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

Originally posted by Tazkven

Originally posted by FlyersFan
You people are acting like these starting positions are a career or something.

With all the jobs lost to "outsourcing" due to "free trade" they actually are for some, wake up!!

I have to kind of agree with you. These kids growing up in the slums and ghettos aren't taught the value of education. They aren't taught that they CAN raise themselves up and out. Life for them will be, and always will be living in the ghetto just trying to get by.

The cultural values that contribute to someone going and learning a trade or skill just aren't present in these lower-income neighborhoods. Why? Because learning a skill or a trade takes TIME. And during that time, who's going to bring home food? Who's going to pay for the diapers?

I don't think the other people going on and on about "go out and get a better job" understand that for these people, this is about as far as they know how to go. Anything more than a Walmart job is simply out of reach in their minds. These people honestly believe that's as good as they're going to get. They are taught this in these neighborhoods.

Why don't these people understand this!?

reply to post by Garkiniss


They can if that community has made a collective decision to not shop there, and to shop at those local business'.

What can even Walmart do about that? Nothing.

reply to post by Tazkven

If they weren't uneducated or unskilled then they'd be in other jobs rather than entry level at walmart. That's just the truth of the matter. Oh .. and if you ever watched Springer or Maury ... you'd see bunches of folks go through the show not knowing who their baby daddies were ... and it seems they all luv working at McDonalds or Walmart.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

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.

With that background, I'm not simply surprised, but outright shocked that you would view pay to the lower enlisted as a living wage to anyone but a single man, starting out of High School. To those guys? Sure, that's a lot of money for the 'all is paid for' life of the Military. It's also been a generation or two since all going in were kids out of High School with no family.

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.

The same can be said for Walmart and any private employer. They were looking for a job when they took that one and if it doesn't pay enough? Move on to another which does. When enough do that? Walmart will adjust wages to fill empty slots they need workers in. While people work for less? They'll happily pay it and Government has no business running our lives to that micro-level. I welcome anyone who loves Government that much to go work for them. It's a booming business these days, I hear.

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.

..and when it's time to pay bills, pay the kid's expenses, perhaps put something aside for Christmas....? All those facilities add up to what? Nice thoughts and bitter trade offs. Section 8 Housing in this town literally has some of the best facilities in the city. I wanted to move into it myself, with cash in hand for how nice the townhouses are ...to be told I didn't qualify. I made TOO much to PAY full rate for their higher end housing. Should I hold it against the walmart workers sucking that up under HHS programs? Probably not, eh?

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.

That would be some Al Gore math kicking from what I can determine. In addition to the 2013 pay charts for every rank I have linked in another msg here, these are the BAH (Housing Allowance) by state and local area within each one. It's nice to see they are a WHOLE lot better than the charts I read in the mid 90's in the recruiting office, but that doesn't turn an 18k salary into 29k+. Income tax benefits, by DOD info also indicate the PAY itself isn't tax free. Allowances are. Pay isn't.

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.

If they really got that and could spend it? Sure.. It would work well for a small family. It's riches to a single guy, but again, they are taking recruits up to 42 years old, first time enlistment, the last I heard. That may well have changed in the past couple years...but this assumption that all are single is absurd. It's also still 18k a year at base. Living wage, for a family? Where? Backwoods Georgia? ..well not after they hear the person is military anyway. Prices seem to rise sometimes. Go figure.

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

I will definitely remind the next food stamp mother I see in line with kids about that. If she didn't pop kids like a baby factory on overtime, we wouldn't have to support her lazy butt and her house full of new benefit takers in training.

......if it's fair to say to and about the Military, it's equally fair to say to the Welfare mother, right? I won't know a thing about her circumstances....but then you wouldn't about the 5,000 estimated to be spending 100 million a year on Military bases in food assistance, so it seems fair on that.

- Of course we could just agree that ANYONE on Food stamps is too many and we need a better ECONOMY not simply wages raised by royal decree out of City Hall, Congress or the White House. See a healthy economy and the rest cares for itself.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I don't think the other people going on and on about "go out and get a better job" understand that for these people,

Again .. it's not Walmarts problem. They are a company that is supposed to earn a profit. They aren't a charity outfit that needs to overpay for entry level positions simply because the people applying for them may come from difficult means.

reply to post by Gazrok


Thanks Gazrok for reminding us of that simple fact.

I do have a problem with the Feds singling out Walmart. This entire "living wage" issue is an endemic problem with nearly our entire economy. As I posted earlier, if all of wages kept up with inflation, we'd all be making TWICE what we all are -- but we aren't.

