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.

Keep it in your pants.

 Frazzled wrote:
Keep it in your pants.

Right thread man?

 Easy E wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe the definition of "living wage" is what is causing the issue here.

I would say living wage would be enough for a single person with no dependents to have an apartment, food, and clothing, a basic prepaid cell phone, and internet access. You can definitely get that on our current minimum wage.

Anything else is extra, and will necessitate getting paid more by finding a better job or getting promoted.

So what happens if you have dependents?

Well you will already have a tax beak because of them.

But really, the wage offered at a job really shouldn't take into account what your personal financial situation is(employers aren't allowed to even ask about that sort of thing as I recall) or how many dependents you have.

Why shouldn't it? That is the entire point of a salary. To survive on.


Clearly, Walmart is making plenty of profit- therefore, they aren't truly paying their workers the worth of their labour. Of course, some profit is needed to allow for growth, but until the surplus value of a worker's labour is $0, any given worker is not being paid enough.
Therefore, the argument that they are already being paid their worth, is invalid.

 Frazzled wrote:
Keep it in your pants.

What happens if the dependent is not your child but rather a family member who you care for?

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Keep it in your pants.

Right thread man?

Yep. The question was - What if you have dependants. Answer: don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Keep it in your pants.

What happens if the dependent is not your child but rather a family member who you care for?

Then you have Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Wick, etc. etc.

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Keep it in your pants.

What happens if the dependent is not your child but rather a family member who you care for?

Then you have Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Wick, etc. etc.

I replied over here since I think it might fit better in that thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/599721.page#6918760

Blackhoof wrote:
Clearly, Walmart is making plenty of profit- therefore, they aren't truly paying their workers the worth of their labour. Of course, some profit is needed to allow for growth, but until the surplus value of a worker's labour is $0, any given worker is not being paid enough.

Marx's Labour Theory of Value is, basically, the work of a very smart man who very much not an economist. In other words, while Marx contributed a great deal, his specific economic concepts are junk.

This idea that profit can only be the result of labour not being paid what they are owed ignores that management is a specialised kind of labour, and that capital itself has value that demands a return on its investment. As such, the value generated by the business's activities can be more sensibly understood as being split between the wage paid for labour and management, and the profits taken by the owners of the capital.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yep. The question was - What if you have dependants. Answer: don't.

The answer to what happens to people in need is to not have people in need. Extraordinary.

 Frazzled wrote:


Then you have Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Wick, etc. etc.

Why should the public pay a subsidy to corporations who won't pay their workers a fair wage>?

 44Ronin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Then you have Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Wick, etc. etc.

Why should the public pay a subsidy to corporations who won't pay their workers a fair wage>?

They are being paid a fair wage. Its fair for the work being asked of them. Unskilled and unspecialized labor commands an appropriate wage. Its not the company's job to make sure that wage allows you to live any particular kind of lifestyle.

Live within your means

And if the means don't suit you, find new means.

Or additional workable means

 Jihadin wrote:
Live within your means

Slavery?

How fitting for an american to say as much.
I suppose it's fitting though, considering it's from someone who signs their life away

 44Ronin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Live within your means

Slavery?

How fitting for an american to say as much.
I suppose it's fitting though, considering it's from someone who signs their life away

Yep. A retirement check at 42.

Who here would not turn down a retirement check at 42

 Grey Templar wrote:
And if the means don't suit you, find new means.

and if you are unable to find new means...?


Edited by AgeOfEgos

 44Ronin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And if the means don't suit you, find new means.

and if you are unable to find new means...?

You are a slave.

Americans love slavery. Never truly kicked the habit did they?

Your treading on some thin ice here Ronin

 Grey Templar wrote:
They are being paid a fair wage. Its fair for the work being asked of them. Unskilled and unspecialized labor commands an appropriate wage. Its not the company's job to make sure that wage allows you to live any particular kind of lifestyle.

As I've explained many times now, the claim you make there requires some objective measure of 'fair' which just doesn't exist, and on top of that requires an assumption of a perfect market (all information available to all parties, equal bargaining power, no cost to entry or exit from market, no party large enough to influence prices etc...) As those assumptions aren't close to being met for most job markets, and certainly not for minimum wage markets, then your assumption just doesn't work at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Live within your means

You know, that's really good advice for the individual who's on low income. But as a piece of advice for society about what to do about people on minimum wage, it's really obnoxious. It's just saying that we as a society shouldn't do anything to help other people, we should instead just tell them to survive on whatever low rate of pay they can manage.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Then you have Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Wick, etc. etc.

Why should the public pay a subsidy to corporations who won't pay their workers a fair wage>?

They are being paid a fair wage. Its fair for the work being asked of them.

According to whom? Greedy Corporations and a stupid, gutless and ignorant public unwilling to do what is right

Unskilled and unspecialized labor commands an appropriate wage.

Define appropriate.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Keep it in your pants.

Right thread man?

Yep. The question was - What if you have dependants. Answer: don't.

So what is your suggestion mr neocon?

Killing your chidren because wallmart won't share a fair part of the profits that you make for their company?

 44Ronin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Live within your means

Slavery?

How fitting for an american to say as much.
I suppose it's fitting though, considering it's from someone who signs their life away

Yeesh. Welcome to ignore town. Population: you.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its fair for the work being asked of them.

How so? Wal-Mart employees do work at an intensity and in conditions that are much more difficult than similar classifications of jobs, while also earning significantly less. How exactly is that fair?

