Total Posts:114|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Absurdity of a Wal-Mart "living wage"

1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 1:23:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education argue that such a wage bump for the retailer's lower-paid associates would translate into an extra cost to shoppers of about 46 cents per trip, or $12.49 a year, if the brunt of the increase was passed on to consumers."
------
The left has become so economically illiterate it almost hurts. Wal-Mart is a business, NOT some charity/welfare program obligated to keep all their workers out of poverty. They are in a competitive environment where efficiency is critical and poor financial management can easily result in bankruptcy. Wages in a free market are a mutual business agreement between a worker and their employer on what their labor is worth.

Why do these radicals refuse to recognize that employment is not some kind of entitlement?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 1:53:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I get that one can be against mandated wages. But bumping prices by less than $.50 per trip certainly doesn't seem radical.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 2:26:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 1:53:04 AM, Noumena wrote:
I get that one can be against mandated wages. But bumping prices by less than $.50 per trip certainly doesn't seem radical.

How about this: We'll put a can by the exit with a sign saying that any money dropped in will go to increasing the pay of the employees of that store. Let's see how many shoppers feel like forking out that 46 cents.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 3:48:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So you're a supporter of slavery so long as it's motivated by economic rather than racial inequality? Got it.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 5:47:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 3:48:58 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
So you're a supporter of slavery so long as it's motivated by economic rather than racial inequality? Got it.

Slavery? Really? Walmart is an entry level, low skill job. It's not meant to be a household supporter. We need to stop regulating wages. All it does is add to inflation and raise prices, which requires wages to be raised, which causes prices to go up.

When I was in school, working at Wendy's, they raised minimum wage in two increments. Six months before the increase went into effect, cheeseburger prices went up noticeably. It's a pointless exercise.

If a store isn't paying enough to keep its workers, the workers should find other jobs. This keeps workers competitive and the stores competitive in wages and workers get the best pay for their work that is available.

Locking in a minimum wage helps no one.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 6:20:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, unless Walmart stops forcing its employees to depend on food stamps, I won't be going there. As a consumer, that's my choice. Most of the people that I know have this policy as well.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 6:48:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 2:26:23 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 7/15/2013 1:53:04 AM, Noumena wrote:
I get that one can be against mandated wages. But bumping prices by less than $.50 per trip certainly doesn't seem radical.

How about this: We'll put a can by the exit with a sign saying that any money dropped in will go to increasing the pay of the employees of that store. Let's see how many shoppers feel like forking out that 46 cents.

That's biased. For one thing, there's a difference because if I'm walking out of the store, I just want to leave, so I'm less likely to stop. If the extra charge is added while I purchase goods, however, I'm not going to care, especially since it's only 50 cents. In addition, there is a perception that I just paid money to support the employees, so why should I do it again? Finally, I never donate to cans as a rule because there is no accountability and no proof that the money will be used to help anyone. The managers can (and probably do) steal from cans for "donations".
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 6:49:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, this research center is not forcing Walmart to do anything. It is simply making a recommendation to the company, and it has this right.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:05:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 1:23:34 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education argue that such a wage bump for the retailer's lower-paid associates would translate into an extra cost to shoppers of about 46 cents per trip, or $12.49 a year, if the brunt of the increase was passed on to consumers."
------
The left has become so economically illiterate it almost hurts. Wal-Mart is a business, NOT some charity/welfare program obligated to keep all their workers out of poverty. They are in a competitive environment where efficiency is critical and poor financial management can easily result in bankruptcy. Wages in a free market are a mutual business agreement between a worker and their employer on what their labor is worth.

Why do these radicals refuse to recognize that employment is not some kind of entitlement?

because your complaints have little to no economic data to back up it's own claims what-so ever. Unlike the left ...

interestingly enough, one complaint I love hearing from the GOP is how apparently universities have a liberal bias .. <3

Remember: not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative.
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:06:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 1:23:34 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education argue that such a wage bump for the retailer's lower-paid associates would translate into an extra cost to shoppers of about 46 cents per trip, or $12.49 a year, if the brunt of the increase was passed on to consumers."
------
The left has become so economically illiterate it almost hurts. Wal-Mart is a business, NOT some charity/welfare program obligated to keep all their workers out of poverty. They are in a competitive environment where efficiency is critical and poor financial management can easily result in bankruptcy. Wages in a free market are a mutual business agreement between a worker and their employer on what their labor is worth.

