Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Look, it doesn't matter who it is. You can't have your entire society magically pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Economies don't work that way. Your gain is at another's expense, always.

 Jihadin wrote:
If your stuck in an arse in job would you not take it upon yourself via self motivation and self improvement to improve your lot in life?

It doesn't matte how much motivation and self-improvement you have if there's simply nowhere for you to go to begin with.

In a system with limited resources that is unavoidable.

 Melissia wrote:
Perhaps you would suggest that they start stealing things to make up for the difference?

No, don't worry about it. Once we create this giant population of people who are now making 4 or 5 bucks an hour and no benefits, they won't be able to buy gas or food or find housing. Since demand will go down, the prices of all those things will come down to match!

The miracle of the invisible hand, once again working it's magic.

I see no way at all this could backfire, so long as none of them ever get sick or injured.

The necessity of a job to society isn't the sole decider of what the wage should be.

The difficulty of the job(IE: what skills are needed for it) and the skillset required for it are more important considerations for determining the wage.


A cashier at walmart requires almost no skill to do the job, which makes the labor pool for the job quite high. As there is never going to be a shortage of people willing and able to do the job why should the pay be anything above minimum wage?

Its not that the workers don't deserve to be paid a high wage or that they do. They should be paid exactly what the job is worth. A cashiers position is not worth very much. All cashiers positions as a whole are worth a lot to society, but no more than any other job is worth. if anything its still pretty low on the totem pole.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The difficulty of the job(IE: what skills are needed for it) and the skillset required for it are more important considerations for determining the wage.

That's not, however, how the real world works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They should be paid exactly what the job is worth.

"What the job is worth" is nebulous and subjective. The market would say "nothing" and use slave labor if it could. Would you say that's okay?

Ok, as a counter point. What on earth makes people think a Walmart Cashier should get benefits?

And "because the employee needs them" is not a good reason. Everybody needs/wants everything.

Grey Templar, ours is the same capitalist system that, both historically AND currently, places different values on a job's worth based off of a person's ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual preference-- even when the same amount and quality of work are put in place. What pathetic delusion makes you think that the current system prices low-level, underprivileged jobs justly? Hell, jobs taht were previously dominated by white men (such as Veterinary work), whom minorities and women have become predominant in, have actually DEVALUED in terms of pay. Capitalism isn't perfect no matter how many people scream and shout that it is.

Regardless, to answer your question, the reason is simple-- it is not beneficial to society to allow otherwise productive members of society to wallow in poverty. Poverty creates a haven for criminals and other malcontents, disease and disorder, and in the most extreme cases, class-based violence. We've seen it happen plenty of times in almost every place in the world, including the USA itself.

Before we go further on this......are we focusing just on a Walmart cashier job pay and benefits?

It doesn't matte how much motivation and self-improvement you have if there's simply nowhere for you to go to begin with.

I call BS. I got caught in the same situation before I came to conclusion my best offer in life at the was the military. So I took it. Either that or take a job in Alaska working on a rig because I researched the jobs as recent grad of High school.......I HATE THE COLD.

I also would would gain the lead in whatever job I apply for at the expense of others due to my military carreer and disability rating in a federal job.

 Jihadin wrote:
BS

So tell me. 50 new jobs are available, and there's 1000 jobless people applying for them. How many people will have to go without jobs after all is said and done?

Its just an example of a low end job.


Anyway, it is true that poverty does create a haven for crime and other undesirable behavior. But poverty is impossible to eradicate.

You can raise wages and benefits all you want, but its not going to change the fact there will always be people on the bottom. Which means there's always going to be a place where poverty exists. It isn't a hard fast line you can draw and try to raise all of society above it, instead, poverty is relative to the society its part of.

None of that pathetic hand-waving is an excuse for the extreme concentration of wealth that we currently have.

 Melissia wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
BS

So tell me. 50 new jobs are available, and there's 1000 jobless people applying for them. How many people will have to go without jobs after all is said and done?

While it is a fact that in that situation there will be 950 jobless at the end of the day, which individuals are jobless is entirely up to the individuals in question. They can work at making themselves be one of the 50.

Now, its also a fact that you can work as hard as possible and still not make it. But that's just how the world works, always has worked, and always will work. The sooner we accept that fact the sooner we can get on with life.

 Grey Templar wrote:
While it is a fact that in that situation there will be 950 jobless at the end of the day, which individuals are jobless is entirely up to the individuals in question.

Don't be delusional. It's not up to them. It's up to the whims of the business people hiring them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now, its also a fact that you can work as hard as possible and still not make it. But that's just how the world works, always has worked, and always will work. The sooner we accept that fact the sooner we can get on with life.

I don't respect defeatists.

 Melissia wrote:
None of that pathetic hand-waving is an excuse for the extreme concentration of wealth that we currently have.

Whether the richest person in the world has 100 billion or 200 billion will not change the disparity.