Hell, as a Security Guard, I was being paid 18 dollars an hour to, quite literally, sit behind a desk and play Knights of the Old Republic and gak-post on DakkaDakka on my laptop for 8 hours a day in the lobby of an office building. Can you explain to me how it's "fair" that I earned that wage while a Wal-Mart employee earns significantly less?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its fair for the work being asked of them.

How so? Wal-Mart employees do work at an intensity and in conditions that are much more difficult than similar classifications of jobs, while also earning significantly less. How exactly is that fair?

Hell, as a Security Guard, I was being paid 18 dollars an hour to, quite literally, sit behind a desk and play Knights of the Old Republic and gak-post on DakkaDakka on my laptop for 8 hours a day in the lobby of an office building. Can you explain to me how it's "fair" that I earned that wage while a Wal-Mart employee earns significantly less?

So quit? Fair isn't a thing in the real world. If someone agrees to work at Walmart for gak wages while working their ass off... they are stupid.

I'm glad that your life is apparently easy enough that you can casually wander through town and find your ideal job that pays your ideal wage in exchange for your ideal amount of services rendered. However a lot of people, in the current economic climate especially, don't have that luxury.

You say "fair isn't a thing in the real world", but that just goes to show how little you know of the world. Wal-Mart's business practices wouldn't and does not fly in quite a lot of other developed countries in the world. It flies in America, because here all we care about is the almighty dollar.

Incidentally, those countries that don't tolerate the blatantly anti-employee practices that Wal-Mart utilizes also tend to have things like free health care and free College. Hm...

 Bromsy wrote:

So quit? Fair isn't a thing in the real world. If someone agrees to work at Walmart for gak wages while working their ass off... they are stupid.

If only there were sufficient jobs available for people to have the realistic option to not work minimum wage jobs. This is where the 'bootstrap' ideology fails; its all well and good to tell people to improve themselves, often in a rather pompous manner, but there are a finite 'good' jobs available.

People who work minimum wage jobs are generally there for 2 reasons. they don't mind/can't be arsed or they are trapped in them due to education, finances, location etc.

I spent 4 years working in various horrific minimum wages jobs after I graduated because that's all the work I could get, every single real interview turned me down because I didn't have any experience.

I eventually managed to get my current job which has set my up for life but it took a series of lucky breaks to get my foot in the door.

Fair should be a thing in the real world.

 Bromsy wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its fair for the work being asked of them.

How so? Wal-Mart employees do work at an intensity and in conditions that are much more difficult than similar classifications of jobs, while also earning significantly less. How exactly is that fair?

Hell, as a Security Guard, I was being paid 18 dollars an hour to, quite literally, sit behind a desk and play Knights of the Old Republic and gak-post on DakkaDakka on my laptop for 8 hours a day in the lobby of an office building. Can you explain to me how it's "fair" that I earned that wage while a Wal-Mart employee earns significantly less?

So quit? Fair isn't a thing in the real world. If someone agrees to work at Walmart for gak wages while working their ass off... they are stupid.

Or there isn't another job they are qualified to do which pays more in their local area since Wal-mart priced out any competitors and so they closed down.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its fair for the work being asked of them.

How so? Wal-Mart employees do work at an intensity and in conditions that are much more difficult than similar classifications of jobs, while also earning significantly less. How exactly is that fair?

Hell, as a Security Guard, I was being paid 18 dollars an hour to, quite literally, sit behind a desk and play Knights of the Old Republic and gak-post on DakkaDakka on my laptop for 8 hours a day in the lobby of an office building. Can you explain to me how it's "fair" that I earned that wage while a Wal-Mart employee earns significantly less?

So quit? Fair isn't a thing in the real world. If someone agrees to work at Walmart for gak wages while working their ass off... they are stupid.

Or there isn't another job they are qualified to do which pays more in their local area since Wal-mart priced out any competitors and so they closed down.

If that is the case, suffer through it while putting yourself through school so you actually have marketable skills.

Or move to a different location.

Nobody is being forced to work at Walmart. There is always something you can do to better yourself. If you can't be bothered to put in the effort then I have no sympathy for you.

One should strive to improve their life in the world. I strive my ass off to get where I am and now I can "relax" while still striving to improve it evening more Inner motivation, inner drive and inner "I need to get the Hell out of this place" does help.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Keep it in your pants.

Right thread man?

Yep. The question was - What if you have dependants. Answer: don't.

Yeah, don't you know life is just like an 80's Post-Apoc movie! Did you learn nothing from The Road?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Keep it in your pants.

What happens if the dependent is not your child but rather a family member who you care for?

Then you have Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Wick, etc. etc.

Oh you mean those things that we need to cut from the budget because it costs too much?

Think its to force SS agency to remove those that are gaming the system? Maybe. Sounds good to me if they go that route if it achieves the desire effect.

 44Ronin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Then you have Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Wick, etc. etc.

Why should the public pay a subsidy to corporations who won't pay their workers a fair wage>?

Why should the coporation pay them anything more? You shouldn't get paid just for breathing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 44Ronin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And if the means don't suit you, find new means.

and if you are unable to find new means...?

Again, welfare, Medicaid, Wick, free education, etc. etc. In addition to be a USA bashing troll, are you illiterate?

You are a slave.

Americans love slavery. Never truly kicked the habit did they?

Edited by AgeOfEgos