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

reply to post by FlyersFan


the reason we have inflation is because of the printing press, not because people are getting paid a living wage at Costco.

The amount employees are paid should not only depend on skill of the job but the success of the business and amount of profits. Walmart takes advantage of foreign slave labor and cheap domestic labor. Sweetheart tax rates, and the reason everyone shops at walmart is because THE FED, through inflation, as well as gouging companies like big oil, have made the cost of living increase. People shop at walmart because its affordable.
It would not hurt walmart's bottom line to give their workers a living wage.

I also took business classes at a 4 year school, before leaving with 35 credits. Didn't want to spend 35k a year when I wasn't thoroughly interested in becoming an accountant, at least not at the time.

College is great and you should be compensated for your education but that doesn't mean a high school deploma, GED, or associates degree is completely meaningless worthy of 7$ an hour. Location (where you live) should be a factor in determining your wage as well. Property taxes, school taxes and the like.

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.

Originally posted by Garkiniss

Originally posted by Bearack
reply to post by Garkiniss

 

But you don't realize that our demand for cheaper items have created this monstrosity. The ole adage when Walmart first started was "They'll never buck Woolworth as Woolworth has better goods" and is exactly what happened.

People saw items vastly cheaper at Walmart and gave up quality for quantity. Go to the farmers market to get your produce. It's just as cheap, if not cheaper and actually taste better. The problem is, people don't because Walmart's cheap but also provides one stop shopping!

People need to get off their lazy ass and support local food. To this day, I buy my meat from Hi Lo's which only gets meat from Local farmers. Packaged, the meat is cheaper and taste a HELL of allot better but I have to go there and for just this product. Yes, it takes more time but the quality is better and overall is cheaper.

edit on 1-8-2013 by Bearack because: (no reason given)

This is true. However, our local farmers market will not sustain the needs of the entire community, it is too small, it doesn't even sell meats, rices, breads, or other essentials, and the nearest full scale market is 25 miles away. Many can't make that trip, especially on stripped salaries due to thinned hours.

The problem is, we're in this situation now, and hindsight is 20/20.

There is approximately 40 to 50 various farmers markets in Colorado at any given time during the season. And we subsidize farmers not to grow so in reality, local farmers would LOVE for a serge of local consumption.

For breads you could easily go to the local bakery. Heck, Panera bread would love to supply you with as much bread as you'd like but a local baker could get you the product cheaper. Not as cheap as Walmart but it's there.

Rice can be gotten anywhere. LDS stores seel rice even cheaper than Sam's and is a higher quality.

If you take the time, you can find everything Walmart sells either slightly higher or at the same price. You just need to search is all.

reply to post by doobydoll

I don't understand why you assume that people will just sit around crying and withering away just because Walmart flounces it's tight-wad arse out of town in a huff.

Oh, business will fill the gap over the long term...but I have a very good reason to believe they won't be back in some of these areas, once kicked out. Were you around to watch the King Riots? Not the event itself, in this instance, but the aftermath. The riots destroyed a whole area of L.A. which was just about ruined to start with for local stores and services which compared to something outside the area. A good % of what was burned out and destroyed never returned or took many years to do so. Not because they had to and sure not because the residents went anywhere to no longer need the business that wouldn't return.

Business didn't return there for 3 reasons. Insurance ...a big one. Crime, which ties into the last one, among other issues. Finally, economic ruin across the landscape. The damage was done. Once those who had remained that long were destroyed? WHY come back to something that wasn't THAT great in overall terms to start??

So... Run Walmart out of D.C., and 5 years from now, I'd imagine the gaps left for products will be filled by brand new business ....hopefully. In the meantime? Unless a company IS as large as Walmart for internal resources on funding and capital expenses (and almost NONE are, in terms of who people talk about wanting to see replace them), banks won't finance a lemonade stand right now. It's been the problem since 2007/08 and the heart of the economic malaise our nation still suffers.

That's why. Run Walmart out and you aren't making room in the near term for more. You're just making a bad situation worse by insuring lack of choice in shopping becomes NO choice in that immediate area. After all, Walmart DOES make a competitive point of wiping out competition and they are MASTERS at it.. No need proving the point after the fact, at the expense of the local residents we are not among to suffer the end result.