Take all the money the wealthy have and give it to the poor, you will not make the poor any less poor.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Take all the money the wealthy have and give it to the poor, you will not make the poor any less poor.

Would you also say that taking all the water from a lake would still leave it a lake?

 Melissia wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now, its also a fact that you can work as hard as possible and still not make it. But that's just how the world works, always has worked, and always will work. The sooner we accept that fact the sooner we can get on with life.

I don't respect defeatists.

Says a delusional idealist.

Work on realistic goals where you can actually accomplish something.


Stop attacking rich capitalist fat cats and go help develop villages in Africa. That's where you could make some real change.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Work on realistic goals where you can actually accomplish something.

I do, and I am. Advocating for the continuation of food stamp programs, and other such assistance to alleviate the pains of poverty is not only a realistic goal, it is a goal that accomplishes a lot more than your defeatist lack of ideals.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Stop attacking rich capitalist fat cats and go help develop villages in Africa. That's where you could make some real change.

There is no reason to believe that I have to go to Africa to help the poor. There are problems here that need to be solved, and ignoring htem will not make them go away, no matter how hard you try.

You all telling me my option is limited to the area I am? BS. A job is like a relationship
1. If its good you stay.
2. If it sucks you leave.
3. If your looking then LOOK

Some seem quite convince that jobs need to imported to them where they live.

 Jihadin wrote:
You all telling me my option is limited to the area I am?

No, I'm telling you that no matter whre you go, there will never be enough jobs for everyone, no matter how good their work ethic is or how much skill they might have. Especially in these days of increasing productivity and automation.

That's why we have government assistance-- to assist where the market has failed, and the market ALWAYS fails in some way. It is an imperfect collection of imperfect people with a long history of biases, irrational actions, and illogical thoughts driving it, which is why no government has ever managed to keep a system of perfect capitalism, and no sane government would try.

The government is also full of imperfect people as well and, as I am sure we could all agree, politicians are more imperfect than most.

If the market, made of imperfect people, couldn't do it what makes people think the government, made of those same imperfect people, can fix it?

And unlike the market, the government's potential for abuse and wrong doing is vastly greater. The government has a direct incentive for controlling the people, the market only does what is profitable. The government doesn't care for profit, it only wants power.

Of the two, I'd far prefer the free market to the ironfisted regulator.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The government is also full of imperfect people as well and, as I am sure we could all agree, politicians are more imperfect than most.

Politicians are, in many ways, better than businesspeople. At the very least, politicians are somewhat accountable to the people who depend upon them. Businesspeople are accountable only to the greed of their shareholders..

Really


Business people are not just accountable to their stockholders. They themselves are subject to their customers. You have to be very careful. Even the largest and most successful business can piss off their customers and fall quickly. Businesses must constantly make sure they are pleasing their customers, unlike politicians who are only held accountable one every few years.

If a politician does something dumb a year away from reelection it has to be pretty serious to have an effect. Politicians really only have to seriously worry about their image with the voters shortly before the election. They really aren't beholden to the voters in the off season.

If politicians truly were 100% beholden to the people nobody would complain about lobbyists.

If elections were held every year it might be true. And even then, a politician is really only beholden to the majority(often very slight) that voted him in. The opposition means nothing to him.

 Grey Templar wrote:
How so?

For one, a politician who doesn't serve their society well can be voted out of office. A businessman who harms society but is profitable to the shareholders cannot be voted out of office. In many (though obviously not all) cases, businesses must be forced through law to act ethically, because their only desire is the accumulation of wealth.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Business people are not just accountable to their stockholders. They themselves are subject to their customers. You have to be very careful. Even the largest and most successful business can piss off their customers and fall quickly. Businesses must constantly make sure they are pleasing their customers, unlike politicians who are only held accountable one every few years.

And yet, Games Workshop has been pissing us off for several years now and is still in business.

They obviously haven't pissed us off enough to stop buying their product. Although they're getting there. It'll happen soon.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Business people are not just accountable to their stockholders.

Yes, actually, they are. That's all that matters to executives' bottom line. Countless examples exist of CEOs making decisions that are incredibly stupid, but happen to please their stockholders.

It's always amazing to watch someone who is so aggressively uninformed at work.

The shareholders are not god to a CEO. I bet, if you tried really, really hard, you could think of one or two (there are more than that) entities that a business person is accountable to.



As for GW, they (as well as the post 'ard boyz tournament culture) have driven me into the arms of FFG, and I'm quite happy there.

I'm still grappling with their prices but WTH....I paint more then I play and they do make for good painting. What I don't like about GW practice/policy is changing out management with no notice. I was all set with the Dakka Warband with another guy to play against and "BAM" we have a new GW manager and a cute one at that. I will admit....nice play on GW side....military peeps are picking the game up....Oh and Gig Harbor has one army base JBLW, Bremerton Naval Yard, and Puget Sound Naval Vase. We need a bunker over here lol

How does getting a new cute GW manager interfere with the Dakka Warband? Were all the Slanneshi members running off to ooogle?