Co'tor Shas wrote:
Walmart actually gets quite a bit of welfare money, so it's better for them to force their employees to go on welfare.

nkelsch wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


Well walmart pays their people enough money to survive and to be able to work but just barely.

And then it is a 'living wage'. Life is not expected to be good on a 'living wage' simply live. Basically society functions on a form of economic slavery. If you want a good life for all your citizens, then you need to forcibly seize profits and hand out assistance based upon personal situation.

Minimum wage increase doesn't solve anything, it is pandering for votes at a basic level with no attempts to fix the disparity and to keep people institutionalized in poverty. People think they are better off with more money but as we are finding a majority of these people have less money when all is said and done. In SEA-TAC, the loss of overtime, Free food and reduction in tips has caused a large portion of the workers to have less money at the end of the day.

 Redbeard wrote:
Yeah, I know. They're one of the biggest lobbiers (and beneficiaries) of the SNAP program, so much so that they actually listed cuts to the SNAP program as a cause for concern in their latest shareholder report.

Which just reinforces the idea of how wrong this is. We (taxpayers) boost their profit-margin twice (once on the wages they don't pay their employees, and again when their employees spend their SNAP funds in their store). But I guess that's better than accidentally paying a teenager more than he "needs".

 Asherian Command wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


Well walmart pays their people enough money to survive and to be able to work but just barely.

And then it is a 'living wage'. Life is not expected to be good on a 'living wage' simply live. Basically society functions on a form of economic slavery. If you want a good life for all your citizens, then you need to forcibly seize profits and hand out assistance based upon personal situation.

Minimum wage increase doesn't solve anything, it is pandering for votes at a basic level with no attempts to fix the disparity and to keep people institutionalized in poverty. People think they are better off with more money but as we are finding a majority of these people have less money when all is said and done. In SEA-TAC, the loss of overtime, Free food and reduction in tips has caused a large portion of the workers to have less money at the end of the day.

Yep yep! I agree with you, but personally it would be better if there was a maximum wage. For all workers. All workers. That would fix the rich problem. Permanently.

nkelsch wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


Well walmart pays their people enough money to survive and to be able to work but just barely.

And then it is a 'living wage'. Life is not expected to be good on a 'living wage' simply live. Basically society functions on a form of economic slavery. If you want a good life for all your citizens, then you need to forcibly seize profits and hand out assistance based upon personal situation.

Minimum wage increase doesn't solve anything, it is pandering for votes at a basic level with no attempts to fix the disparity and to keep people institutionalized in poverty. People think they are better off with more money but as we are finding a majority of these people have less money when all is said and done. In SEA-TAC, the loss of overtime, Free food and reduction in tips has caused a large portion of the workers to have less money at the end of the day.

Yep yep! I agree with you, but personally it would be better if there was a maximum wage. For all workers. All workers. That would fix the rich problem. Permanently.

Hahah... Let's see how that works out as well. Any such talk of redistribution of wealth will cause people to refuse to accept it.

 Asherian Command wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Hahah... Let's see how that works out as well. Any such talk of redistribution of wealth will cause people to refuse to accept it.

You mean the 1% people. You know I find holding them up at gunpoint by the other 99% usually works.

nkelsch wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Hahah... Let's see how that works out as well. Any such talk of redistribution of wealth will cause people to refuse to accept it.

You mean the 1% people. You know I find holding them up at gunpoint by the other 99% usually works.

"Rise up and murder the rich" isn't going to get you far in american politics.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Walmart actually gets quite a bit of welfare money, so it's better for them to force their employees to go on welfare.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/wal-mart-company-statistics/

This might be an interesting read. Its not like Walmart makes as much money as a country.
Wait....

They make 36 Million dollars... An Hour! Oh my goodness! How many workers do they have? 2,000,000 (estimation)? Lets see minimum wage is around 8.50 (A good estimation)

so 16 million dollars is taken away from that 36 million dollars!
So the major CEOs, Managers and higher staff, which number around 500. Get 20 Million Dollars.
YEAH CAPITALISM!

Its not like they could I don't know decrease the wages of the CEos and higher staff to I don't know a maxmimum amount, because its not like they do anything important and have to maintain their families.

Lalala.