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.

Originally posted by Bearack

There is approximately 40 to 50 various farmers markets in Colorado at any given time during the season. And we subsidize farmers not to grow so in reality, local farmers would LOVE for a serge of local consumption.

That's your area, and not really relevant to everywhere in the country.

For breads you could easily go to the local bakery. Heck, Panera bread would love to supply you with as much bread as you'd like but a local baker could get you the product cheaper. Not as cheap as Walmart but it's there.

No Panera bread here, and our local bakery and our bread store moved to another town a couple of years ago.

Rice can be gotten anywhere. LDS stores seel rice even cheaper than Sam's and is a higher quality.

No LDS stores either.

Seems like your little piece of the country is faring better than others.

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.

I deliberately didn't answer because you asked a question to a statement I never made.

Apparently I have to rehash the entire conversation for you ...


I said ...

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

then replied to another poster ...

Its called the Constitution of the United States of America. You should check it out, it's kind of cool.

It starts out "We the People", Not we the Corporations or We the small businesses.

It grants everyone life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not everyone except Wal-Mart employees, not just those who make 200k a year ... Everyone.

To which you replied and I never said what I bolded there

So you are a Progressive then, and believe that Govt is here to interject in all facets of life.

Nope, that is not what the Constitution states.

I posted and you replied again and I bolded the nonsense again ...

That was a very cute rant, but you failed to state anything in it really, that means much of anything.

You want more Govt to control more of life.
Also, please show me where in the Constitution it states that the Govt is there to take care of people, as stated b you.

If I have to spell it out for you then fine. Quick, Someone get me a crayon ...

Preamble of the Constitution states as follows,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is called "general Welfare".

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution.

What does "general welfare" mean?

health, happiness, prosperity or well-being.

There is also a "general welfare clause" backing up the preamble.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States"

It is the Government's responsibility to provide the general welfare of the people, Their health, happiness, prosperity or well-being. If you are going to stand here and say these poor people are not being taking advantage of you have lost your mind. If you don't like it ... tough.

As I stated before, if people are being taking advantage of, there well-being threatened, who do they turn too? It is obvious that you want them to have no one to turn to, you prefer them "under the heel of your boot" as you so eloquently put it.

It makes me believe you are also taking advantage of your employees and leaving it up to the taxpayer, ME, to provide healthcare and other benefits to your employees in order to keep their families from going under.

I believe that the reason you are in this thread as a business owner is simple. You are trying to defend the indefensible. Because you pay poverty level wages AND you offer no medical insurance.

What I find really fascinating is that you are so critical of the subsidies provided by Obamacare and other Government benefits to lower-earning Americans but you don't have much of a problem using them to your advantage or could care less that Wal-Mart does either. But cry like a new born over the taxes needed to support these programs. You want to have your cake and eat it too, don't ya?

Admit it, you like Wal-Mart expect the taxpayers to contribute money to subsidize your company.

If that is not the case, which I am positive you will say it is not ... what exactly is your complaint? Are you just trolling this thread for fun or what?

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.

he is even more wrong than that..wallmart dictates to the manufacturer how much they will pay and the manufacturer will do whatever to meet that pricei cant believe the bovine scatology from some of you..boo hoo poor wallmart , give me a f$ckin break
wallmarts are destroying the american dream..unless your a walton
cheers

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


So are you saying that people should put up with current schitt wages and continue claiming top-up benefits or the alternative is doomier and gloomier? Choice of crap pay or no pay? If that's the case, then you people earning a living wage and over won't have a problem with paying high taxes to accommodate their benefits.

But wait, you high earners DO have a problem with them receiving benefits. And you also have a problem with companies paying them a living wage too. But the solution is one or the other.

Or you could keep them on minimum pay and snatch away their benefits, but when they begin to TAKE what they need to survive (and they will be forced to in such a situation), you will all be complaining again. They can't do right for doing wrong.

Workers on minimum wage just want to get off benefits for goodness sake. Give them a break, they're not demanding untold riches in payment for their hard work, they just want to afford to live.

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Workers on minimum wage just want to get off benefits for goodness sake. Give them a break, they're not demanding untold riches in payment for their hard work, they just want to afford to live.