Why do these radicals refuse to recognize that employment is not some kind of entitlement?

Essentially, the costs of increasing wages would be off-set by the economic activity stirred by the economically disenfranchised. Think students, single mothers, etc...
Thank you for voting!
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:33:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:06:56 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Essentially, the costs of increasing wages would be off-set by the economic activity stirred by the economically disenfranchised. Think students, single mothers, etc...

Actually inflation.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:43:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 5:47:37 AM, Naysayer wrote:
Slavery? Really? Walmart is an entry level, low skill job. It's not meant to be a household supporter. We need to stop regulating wages. All it does is add to inflation and raise prices, which requires wages to be raised, which causes prices to go up.

Coercive exploitation of labour that is supported by the threat of destitution and death? Yes, really. We absolutely should regulate wages, because:

1) The other options are either massive injustice of being crippled by unions.
2) Unless you cap higher wages, inflation will still cause those problems.

When I was in school, working at Wendy's, they raised minimum wage in two increments. Six months before the increase went into effect, cheeseburger prices went up noticeably. It's a pointless exercise.

Pointless unless you were relying on that pay increase to pay your rent. Then it's quite important.

If a store isn't paying enough to keep its workers, the workers should find other jobs. This keeps workers competitive and the stores competitive in wages and workers get the best pay for their work that is available.

Locking in a minimum wage helps no one.

Profound economics failure there, good work. There are less jobs than people, so supply and demand dictates that the companies can offer very little and the unemployed have no bargaining power. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp, although obviously if you're selfishly getting rich while other people live in squalor I can certainly see a motivator for making it sound more complicated than that.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:43:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:33:34 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:06:56 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Essentially, the costs of increasing wages would be off-set by the economic activity stirred by the economically disenfranchised. Think students, single mothers, etc...

Actually inflation.

LOLwut?

correlation =/= causation...

one thing to remember was Kennedy's speech on minimum wage in the senate. The senate had failed to raise min. wage for over 10 years, and did so in 2007. However, in order to justify your claims you have to believe that no prices increased during that time due to min. wages stagnating...which prices did inflate anyways. Furthermore, one of the few peer-reviewed studies done on Min wage found that when you increase min wage, actually employment numbers go up as a result. It was done by David Card and Alan Krueger from Princeton University.

Try again.
Thank you for voting!
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 9:30:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:43:35 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
one thing to remember was Kennedy's speech on minimum wage in the senate. The senate had failed to raise min. wage for over 10 years, and did so in 2007. However, in order to justify your claims you have to believe that no prices increased during that time due to min. wages stagnating...which prices did inflate anyways. Furthermore, one of the few peer-reviewed studies done on Min wage found that when you increase min wage, actually employment numbers go up as a result. It was done by David Card and Alan Krueger from Princeton University.


Try again.

I'm sorry. Did you just use an argument from Kennedy as a defense? There's a reason he sounded like he was continuously talking through a mouthful of horse manure.

1. Your study makes no correlation to inflation whatsoever.
2. The study only looks at low wage jobs, so doesn't evaluate the total effect on jobs or the economy. (Unemployment was admitted to go up during the same period.)
3. Basically, according to the study, the raising of minimum wage only helps the people that liberals/progressives only ever want to help and that's the very bottom, untrained, non-contributing portion of society. And I have a hunch it's at the expense of everyone else.
4. "Only two other variables show a relative change between waves 1 and 2: the fraction of full-time employees and the price of a meal. Both variables increased in New Jersey relative to Pennsylvania"
5. It also seems we're really good at timing minimum wage increases to coincide with recessions, which would mask the true effect on inflation.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 9:44:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Almost like the recessions follow minimum wages getting too low when compared to the cost of living. Almost exactly like that.

But then the fact you've had to claim coincidence and hunches as part of your argument is far more damning than anything I could point out.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 9:49:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 9:44:47 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Almost like the recessions follow minimum wages getting too low when compared to the cost of living. Almost exactly like that.

But then the fact you've had to claim coincidence and hunches as part of your argument is far more damning than anything I could point out.

What was that equation about correlation? Your study was pointless to the argument.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 9:56:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 2:26:23 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 7/15/2013 1:53:04 AM, Noumena wrote:
I get that one can be against mandated wages. But bumping prices by less than $.50 per trip certainly doesn't seem radical.

How about this: We'll put a can by the exit with a sign saying that any money dropped in will go to increasing the pay of the employees of that store. Let's see how many shoppers feel like forking out that 46 cents.