Who does this hurt? The people at the very bottom. Making minimum wage in the 70's was pretty livable, not grand -- but all of one's basic needs were met. Today, however, minimum wage means extra roommates, extra jobs, food stamps and government assistance.

We don't want people to rely on the government, do we? So how about we lighten our ballasts a little so that all of us can float a little higher?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Garkiniss
Working 37 hours per week, because the company has refused to allow a 40hr week, and having to bring in a roommate to help pay for living expenses is not a fair wage,

It's a fair wage for that position. If people want to make more money .. then they need to learn a trade, or go to school, or gain experience on the job and move up from the starting positions.

You people are acting like these starting positions are a career or something.

It used to be a career. That's my point. A man could work in retail, and his single income could support his entire family. If all went to plan, he'd be promoted to a higher paying position before his first child went to college, but on that retail salary he could buy a starter home, a new car, and take an annual vacation (all on his salary alone). Nowadays a single person working retail can't even support him/herself in a one bedroom apartment. Workers are being paid less than they used to be. Fact.
That's the unfairness, and point you keep missing. I'm not saying a Wal-Mart employee should earn the same wage as a Lawyer. I'm saying a young guy working in Wal-Mart should earn enough to buy a starter home, a first car, pay his bills, and take a vacation; actually provide for his family.
These days both parents working in retail can't achieve that.

reply to post by FlyersFan


The job creators have a responsibility to pay people a wage that KEEPS them off of government assistance PERIOD.

You may like paying the taxes to supplement a Wal-Mart employee or any other person who has a job and qualifies for food stamps, I don't.

Idiots, morons, uneducated, unskilled, it don't matter ... If they have a job they shouldn't have to rely on tax payer money to survive, especially if a company is "successful".

When will morals and ethics and doing the right thing ever reach into this conversation?

Why should I be penalized with higher taxes because Wal-Mart or any other company pays poverty wages? Basically, you, me him and her are paying for every business out there paying poverty level wages.

I want my taxes to go for more fruitful ventures, thank you very much ... like maybe education or something useful. Not buying milk, eggs and prescriptionsfor someone who works for a multi-billion dollar company.

The real question is why did the government even has to step in and try and stop Wal-Mart from taking advantage of the system, especially if they are successful and can afford to stop people from sucking up tax money.

Wait, i'll tell you why. Because Wal-Mart figured out they can lower operation costs and make more profit by using the government's money, OUR MONEY to help run their business.

Why is Wal-Mart entitled to OUR money should be the question ...

reply to post by FlyersFan


It's not overpaying for a job. You should be making twice what you are right now.

It's called stagnating wages for decades. Our dollar isn't worth nearly what it used to be, and we aren't getting paid in comparison what we used to be.

You seem to think that paying these people more is being "overpaid". As I have said, in the 80's my condo sold for 40k. I bought it 3 years ago for 120k. In the 80's I would be making about 2$ less than I am today.

How do you not understand that the dollar one of us made in the 80's buys MUCH LESS today. So we're just supposed to keep getting by with less and less, while the profit margins and inflation indexes continue to rise?

reply to post by Garkiniss

I'm saying a young guy working in Wal-Mart should earn enough to buy a starter home, a first car, pay his bills, and take a vacation; actually provide for his family.

That is unrealistic for an entry level worker; they’re a dime a dozen.

It’s your responsibility to make yourself valuable and marketable. Everyone doesn’t get a trophy in the real world.

reply to post by Tazkven


Why do you feel that some people owe you a job at all? Maybe you should be grateful these business owners are giving you anything? Maybe they SHOULD take their jobs overseas to people that are glad to have them.

Originally posted by Metallicus
Here's a fact for all of you that think this is a great idea.

If you force businesses to pay a living wage the prices go up to cover those new increased cost and all of a sudden the new living wage is too little again. You can't legislate a country into prosperity.

Economics 101.

sure you can, you just have to do it right. a good way would be MANDATED PROFIT SHARING for employees, say over 50% of all profits gets paid to the employees (the people who actually MAKE the company's profit through THEIR work).

could also TAX a company for ANY and ALL monies paid out to their employees for "social assistance", "foodstamps" and the like. over and above normal taxes.

also MAXIMUM WAGES would help as well. why should a CEO make MULTIPLE MILLIONS plus the "extras" they may get like stock options, bonuses as well as other "perks", and "freebies"?

for example why does the CEO of wal-mart Mike Duke NEED to be PAID 20.9 MILLION in PAY, STOCK, and BONUSES. PLUS $644,450 in other compensation, AND $644,450,in above market interest credited on deferred compensation? ESPECIALLY when many of his "employees" require things like social assistance and foodstamps

Duke, 63, has been Wal-Mart's CEO since February 2009. He received a base salary of $1.3 million, up 4 percent from the year-ago period. His stock awards of $13.6 million rose 4 percent. His performance-based cash bonus soared to $4.4 million from $2.9 million, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Duke's other compensation amounted to $644,450, up from $377,258 in the previous year. The perks included $101,947 for the use of the company aircraft. He also received $644,450 in above market interest credited on deferred compensation.

bigstory.ap.org...