Unfortunately , Raising the minimum wage is not going to help them.
You raise the minimum wage and the prices of good and services goes up as well. Their buying power stays the same at best, if not decrease .

I have owned a restaurant before and I can tell you that raising the prices is not an easy thing and the customers notice and complain about it. Therefore, you try to minimize the amount of times you increase the prices.

Hence when my cost of doing business went up I had to not only raise the price to accommodate the new additional expense , but I also had to forecast future increases into the prices for fluctuation.

So when the minimum wage employee makes $1 per hour , a gallon of milk cost .50
Then when the minimum wage goes to $2 , then the gallon of milk will likely go up to $2.10 to cover the cost of operations plus a little more.

The end result the minimum wage employee lost some buying power, even though he makes more money.

Good lord, where to begin. So, what you have offered, is about as bastardized a definition of the Constitution as it gets. But, I don't blame you, as the Progressive mindset has fought very very hard to redefine history and terms to suit the want. In your statements, you make the inaccurante statement that govt intrusion is just, because the Constitution allows it. No, no it does not.

Originally posted by Tazkven
If I have to spell it out for you then fine. Quick, Someone get me a crayon ...

Ah, the first strike of any Progressive or Alinsky follower.

Originally posted by Tazkven
Preamble of the Constitution states as follows,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is called "general Welfare".

Is it not general welfare, meaning handouts to all.
Plus, it comes immediately after the "common defense" statement. The intention was not for the Govt to make sure everyone is happy, or healthy (As I fail to see health mentioned anyone except in your statement).
If the intention was to assist all citizens, such departments, agencies, budgets and plans would have been drawn up right after the meeting for drafting and institution of the Constitution.
But, it wasn't, and it took how many years to get the kind of Progressive wet dream nightmares we have now?

Originally posted by Tazkven

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution.

What does "general welfare" mean?

health, happiness, prosperity or well-being.

Yeah, um health wasn't even included in any of the dictionaries I reviewed, for that time period.
And, the definition is for a lower cased "welfare", not an upper cased. You do know there is a difference, correct.
Again, if health was included, then they, the founding fathers would have started immediately with an agency like Health and Human Services.
Again, they didn't.

Originally posted by Tazkven
There is also a "general welfare clause" backing up the preamble.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States"

Yes, common Defense and general Welfare. Not just welfare.
If those taxes were meant in the original construction to go to citizens in the form of food stamps, why did it take sooo long to have it raised and implemented?

Originally posted by Tazkven
It is the Government's responsibility to provide the general welfare of the people, Their health, happiness, prosperity or well-being. If you are going to stand here and say these poor people are not being taking advantage of you have lost your mind. If you don't like it ... tough.

Again, just because that is the Progressive koolaid being passed around, doesn't make it so.
Being taken advantage how? Oh, you mean offered a job, and paid to do so. Yeah, really evil in nature.

Originally posted by Tazkven
As I stated before, if people are being taking advantage of, there well-being threatened, who do they turn too? It is obvious that you want them to have no one to turn to, you prefer them "under the heel of your boot" as you so eloquently put it.

Oh, because someone isn't allowed to quit their job, and find another??? Yeah, I forgot. All of those Walmart workers are chained to their cash register. Silly me.

Continued...

Originally posted by Tazkven
It makes me believe you are also taking advantage of your employees and leaving it up to the taxpayer, ME, to provide healthcare and other benefits to your employees in order to keep their families from going under.

Ah, that is very cute, in your attempt to get me to answer your question about my company.
As soon as the others items are addressed, as I posed my question first, I will answer yours.

Originally posted by Tazkven
I believe that the reason you are in this thread as a business owner is simple. You are trying to defend the indefensible. Because you pay poverty level wages AND you offer no medical insurance.

Nice try again.

Originally posted by Tazkven
What I find really fascinating is that you are so critical of the subsidies provided by Obamacare and other Government benefits to lower-earning Americans but you don't have much of a problem using them to your advantage or could care less that Wal-Mart does either.

How so?
I am critical of anything that steals money from my earned paycheck, to give to others that have not earned it.
Plus, critical of Govt that seeks to control more of everyday life.