Don't be absurd. Liberals don't believe in using their own money.

I should just point out - government directly reduces the wages of WalMart employees. They do this by requiring various benefits for anyone defined as 'full time'. So, WalMart won't let you work more than, depending on state, 30 hours/week or so. Low skilled workers are forced to have two or more jobs, since no single employer can take the chance of giving a worker all the hours that may be available.
This space for rent.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 9:58:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 9:30:20 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:43:35 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
one thing to remember was Kennedy's speech on minimum wage in the senate. The senate had failed to raise min. wage for over 10 years, and did so in 2007. However, in order to justify your claims you have to believe that no prices increased during that time due to min. wages stagnating...which prices did inflate anyways. Furthermore, one of the few peer-reviewed studies done on Min wage found that when you increase min wage, actually employment numbers go up as a result. It was done by David Card and Alan Krueger from Princeton University.


Try again.

I'm sorry. Did you just use an argument from Kennedy as a defense? There's a reason he sounded like he was continuously talking through a mouthful of horse manure.

LMAO! Yeah and to think republicans worked with him all the time. Even feared him.

1. Your study makes no correlation to inflation whatsoever.
Never intended it to, it was to show increase in employment, however, a study titled A Survey of the Effects of Minimum Wages on Prices," by Sara Lemos, Journal of Economic Surveys 22(1): 187"212, 2008. Does show that inflation increases are full of sh!t. In no way does min wage increase inflation. http://backtofullemployment.org...

2. The study only looks at low wage jobs, so doesn't evaluate the total effect on jobs or the economy. (Unemployment was admitted to go up during the same period.)

Low wage jobs are the only ones being impacted. So it doesn't make sense to look at other jobs generally speaking. That's the whole point of minimum wage..

3. Basically, according to the study, the raising of minimum wage only helps the people that liberals/progressives only ever want to help and that's the very bottom, untrained, non-contributing portion of society. And I have a hunch it's at the expense of everyone else.

No, not helping these people means a lack of self-sustainability. That lack of self-sustainability turns into food stamp costs, footing healthcare bills, and paying out social security to these people. What expense to everyone else? It's at the expense of the corporation.

4. "Only two other variables show a relative change between waves 1 and 2: the fraction of full-time employees and the price of a meal. Both variables increased in New Jersey relative to Pennsylvania"

Yeah for fast food restaurants, and it was 4 cents. The study noted it didn't impact higher-scale restaurants at all. Nor did it show the inflation period to compensate for it at that time, it just assumed real numbers, not nominal.

5. It also seems we're really good at timing minimum wage increases to coincide with recessions, which would mask the true effect on inflation.

How so? Correlation =/= causation. Most republicans decry the Federal Reserve for inflation problems, and it is one of the mission statements of the Feds is to control inflation. Your confusing a job of the feds with a pseudo-impact on min wage.
Thank you for voting!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:21:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 9:58:46 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/15/2013 9:30:20 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:43:35 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
one thing to remember was Kennedy's speech on minimum wage in the senate. The senate had failed to raise min. wage for over 10 years, and did so in 2007. However, in order to justify your claims you have to believe that no prices increased during that time due to min. wages stagnating...which prices did inflate anyways. Furthermore, one of the few peer-reviewed studies done on Min wage found that when you increase min wage, actually employment numbers go up as a result. It was done by David Card and Alan Krueger from Princeton University.


Try again.

I'm sorry. Did you just use an argument from Kennedy as a defense? There's a reason he sounded like he was continuously talking through a mouthful of horse manure.

LMAO! Yeah and to think republicans worked with him all the time. Even feared him.

1. Your study makes no correlation to inflation whatsoever.
Never intended it to, it was to show increase in employment, however, a study titled A Survey of the Effects of Minimum Wages on Prices," by Sara Lemos, Journal of Economic Surveys 22(1): 187"212, 2008. Does show that inflation increases are full of sh!t. In no way does min wage increase inflation. http://backtofullemployment.org...

That's like arguing 2+2 does not equal 4. We can debate the significance of such inflation, whether it's even measurable, but it has to increase inflation, that's just simple math. It's a fiat increase in the money supply, and that by definition is inflation.