Face it they can take a pay cut.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Walmart actually gets quite a bit of welfare money, so it's better for them to force their employees to go on welfare.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/wal-mart-company-statistics/

This might be an interesting read. Its not like Walmart makes as much money as a country.
Wait....

They make 36 Million dollars... An Hour! Oh my goodness! How many workers do they have? 2,000,000 (estimation)? Lets see minimum wage is around 8.50 (A good estimation)

so 16 million dollars is taken away from that 36 million dollars!
So the major CEOs, Managers and higher staff, which number around 500. Get 20 Million Dollars.
YEAH CAPITALISM!

Its not like they could I don't know decrease the wages of the CEos and higher staff to I don't know a maxmimum amount, because its not like they do anything important and have to maintain their families.

Lalala.

Face it they can take a pay cut.

 Grey Templar wrote:

That 20 million isn't going straight into executive pockets. It gets split among the executives, any company expansion, retained earnings, stock dividends, and overhead. It goes away fast.

 Redbeard wrote:
I think the point is that it's 20 million/hour, after subtracting the minimum wage employees. And, of course there are other things to consider, there's healthcare and other benefits for those employees as well as the things you mention.

But, (and using the link provided, with no verification), even after all those costs, they're still reported as making roughly $35,000 in profit, every minute.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Walmart actually gets quite a bit of welfare money, so it's better for them to force their employees to go on welfare.

SNIP.

You have zero clue how business works do you?

That 20 million isn't going straight into executive pockets. It gets split among the executives, any company expansion, retained earnings, stock dividends, and overhead. It goes away fast.

Post 2014/06/10 12:23:29 Subject: How Seattle Agreed to a $15 Minimum Wage Without a Fight
yes, lets limit sucess and also limit the reward factor that drives the best of us to perform to the best of their abilities...

that could never back fire, and ofc, people who make the most couldnt possibly make the most because of their extremely usefull and scarce talents or because their jobs are actually harder then ditch digging ans stocking shelves.


I love how someone just mentioned the french revolution with such rosey eyed glasses and totally forgets about the jacobans and such ushering in a period of bloodshed and chaos immediatly following it...

You're reading the numbers at your link incorrectly. That $36 million is money spent at Walmart and is not profit nor are wages and salaries the only expenses paid from that figure. That figure also pays for the product, the facilities upkeep, transportation and distribution and warehousing, taxes and utilities, and so on.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't see why a disconnect is a problem.

Complain that workers aren't getting paid enough and we can have a discussion.

Simply throwing a fit that the executives are being paid so much more than you just makes the side complaining look childish.

Its like when my little sister complained that I got an entire bagel and she only got half a one for breakfast(I was 18 and she was 5)


Make the argument you aren't getting paid enough, don't just say "They could do with less"

 CptJake wrote:

Which is about $2 mil an hour. And how much does to open a new store? Are shareholders who get a chunk of that not allowed to earn on their investments? And for a company with that many employees to make a profit is a good thing. They pay taxes on it too.

 Asherian Command wrote:


You and your sister should get the same amount of food, if she is full and doesn't want any, ask for her the remnants of her food, that is her choice. Not yours.

I cannot take someone else's pie because I want it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


You and your sister should get the same amount of food, if she is full and doesn't want any, ask for her the remnants of her food, that is her choice. Not yours.

You realize how stupid that statement is right?

You are saying an 18 year old and a 5 year old should get the exact same amount of food?

I cannot take someone else's pie because I want it.

And yet you are advocating exactly that by saying the executives should earn less pay so their workers can earn more.

But guess what, both are earning a salary as befits what they do for the company.

The workers are just doing as they are told, keep the shelves stocked and the store clean.

The Executives are deciding what should be stocked, how much, where in the store each individual product should be located, negotiating contracts with suppliers, filing paperwork(i'd take scrubbing the floor over that any day), dealing with regulations, dealing with all the negative crap that gets slung your way just because you are a big company, etc...

Executives have much more work to do than their employes, much much more work.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


You and your sister should get the same amount of food, if she is full and doesn't want any, ask for her the remnants of her food, that is her choice. Not yours.

You realize how stupid that statement is right?

You are saying an 18 year old and a 5 year old should get the exact same amount of food?

 easysauce wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


You and your sister should get the same amount of food, if she is full and doesn't want any, ask for her the remnants of her food, that is her choice. Not yours.