Originally posted by Tazkven

But cry like a new born over the taxes needed to support these programs. You want to have your cake and eat it too, don't ya?

How so?

Originally posted by Tazkven
Admit it, you like Wal-Mart expect the taxpayers to contribute money to subsidize your company.

You truly have no clue about my stance on Govt and taxes. Maybe ask, instead of assume.

Originally posted by Tazkven
If that is not the case, which I am positive you will say it is not ... what exactly is your complaint? Are you just trolling this thread for fun or what?

My complaint is simple.
The Govt takes from me to give to others.
In any other facet of the world, that is theft and is punished accordingly.
When the Govt does it, it is for the greater good.
Can't have it both ways.

Also, taxes were created first, to repay the debt for the wars, then to fund the limited Govt that was operating at the time. NOT what has been created to this date.

I read and I have more to say, I really do but I headed home to drink some Woodford and watch my 17 month old son play in the yard ... Maybe tomorrow = )

reply to post by interupt42

Unfortunately , Raising the minimum wage is not going to help them.

Then you will simply just have to continue paying your taxes to subsidise their paltry wages.

If companies refuse to pay a living wage then taxpayers will be forced to carry on coughing up, because as hard-working, contributing and productive members of a CIVILIZED SOCIETY, these people have a right to a decent life free from destitution and poverty, just as any other working person. Isn't this the whole point of working for a living?

reply to post by doobydoll


They really don't get it. A person cannot pay someone 50% below the cost of living AND complain about having to pay into government assistance programs.

Create the circumstance / Live with the consequence

Either way, they're going to have to pay. One would think they'd choose the option to improve their public image.

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by interupt42

 

Unfortunately , Raising the minimum wage is not going to help them.

these people have a right to a decent life free from destitution and poverty, just as any other working person. Isn't this the whole point of working for a living?

edit on 1-8-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

Don't disagree with you, but I think the solution (raise minimum wage) to address the problem won't help them.

1. Do you think that they are going to make more money and the cost of goods and services will stay the same? If you believe this than yes , raising the minimum wage will help.

2. Do you agree that when the minimum wage is raised the cost of goods and services will go up as well? Therefore their buying power will stay the same at best even though they are making more money. Hence their standard of living won't be improved at all.


The solution to pay the minimum wage earners more money will translate to higher cost of doing business which translate to higher cost of goods and services. The only ones that get impacted by this will be the one that are making slightly above minimum wage who will lose buying power.

reply to post by interupt42


So you're saying people should do nothing and accept that they'll be in poverty forever, in debt forever, with no money to put aside for retirement (that's if they live that long, considering they can't pay for health insurance and employers are vehemently against helping in that area as well)?

Awesome...

Looks like it's time to hit reset.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

It won't, that is the thing.

If there are 3 stores, surrounding the area in question, and they operate with say monthly overhead of 1m, and have a profit margin of 10%, why would they open a new store, which doesn't guarantee nor really have a new customer base, with monthly overhead of 2m, thus dropping the profit margin to 5% or less.
Now, I have no clue as to what their margins are, but as a company owner, I wouldn't do that.
The customer is already there, at those surrounding stores. it is not like the new store will create a new customer base, as those people are already traveling to existing stores.

You do realize that what I'm getting at is that they WILL have a new customer base. There's only 1 Target in the city that I know of while there are numerous Walmarts. If Walmart leaves and Target moves in, the just gained a hell of a lot of customers without competition from Walmart for them.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
reply to post by interupt42

 

So you're saying people should do nothing and accept that they'll be in poverty forever, in debt forever, with no money to put aside for retirement (that's if they live that long, considering they can't pay for health insurance and employers are vehemently against helping in that area as well)?

Awesome...

Looks like it's time to hit reset.

Find where I said that you shouldn't do anything.

However, the proposed solution to raise the taxes will in essence accomplish you nothing at best, because the minimum wage buying power will remain the same despite making more money per hour.

Which do think will happen when you increase the minimum wage?

1. Do you think that they are going to make more money and the cost of goods and services will stay the same? If you believe this than yes , raising the minimum wage will help.

2. Do you agree that when the minimum wage is raised the cost of goods and services will go up as well? Therefore the minimum wage earners buying power will stay the same, despite getting a higher pay check.