Economics is impossibly complex because it is the aggregate of all the actions of often irrational players. That's why it's important to be clear on the fundamentals of economics. So, minimum wage is inflationary, period. You can argue that the inflation is minimal, you can argue that it's worth it, that it produces a net gain in wealth, something like that, but nothing is gained by arguing that 2+2 doesn't equal 4.
This space for rent.
Jo2599
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:25:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So an increase of $12.46 a year is too much? I don't see how it is one. If everyone there had a living wage, we should be willing to make sacrifices.

You know the people who are working in intolerable conditions in the developing world? Things will never get better for them unless we are willing to pay more for products made there for better working conditions. But for the sake of our love for cheap at the expense for hard workers, for the sake of our screaming for a price increase by a few dollars per YEAR, things will not get better.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:31:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Eh, I think Wal-Mart employees should work in better conditions/earn more money, but that's the job of themselves and people in general to privately pressure Wal-Mart to do. Trying to regulate/legislate something wouldn't be right, nor would it likely work.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:39:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 10:25:37 AM, Jo2599 wrote:
So an increase of $12.46 a year is too much? I don't see how it is one. If everyone there had a living wage, we should be willing to make sacrifices.

You know the people who are working in intolerable conditions in the developing world? Things will never get better for them unless we are willing to pay more for products made there for better working conditions. But for the sake of our love for cheap at the expense for hard workers, for the sake of our screaming for a price increase by a few dollars per YEAR, things will not get better.

Well, we are definitely making things better for the developing world by forcing businesses to hire them instead of domestic labor.
This space for rent.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:41:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The increase cannot simply be passed on to consumers. If Walmart could raise it's prices and still maximize total revenue, why wouldn't it do so already, before the targeted minimum wage was passed? What this will result in is unemployment.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:43:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, what the people in the third world need is more capital, not for businesses here to gouge consumers with over inflated prices. Unfortunately the looter mentality is so prevalent in the third world it's very risky to go set up shop there so most business don't.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 11:00:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Lol this is a horrible argument. I'm against mandating wages, but not because it might cost me an extra 12 dollars a year.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 11:36:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 1:23:34 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education argue that such a wage bump for the retailer's lower-paid associates would translate into an extra cost to shoppers of about 46 cents per trip, or $12.49 a year, if the brunt of the increase was passed on to consumers."
------
The left has become so economically illiterate it almost hurts. Wal-Mart is a business, NOT some charity/welfare program obligated to keep all their workers out of poverty. They are in a competitive environment where efficiency is critical and poor financial management can easily result in bankruptcy. Wages in a free market are a mutual business agreement between a worker and their employer on what their labor is worth.

Why do these radicals refuse to recognize that employment is not some kind of entitlement?

$12.49 a year = $1.04 a month.
Assuming 4 weeks to a month (ignoring another 4 weeks, let's assume that is vacation), you would spend an extra 26 cents per week. This is the equivalent of working an extra 2 minutes per week at the current federal minimum wage of $7.25.

In addition, if workers at Wal-Mart got what their labor was worth, then Wal-Mart would not get any profit at all - without its workers, a store is quite useless.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 12:01:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:06:56 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/15/2013 1:23:34 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education argue that such a wage bump for the retailer's lower-paid associates would translate into an extra cost to shoppers of about 46 cents per trip, or $12.49 a year, if the brunt of the increase was passed on to consumers."
------
The left has become so economically illiterate it almost hurts. Wal-Mart is a business, NOT some charity/welfare program obligated to keep all their workers out of poverty. They are in a competitive environment where efficiency is critical and poor financial management can easily result in bankruptcy. Wages in a free market are a mutual business agreement between a worker and their employer on what their labor is worth.

Why do these radicals refuse to recognize that employment is not some kind of entitlement?

Essentially, the costs of increasing wages would be off-set by the economic activity stirred by the economically disenfranchised. Think students, single mothers, etc...

How does taking more money from poor shoppers and giving it to poor employees generate economic activity?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 12:05:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 1:53:04 AM, Noumena wrote:
I get that one can be against mandated wages. But bumping prices by less than $.50 per trip certainly doesn't seem radical.

Per individual, no, but it adds up.

Walmart has 2.2 million employees, which means a $1.1 million increase.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 12:13:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 12:05:02 PM, DanT wrote:
At 7/15/2013 1:53:04 AM, Noumena wrote:
I get that one can be against mandated wages. But bumping prices by less than $.50 per trip certainly doesn't seem radical.

Per individual, no, but it adds up.

Walmart has 2.2 million employees, which means a $1.1 million increase.

Yeah, when you only have $16B in profit, every penny counts.