We simply are not going to pay 50k a year for a cashier's job, when nearly anyone can fill it with little training. Market value is low in that respect.Oh, yeah, sure: we cheer on tariffs on Chinese goods while demanding cheap prices.
But that’s a different discussion. These jobs pay shit because corporations have set a cap and decided these roles have no value. It’s a fake market.
We simply are not going to pay 50k a year for a cashier's job, when nearly anyone can fill it with little training. Market value is low in that respect.
Low end workers assume no risk, were the company assumes all the risk and can lose most or all of their capitol. The low end workers simply works some where else.
Using your business model, why shouldn't they? With higher pay, higher risk and accountability.I dunno what risk has to do with it. Employees should share zero risk.
Using your business model, why shouldn't they? With higher pay, higher risk and accountability.
…which we are finding out don’t pay livable wages. This is a market correction. I’m not interested in the conservative hot take that Americans are trash and lazy.
Further: if there is an indivisible milking this before having to go back to their McJob? Good for them! No different than when someone pays less taxes via a loophole.
Yes, it does. Like I said, if the demand does not support paying someone to actually perform the service, the market has decided the service shouldn't exist. I have invoked no "moral code." This is basic economics. I didn't declare anything out of "personal beliefs." The market doesn't care about your precious feelings. A product is either valued enough to exist or it isn't.
Why does your moral code dictate stealing from me to subsidize Walmart?
I dunno what risk has to do with it. Employees should share zero risk.
Most workers don't put up their own capitol to work somewhere. It's the creators of such companies that do. Higher risk creates higher reward. No risk, low reward.Accountability is part of every job, risk isn’t. That’s on the owner and shareholders.
Unless you are suggesting employees be given shares in addition to more pay. Then we can discuss your proposal.
Accountability is part of every job, risk isn’t. That’s on the owner and shareholders.
Unless you are suggesting employees be given shares in addition to more pay. Then we can discuss your proposal.
Free market economy. You must pay what the market will bear.
What is it going to take to fill those cashier positions?
It's not a free market when the government is providing a paycheck for no work. Businesses can't compete like that, and is also not sustainable by the government long term.Free market economy. You must pay what the market will bear.
What is it going to take to fill those cashier positions?
It is, by definition, not a market anything when the government is the catalyst. What if the government passed a law which forbade women from working, would that be the "free market" adjusting for labor scarcity? No, it is artificial scarcity created by federal programs.
First, speaking as someone on the more libertarian side, I have no issue with stopping most welfare programs in their entirety. So, yea, let's cancel subsidization of Walmart. Agreed.
Second, you are right there is a demand for labor right, but it is artificial in nature and likely transient. It is transient in that come September the artificial government support for unemployment will fade. The question becomes if there still remains an increased demand for labor (ie: wages) then you will begin to see the transience manifest as productivity changes. IE: Cashiers being replaced by kiosks, workers being replaced by automation etc.
I always love the idea that leftists have in that they should share in prosperity, benefit from capital investments, but never suffer any downside. This, in a nutshell, is precisely what killed the US steel/auto industries.
It is, by definition, not a market anything when the government is the catalyst. What if the government passed a law which forbade women from working, would that be the "free market" adjusting for labor scarcity? No, it is artificial scarcity created by federal programs.
First, speaking as someone on the more libertarian side, I have no issue with stopping most welfare programs in their entirety. So, yea, let's cancel subsidization of Walmart. Agreed.
Second, you are right there is a demand for labor right, but it is artificial in nature and likely transient. It is transient in that come September the artificial government support for unemployment will fade. The question becomes if there still remains an increased demand for labor (ie: wages) then you will begin to see the transience manifest as productivity changes. IE: Cashiers being replaced by kiosks, workers being replaced by automation etc.
I always love the idea that leftists have in that they should share in prosperity, benefit from capital investments, but never suffer any downside. This, in a nutshell, is precisely what killed the US steel/auto industries.
Most workers don't put up their own capitol to work somewhere. It's the creators of such companies that do. Higher risk creates higher reward. No risk, low reward.
Republican strategy
Republican strategy
Privatizing profits and socializing losses refers to the practice of treating company earnings as the rightful property of shareholders and company losses as a responsibility that society must shoulder. ... But when the companies fail, the fallout—the losses and recovery—are the responsibility of the general public.
It is, by definition, not a market anything when the government is the catalyst
Again, who cares about risk? Employees should share zero risk. They are employees.
And plenty of c-suite make mid six figures without having to purchase a single share of the company. “No risk/low reward” is incorrect.
Of course it's low/no risk for most employees, that's why they get lower pay.Again, who cares about risk? Employees should share zero risk. They are employees.
And plenty of c-suite make mid six figures without having to purchase a single share of the company. “No risk/low reward” is incorrect.
Reallllyyyy? Every job has risk, at a minimum that risk is that your job might not be there tomorrow. Ask UAW at the Big3 how that played out. Or USW workers at Bethlehem Steel. They thought they just got the best of both worlds, turns out they killed the Golden Goose instead.
We use the government to interfere in markets all the time. This was an instance in which it highlighted how awful the pay is for these jobs.
Employees have zero risk other than personal job performance. This isn’t a controversial statement.
This again speaks to your ignorance. Any C-suite executive is going to draw the bulk of their compensation related to stock performance, either in the form of grants, options, or stock related bonus.
Oh, ok, now that we both agree this wasn't a free market correction, as you previously asserted, than I don't disagree.
Of course it's low/no risk for most employees, that's why they get lower pay.
This again speaks to your ignorance. Any C-suite executive is going to draw the bulk of their compensation related to stock performance, either in the form of grants, options, or stock related bonus. Seriously, go pull the SEC filings for any Fortune500 company, you can see the compensation for every executive. Let me know what you find on the cash-comp line and compare that to the total comp line.
If you want to be taken seriously in these conversations you need to have a basis in understanding as to the facts of the matter, otherwise, go sit at the kids table.
You mean the stock they are *granted* upon joining a company? That is just more compensation without risk. They were given it. Along with a generous salary and bonus structure.
Get back to me when you’ve been in on those meetings, bud.
Something I didn't think about. Bonuses and such are performance based for higher executives.
As previously mentioned, if your pay was based on performance, risk would be involved. But hourly based wages are not based on performance.“Lower” should not = “garbage”.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?