You realize how stupid that statement is right?

You are saying an 18 year old and a 5 year old should get the exact same amount of food?

No he doesnt.. thats the whole point,

someone who isnt savvy enough to realize that he just gave a full pie to someone who not only, does not need it, but cannot use/eat it all, and that that pie had to come from somewhere and possibly someone who does need it.

yet somehow he things he understands economics better then the best people in the business, and can fix everything like *THAT* with a wage cap.

again, I dont hear redbeard complaining about the income gap that movie stars and pro sports players make, despite their "work" being even less usefull then CEO's work...


also redbead... your idea that all humans are equal and should get equal pay, regardless of differing work, has been done before... didnt work out so hot ...

you simply must have actual valuble skills or produce something of more value to get more money, simply wanting it, and complaining that others make so much more then you, isnt good barganing skills, nor is it economically feasable for the lowest common denominator to expect higer uncommon pay rates.

 Asherian Command wrote:
That is a very western thinking, that the workers don't do as much work for the company as the executives do.

 Asherian Command wrote:


In fact they skipped the most needed attribute. You need to have first been a Capitalist economy in order to become a Communistic system.

 Redbeard wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Which is about $2 mil an hour. And how much does to open a new store? Are shareholders who get a chunk of that not allowed to earn on their investments? And for a company with that many employees to make a profit is a good thing. They pay taxes on it too.

No one is saying they don't have a right to make a profit. But, when that profit comes from abusing government handouts on both sides, you have to ask, is that really a profit you should be defending? This is a company that depends on government handouts for their employees to be able to afford to work for them, and then takes those same government handouts back. This is little different than the old 'company store' approach.

I don't shop at Walmart - why are my taxes subsidizing their bottom line? Do you really believe that Walmart's shareholders deserve to have their hands in your pockets because of their investment?

So if lower wages is the way that welfare leads to profits, then let’s talk about labor supply and labor demand. To have welfare lead to lower wages would mean that it increases labor supply, so that the welfare leads more people want to work for a given wage. Does this sound plausible to you? Remove yourself from the context of trying to prove or disprove something about corporations and try to think of whether you’d take such a claim very seriously. Outside of the EITC, which most are not talking about here, I don’t see any argument here at all. What’s more puzzling here is that if we are talking about a subsidy that operates through expansion of labor supply, then you might think this is a good thing given our long-term unemployment problem and declining labor force participation.

So how about labor demand? I can’t think of any reason to believe that welfare leads to lower labor demand that would be needed to drive down wages. Nor can I think of any reason why getting rid of welfare would increase labor demand. I keep reading people saying that welfare “allows” firms to pay less, but can you explain this in terms of the behavior of profit maximizing firms? Does anyone care to cite empirical evidence here?

Overall, I’d really like to see someone explicitly defend the implied claim that if food stamps or medicaid were repealed that wages at Walmart and McDonald’s would actually go up. The way that these pieces are written might allow the authors to weasel out of this claim, but there’s no denying the pieces are written with the intention of conveying that welfare contributes to McDonald’s and Walmart’s profits. I’ve seen some claim that these higher profits from welfare are only relative to the minimum wage. But in the same way you could call any policy a “subsidy” or “corporate welfare” simply by judging it relative to a profit tax. This argument simply presumes a priori that the minimum wage is the “right” way to do it, then judges welfare relative to the minimum wage. If that’s your goal then fine, but it’s misleading to call this a “corporate welfare” and a “subsidy”. At the very least stop proclaiming yourself so puzzled that libertarians aren’t on board with your presumption that the minimum wage is the right baseline.

I don’t think there is any real economic argument here, and what we are seeing is entirely an attempt to raise the status of the minimum wage relative to welfare with branding. What gets some people understandably mad about pieces like this is that the authors are also in effect lowering the status of welfare. The basic argument is: welfare has these bad qualities that you aren’t considering enough, and the minimum wage doesn’t. If alleging downsides of welfare succeeds at raising the status of the minimum wage, it has to have done so by making welfare look worse. I don’t think these writers get that.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
That is a very western thinking, that the workers don't do as much work for the company as the executives do.

Except they don't do as much work for the company.

You are making the mistake of simply seeing all work as being equal, its not.


The work Steve the shelf stocker does is far less important(and complicated) than the work that Bob the Manager of Supply does.

