to ease the rule on 10 hr working days for children.


The difference is that the children were physically forced to work. Last time I checked no one was forcing anyone to settle for a crappy job at the local Walmart store.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 



I Always love when a municipality sticks it to Walmart.

Portland has done so on similar matters, not allowing them to build where they want etc.
It would be nice if Walmart and other companies take their products and JOBS elsewhere when confronted with crappy legislation like this.






Be nice if they implemented a living minimum wage everywhere, but that will never happen.
All that would do is put small businesses out of business and force the surviving businesses to raise prices to astronomical levels to compensate. Say hello to a $20 happy meal, $10 gallon of milk, etc.

Don’t you get it? The money has to come from somewhere! Companies can't print money from thin air like our failed government.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by benrl

Yea there's level of survival I could manage as well on minimum wage, I call that homeless or starving, because at that rate your gonna have to chose.


I edited my above post to reflect more info. That 16.000 dollar condo I bought 12 years ago could still have been paid for with minimum wage. Now it's worth 40.000 dollars. I just have to pay maintenance fees which are below 300 dollars, water and electricity included.. and no, it's not in the slums, it's in the middle of Metairie a large suburb of New Orleans not far from our lake (about 2 miles) My wife does work a minimum wage job - she buys the food and I pay the condo fees and everything else. Together we make less than 12.000 a year. I can easily see a normal couple making it on minimum wage if they know how to use the finances wisely.


You're also not talking about living in DC or surrounding areas where your 16,000 condo would cost 100,000 at minimum. This is why the government employees receive cost of living increases based on your geographic location and the expenses expected to live in that location.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
All that would do is put small businesses out of business and force the surviving businesses to raise prices to astronomical levels to compensate. Say hello to a $20 happy meal, $10 gallon of milk, etc.

I tried to explain the inflation effect that would happen if unskilled/uneducated labor were to be overpaid for the positions ... but all I got was responses like 'I don't care about learning economics' .. or some such thing.
All these people see is a successful company with money and these people think the company has an obligation to give it's profits away to entry level position workers ... simply because they are entry level.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan


Originally posted by Garkiniss
That company isn't hurting. They can afford to pay their workers more.

Just because they COULD, doesn't mean that they SHOULD. The purpose of a business is to make money and pay the stock holders with profits ... not to give it away with uber-high salaries that unskilled/uneducated workers don't earn.


Paying employees that work in your place of business is not "giving it away."
Wal-Mart's CEO, Mike Duke, received $20 million this past year as he gave himself yet another pay raise, while his distribution workers earned 10% less than the market standard.

The "you're uneducated, thus not entitled to fair wages" argument is damn near a pro-slavery remark.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by littled16

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

In the UK there was a show on called The Mill. About life in the cotton mills of northern England. The owners used the same excuse as your using for not wanting to ease the rule on 10 hr working days for children.


The difference is that the children were physically forced to work. Last time I checked no one was forcing anyone to settle for a crappy job at the local Walmart store.


You've obviously never lived in a community where the local Wal-Mart destroyed nearly all of the small business, leaving people too broke to move, and nothing to do but work for Wal-Mart. They still don't earn enough to leave town, but they are able to buy clothes and food, but ONLY if they give every dime they make back to Wal-Mart to make use of their employee discount.




posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Crap on a cracker? At least they get free food if they choose to eat there.

Listen, I grew up and live right outside of a major military base. I grew up with military families, and over 3/4 of my Boy Scout troop was military. I have many, many friends that are enlisted. My SO was a civilian contractor on base for several years. I know all about military life.

We don't have a draft, and if they choose to sign up -- good for them. For a lot of these E1's straight out of high school-- this is the most money they've ever had, certainly more than their high school job. Most of those on the lowest end of the ranks live in barracks, so their housing needs are met.

Want to go to the gym? There's a really nice brand new one -- with a pool and water slide! Freshwater lakes on base to fish in, and chalets to rent for your kids parties ! Want to go downhill skiing? Yep, we have a chairlift on base you can use all day for free! Want to rent an RV super cheap? Yep, we got you covered.


After four months in the military, the brand new E-1 will be receiving about $29,959.80 per year in annual salary (Note: This figure includes the value of free housing, free food, and income-tax advantage). On the other hand, the E-6 with four kids, who has 10 years experience in the military will only be making about $54,952,86.

Link

I think 29k a year after 4 months is pretty good for a single 19 year old. I know people working retail that make less than that and somehow get by without food stamps.

Unless your infantry it's really not that hard to apply yourself and move up the ranks to something a little more "comfortable". I mean, if my friend who just made Tech Sgt can do it (he's not the brightest), anyone can.

These E1's wouldn't even qualify for food stamps if not for all the kids they have.

Edit: Dang, I should be a recruiter. I make being a private in the Army sound like a good deal.
edit on 31-7-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I'm kind of curious...

When the Evil Empire is destroyed in DC, or whereever... Who is going to hire all those displaced workers? ...and what do you think they're going to get paid?

...and what are they going to get paid? A mandated minimum wage of, oh say, twelve dollars/hr? Hate to break this to you, but a lot of business' aren't going to do it, 'cause they can't afford to. I'll tell you right now, Walmart isn't going to do it.