Originally posted by Tazkven
The job creators have a responsibility to pay people a wage that KEEPS them off of government assistance PERIOD.

No they don't. PERIOD.
The job creators have a responsibility to their company and to their share holders.

When will morals and ethics and doing the right thing ever reach into this conversation?

So you want to push your morals and ethics on others ... isn't that what the far left keeps accusing the far right of doing? Yep. While you are contemplating morals .. how about contemplating what 'theft' is ... taking something that doesn't belong to you simply because the other person has what you want or has more than you. THEFT. That's what you are advocating by demanding Wal-Mart overpay entry level employees.

Why should I be penalized with higher taxes because Wal-Mart or any other company pays poverty wages?

.. and that's where your error in thinking is. It's not Wal-Marts fault that people are sucking up tax money. It's the fault of THOSE PEOPLE. You are getting angry at the wrong people.

reply to post by SilentKillah


Target is not the same as Walmart. They are 2 very distinct business models and in what they offer to the consumer.

Originally posted by FuZe7
reply to post by Tazkven

 

Why do you feel that some people owe you a job at all? Maybe you should be grateful these business owners are giving you anything? Maybe they SHOULD take their jobs overseas to people that are glad to have them.

They already have, it is called free trade and why most everyone is relying on service level jobs that pay poverty wages to survive.

But what an ingenious plan you have there, lets let everyone rely on the government to survive!

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Garkiniss

 

They can if that community has made a collective decision to not shop there, and to shop at those local business'.

What can even Walmart do about that? Nothing.

There were no local businesses to shop at, and no one had the money to start a new business. Walmart put 25 local grocery stores, hardware stores, clothing stores, and several gas stations out of business. It literally created several hundred newly unemployeed souls and out of those hundred, only 3 ended up getting jobs at Walmart.

The rest either faded away, borrowing money from family members to move away, or opted to live on the system with no one to call and no where to go. There were entire residential blocks where every house had "For Sale" signs on the lawn, and those houses remain for sale to this day. Many employees of Walmart can only afford to survive by utilizing their employee discount to buy their food and clothing.

You ever wonder why Walmart is so supportive of lower class programs? It's because they create those circumstances. They love that people are too poor to shop elsewhere. Walmart can dictate its prices because it buys in such large quanitiies, something other competitors can't match, so they'll always outsell the local businesses. And we're talking about a community that has zero competitors for Walmart; not a Target, not a K-Mart, nothing. Walmart is the only large corporate entity.
As much as the locals there hate that place, they still wander like zombies through those doors to do their shopping. Short of theft, what can they do? Especially in this day and age where banks aren't giving out loans like they used to, not that one has the collateral to actually pursue a loan in the first place.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
It's not overpaying for a job.

Supply and demand. Skilled vs Unskilled. Educated vs Uneducated. Entry level vs professional/career level. Entry level jobs ... cashiers, janitors, lifeguards, burger flippers, etc ... .are not owed a house with a garage and a car for doing what most everyone on the planet can do. If people want those things .. they have to work to better themselves, make themselves more marketable, and then they can earn those things.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

.. and that's where your error in thinking is. It's not Wal-Marts fault that people are sucking up tax money. It's the fault of THOSE PEOPLE. You are getting angry at the wrong people.

And the error in your thinking is you fail to realize that Wal-Mart figured out they can lower operation costs and make more profit by using the government's money, OUR MONEY to run their business.

That must had been in Economics 401, because you are totally missing it.

Why does Wal-Mart think they are entitled to OUR money should be the question!

No, it is you who is blaming the wrong people ...

reply to post by Tazkven

The job creators have a responsibility to pay people a wage that KEEPS them off of government assistance PERIOD.

Show me where that responsibility is written.

I'll wait.....

By the way, there aren’t many people making minimum wage and the vast majority who do are between 16 and 19 years of age!

In 2012, there were 3.6 million hourly paid workers in the United States with wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. These workers made up 4.7 percent of the 75.3 million workers age 16 and over who were paid at hourly rates.

www.bls.gov...

reply to post by Tazkven


Govt shouldn't be subsidizing people's incomes. Remove that from the equation, making it painful, and people, like a boot to the ass, will be motivated to work or come up with valid income sources.