If Steve forgets to put more catfood out, the company might lose $20 because someone came for catfood and saw they were out.

If Bob forgets to order Catfood for the 30 stores he is overseeing, the company might lose thousands of dollars(and possibly a contract with the pet food manufacturer)

Thus, Bob gets paid 250k a year plus full benefits because not only is his job far more difficult its far more important that his job gets done correctly and it would be far more difficult to find someone qualified to do it, while Steve gets paid $8 an hour(16.6k) because his job is so simple anyone can do it, he is easily replaced, and the consequences of mistakes are not severe.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


In fact they skipped the most needed attribute. You need to have first been a Capitalist economy in order to become a Communistic system.

No, the most important ingredient needed for communism to work is you need people to be morally perfect(in which case you wouldn't need communism at all)

Communism and Socialism failed on so many levels with Soviet Russia, but the above was the most important failing.

 easysauce wrote:
if you understood economics at all... you would see that there are no "true" or "pure" capitalist economies either...

its also ironic, that you are ok with one person having far more pie then they need, and even them wasting it, so long as they are not an *evil* ceo who has more pie then they need (despite working harder/smarter for it)

 easysauce wrote:


at least CEO's actually employ people instead of merly being a face on the screen or hitting a ball around...

 Asherian Command wrote:

Actually I think everyone needs a paycut and everyone gets the same amount of money. No one gets higher pay.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 easysauce wrote:


at least CEO's actually employ people instead of merly being a face on the screen or hitting a ball around...

Technically, no not technically, incorrectly is more like itactors and professional athletes probably employ more people than CEOs, if we're applying this to only those who are directly working under their scope

For instance. For an actor, they "employ" (really this is the movie studiosright its the studios and their managment, not the actor.) stunt doubles, extras, set builders, camera operators, light/sound operators, special effect people, pyrotechnic people, etc. Once that film is made, they cause the employment of movie house people (the minimum wage, popcorn maker/drink grabber... cash taker at the window, etc.).

 easysauce wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Actually I think everyone needs a paycut and everyone gets the same amount of money. No one gets higher pay.

right... cause that makes sense, I will totally spend all that extra personal time, effort, and money learning how to be an engineer, only to make the same amount of $ as a burger flipper makes.

That you honestly cannot see the issues with what you just said is scary...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 easysauce wrote:


at least CEO's actually employ people instead of merly being a face on the screen or hitting a ball around...

Technically, no not technically, incorrectly is more like itactors and professional athletes probably employ more people than CEOs, if we're applying this to only those who are directly working under their scope

For instance. For an actor, they "employ" (really this is the movie studiosright its the studios and their managment, not the actor.) stunt doubles, extras, set builders, camera operators, light/sound operators, special effect people, pyrotechnic people, etc. Once that film is made, they cause the employment of movie house people (the minimum wage, popcorn maker/drink grabber... cash taker at the window, etc.).

actually, the person employing all those doubles and stage hands is the SAME PERSON employing the actor... namely the CEO/managment of disney or whatever filmmaker is in question....

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
That is a very western thinking, that the workers don't do as much work for the company as the executives do.

Except they don't do as much work for the company.

You are making the mistake of simply seeing all work as being equal, its not.


The work Steve the shelf stocker does is far less important(and complicated) than the work that Bob the Manager of Supply does.

If Steve forgets to put more catfood out, the company might lose $20 because someone came for catfood and saw they were out.

If Bob forgets to order Catfood for the 30 stores he is overseeing, the company might lose thousands of dollars(and possibly a contract with the pet food manufacturer)

Thus, Bob gets paid 250k a year plus full benefits because not only is his job far more difficult its far more important that his job gets done correctly and it would be far more difficult to find someone qualified to do it, while Steve gets paid $8 an hour(16.6k) because his job is so simple anyone can do it, he is easily replaced, and the consequences of mistakes are not severe.

Your seeing it like one could do without the other. With The work of steve, the job is not done. Think of the company as an organism, without certain parts of the organism it will fall apart. So in order to stay alive the organism has to have those receptors constantly working but it gets equal amounts of energy to stay alive.

Yes they may have risks but if either do not do their job, the company still suffers, a small mistake can lead to an avalanche. If none of the works like steve, didn't do their job, that would lead to a lot of problems.