I'll state this again...

A minimum wage earner, should he or she stick around, ends up making more than a minimum wage. You've heard of raises, correct? Even the Evil Empire does that, I'm sure... But one has to earn that raise. Either by sheer longeveity, or by working one's butt off.

It's called work ethic. showing up everyday. Rain, or shine. Hot or blizzard.

I don't like Wal-mart. I make my dislike known by not shopping there. They're rude. Service sucks. ...not to mention what they do to the local business'.

But to force them to pay some mandated minimum wage simply because they're Walmart, and we don't like them?

Really? Are y'all even listening to yourselves? Who's next on the mandated list? 'cause you don't like 'em? Walmart became what they are by providing a service at a reasonable price, viola they make billions. Don't like it? Don't shop there. Encourage others to not shop there. But to legislate against a specific group, 'cause you don't like them? Really?



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
Paying employees that work in your place of business is not "giving it away."

It most certainly IS giving it away if their position isn't one that should be earning that kind of money.

Wal-Mart's CEO, Mike Duke, received $20 million this past year as he gave himself yet another pay raise, while his distribution workers earned 10% less than the market standard.

IRRELEVANT. The only thing that is relevant ... are the no-skills-required entry level positions paying what those positions are worth. Answer ... YES. What the people who own the company earn is irrelevant. This isn't communism. The workers don't share in the profits with the owners. They get paid to do a job. Period. If they don't like it .. they can leave.

The "you're uneducated, thus not entitled to fair wages" argument is damn near a pro-slavery remark.

I never said they aren't entitled to 'fair wages'. In fact ... what I'm arguing IS for fair wages ... and not the unfair INFLATED wages that people here are calling for. Your argument is damn near a pro-theft from those who are successful remark.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 
I actually DO live in a community where exactly that occurred- difference being that people of the community had enough of it and fought back! We still have Walmart, but we also have many, many competing businesses that do extremely well now with at least a dozen new retailers opening within just the last year.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by buster2010
 
That would work, but unfortunately what Walmart will most likely do is move right outside of the legislated area- just far enough away that public transportation doesn't reach them so most employees wont be able to transfer. They will hire new employees at the lesser rate but they will consist of suburbanites who dont need the jobs as much as inner city people do. They will however stay close enough so as to keep away any smaller competition.



The public transportation in DC, MD, VA area is entirely too large for them to try that. Additionally, just outside of that zone in MD you have Baltimore. Many people even transit from Baltimore to DC to work. Walmart is already all around this area regardless. I hope that MD and VA lawmakers follow suit for the DC, MD, VA area... these people should be paid more simply to survive in this area. Then hopefully they won't have to work 2 jobs, be away from the kids all day (basically having someone else raise them). Hopefully more parents in the house with the kids will reflect better parenting and lead to less criminals being grown in the streets.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


The thing is, some people will never be able to learn/gain high value skills. Some of these people come from very poor communities where things like education and bettering yourself aren't valued. Just having a meal is what's important, not saving up for books/learning materials.

Walmart is taking advantage of the poor, and creating it's own customer base. I very rarely go to Walmart, but when I do I notice that the average shopper is appearing more and more disheveled. I am seeing more drug addicts and people on the very bottom.

It's a clever way to "hook" your customers. Hire them and pay them only enough that they are forced to shop in the same store they work.

Big corporate giants with business models like Walmart are obliterating the middle class. A society will collapse under it's bottom/top heavy social structure without a solid middle class "backbone". Sure, you can call these jobs "unskilled/uneducated" but we've always had them. Why is it so hard then today to get by working them?

I think it's a combination of inflation and wage stagnation. We haven't seen wages rise to meet the inflation levels we're seeing. Basically you're getting paid a little bit more than people 30 years ago, but that money you earn doesn't go nearly as far.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Tazkven
A simple No, I have no proof of any of this would suffice bro

I said it ... INFLATION. That ruins economies. Learn to read. Go to school and get educated.
BTW .. I"m not a 'bro'. :shk:



Oh, sorry milady

*bows*

Anyways, I went to school, learned a trade and am now in a Union working for a company, that makes less than Walmart, who pays me a wage that would probably make your head explode and start a thread to complain about how I am going to make the price of toilet paper go up because of inflation and other economic reasons I can barely fathom


You should see what they start the unskilled workers at, not to mention their retirement plans



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 


This is very simple to combat. WalMart doesn't deploy to that area, which forces people to drive out of the city to purchase at Walmart. Plus, it requires those working at Walmart to drive that same distance.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot DC council.

Now, the next step is for them to force Walmart to open there, or remain there.
What a joke this Govt has become.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
The thing is, some people will never be able to learn/gain high value skills.

Here's the cold hard truth - that's not walmarts problem. They aren't a charity. They are a company. The purpose of a company is to earn money for it's shareholders. That's it. It's not required to overpay entry level employees simply because it's a successful company.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


Your still rolling out the arguments for the ownership class. The children had choice, they could have starved to death instead.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Tazkven
 

Oh .. union dude ... that explains it.
If the company you work for can afford it and is willing to pay it ... fine. But no one should demand that walmart overpay entry level employees simply because the company is successful.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join