Sinfest

[Lasairfiona]

I had a discussion today about how I didn't like Wal-Mart. The dicussion spiraled into him saying I had a different social perspective. He said there is no reason to raise the minimum wage cause we aren't entitled to anything. He said that he pays too many taxes and that we shouldn't penalize the upper class for their success. He said that he doesn't want his taxes to go up because they are spent by the governement and he wants his money to to go the programs he likes (such as church and charity funds). He said that Wal-Mart had a great insurance policy and that I was misinformed about Wal-Mart (he works there as an engineer).

About minimum wage: He was saying that a person shouldn't be paid more than they are worth. If the job is only worth $5.15, then they should only get paid $5.15. If that isn't enough to put food on the table, then they should get a second job. I can understand that low paying positions should be entry positions. No one should have to feed a family on that wage.

Please help me to understand where the hell this guy is coming from. I cannot imagine thinking the way he does. I think that a human is entitled to a livable wage assuming they are working the best they can. I understand that businesses need to watch their bottom line but you would think that happier employees would work better. Oh wait, They do. It is an old article but it has some interesting points. Why does Wal-Mart do better on Wall Street?

Boy, there are a lot of points there. How about starting with minimum wage and going to why Wal-Mart is so popular.
_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael

[Darqcyde]

[andrew]

I had a line-by-line reply waiting, but I'd rather hear from you first on what specifically in the first paragraph you don't understand, as opposed to what you disagree with.

[Yorick]

psst -- entitled

I recall reading an article about another big-box retailer, I think it was Costco but I'm likely wrong, whose employees are happy, because they're paid a living wage and get decent benefits and etc. But the stockholders aren't happy, because they think the company's owner should be finding ways to maximize their profits, not to ensure that he keeps decent employees.

It would seem that Costco is more interested in its employees, and Wal-Mart is more interested in its stockholders.

An analogy to this would be the way one of my Sears managers behaved. the guy who ran the dept. when I started often did things that were more to an employee's benefit than to the company's. The company, of course, had dozens of restrictive and Cover-Our-Ass rules, and the district manager and store manager spent a considerable amount of time trying to catch him in a violation of one of these Byzantine paperwork concerns, and eventually did, and he was sacked. His replacement, of course, gave not one whiff of a damn about the employees (except for one that he hired, who was his buddy outside of work to begin with) and only did what was necessary to improve his own standing in the eyes of the managers over him.

Does the company care about its reputation or about its bottom line? Which is more important?


edit: heh, I didn't even look at the article Las linked in her post until just now.
_________________
88 NPH

[Yorick]

By the by, I think the real problem here is that this person you spoke with is an engineer, and therefore likely highly-paid for his/her presumed skills and expertise and works 40 hours a week or so in a white-collar type position. So how does his experience as a Wal-Mart employee relate to that of the no-collar wage-slave subsisting on $5.15 an hour in a position that's probably classified as part-time to keep them from accessing those expensive-for-the-company benefits he's so proud of?
_________________
88 NPH

[andrew]

To get you started, you should read the following:

Laissez-faire

Individualism

Objectivism

By the end of that, you should have a better idea of the reasoning behind how and why people think that way, even if most of them articulate it a whole heck of a lot better than the dumbfuck mcgee in your anecdote did.

[Paulia]

[Yorick]

[CopperTop]

Wal-Mart pays an average wage of $7.50 an hour in an area where the average 1 bedroom apartment rents for $550 a month. So, the average Wal-Mart employee here earns $1300 a month, before taxes. Most apartment complexes want to see a pre-tax income of 3 times the rent. Oops, our average Wal-Mart employee can't afford an average 1 bedroom apartment.

Now, an entry level Costco employee is paid $12.00 per hour in this area. That works out to $2080 a month. Costco employee can afford the average 1 bedroom apartment.

Costco is closer in retail philosophy to Sam's Club than Wal-Mart - membership required, sales of large quantity foodstuffs, electronics, etc.

Also, Costco offers benefits to entry level employees - Wal-Mart does not, until the employee has risen above entry level.
_________________
The two most abuntant elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity - Harlan Ellison

[Flion]

I like andrew's links. I was going to say that there's a bit of 'in a perfect world' in your friend's ideals. In a perfect world, everyone would be paid relative to their worth and the minimum wage paid would be enough to subsist on. In the real world, there is a great imbalance in both wages and costs. It is actually more balanced in developed countries but 'more balanced' is not the same as equitable.
_________________

[cletusowns]

free market. Go work somewhere else or get education so you see a rise in pay.
_________________

[Dro]

My belief is that as long as the Fed manages interest rates and puts fighting inflation as a high priority (and thus reducing capital to increase job growth), we have an obligation to help the people that suffer for that policy. Those include the unemployed but want to be employed, and the poorly paid (paid poorly because the company could grab an unemployed person to replace them). We can pretend it is all up to individual initiative, but the system is set to have 5% unemployment and the resulting lack of employee traction for negotiating higher wages.

[trustedfaith]

Oh I'm probably going to open the can of worms here...

While granted, in general, we shouldn't be entitled to anything that we didn't earn for ourselves. However, I think on a basic human level we should be entitled to a decent/comfortable life. And what I mean by that is that no one should go hungry, without shelter, and without healthcare.

In an ideal world, everyone would have every opportunity to have the best schooling, the same chances at continuing education, a productive or thriving environment, and a fair/decent running start to make something of themselves.

But we don't live in an ideal world. And sometimes there's things beyond anyone's control that hinders us from being the most successful we can be.

[Lasairfiona]

I can spell. Really!

Yeah, and what trustedfaith posted. Not only do I disagree, I truely don't understand where he gets his ideas. The implication he gave was that low paid employees don't work hard enough. The idea that one should work more than 50 hours a week to put food on the table is ridiculous. Single parents should be entitled to spending time with their kids. Not to mention the health care problem. I have a suspicion that the minimum wage issue wouldn't be quite as touchy if health care was affordable and/or more socialized.

And a completely free market doesn't work either. The inequalities between countries would negatively impact people in a completely free market. Let's say that a country can make a product much cheaper than the US can. In a free market, that product is bought more. Unfortunately, the people making the cheaper product live in terrible conditions. Should we condone something like this just because it is a cheap product? A completely free market says yes. Free market is a wonderful thing since it does rectify its own problems most of the time but a few, well placed regulations make the quality of products and living better all around.

Or I could let Wikipedia say it.

[andrew]