WalMart has low prices!

[Dittohead not!]

Yep. Consider the cost of raising the minimum wage to $20 (or more) per hour. Surely that would simply raise the costs of all associated goods and services to make that into a "poverty" wage - rinse and repeat.

Raising the minimum wage is not the answer. First, there are too many ways around it. Second, it would just increase wages above the minimum until inflation caught up and the real wages at the bottom of the totem pole were as low, or perhaps lower than they are now.

Nor is WalMart et. al. evil for paying low wages. The wages that they pay are simply a business decision, and, judging from some of the employees, they tend to get what they pay for.

Problem is, we, the taxpayers, are still subsidizing their low wages.

Perhaps unions, or the threat of unionization, would help raise wages, that or a wage scale based on the pay of the CEO.

Now, if the lowest paid worker were to be paid X, and everyone above him paid X times a wage factor, then the way to raise the pay of the guys in the corporate office would be to raise that of everyone.

I'm not really sure just what the solution is, but the problem is low wages resulting in government subsidies and fewer taxes collected.

 

[GottaGo]

Shoppers are usually unaware of the law, and thus Walmart takes advantage of the information disparity. By the way, this allegation comes from former Walmart managers who carried out the practice.

Worse yet, every study shows the Walmart costs local communities by reducing tax revenue and driving out local businesses. Generally Walmart will not move into an area without getting huge local tax breaks (usually induced by Walmart contributed to certain local politicians), which local businesses aren't provided, thus giving WM an advantage that drives them out of business, which is goal. When the tax benefits expire (they usually last 10 years) WM moves out to another community offering contribution induced tax breaks, leaving the economic wreckage behind It happens in one community after the next.

There are at least a dozen studies showing how this works.

The laws are in place for any and all who advertise goods for sale. Caveat Emptor.

And the politicians, supposedly being 'bought' have more responsibility for it than Wal-Mart, IMO, if this is indeed an ongoing thing. If there are studies, then I'm sure legal steps have been taken to correct the problem, yes? :wink:

But the main point of the OP is a incorrect statement regarding Wal-Mart's wages and how Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart alone is responsible for people who work for minimum wage or close to it, and collect assistance.

 

[Mach]

I think you should run on this then, Democrats and Liberals - higher prices on most of your goods, guaranteed.
You read that right. If we find a company utilizing scale and efficiency to get you really low prices on most everything you buy, we'll go in there and fix it so that you can be assured at paying MORE for the basic goods you currently pay less for. I know, I know, it sounds too good to be true, but there it is. Republicans claim we did that to Healthcare too, so don't think we don't mean it (time will tell, last part is just for laughs, the first part is not).

 

[head of joaquin]

The laws are in place for any and all who advertise goods for sale. Caveat Emptor.

And the politicians, supposedly being 'bought' have more responsibility for it than Wal-Mart, IMO, if this is indeed an ongoing thing. If there are studies, then I'm sure legal steps have been taken to correct the problem, yes? :wink:

But the main point of the OP is a incorrect statement regarding Wal-Mart's wages and how Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart alone is responsible for people who work for minimum wage or close to it, and collect assistance.

Since they have a policy to bust unions, your conclusion is exactly wrong.

But if you're agreeing that giving tax breaks to businesses should be illegal, I'm with you. But I bet you're not and I bet you're quite happy WM gets these tax breaks. I sense market evangelism disingenuousness here.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I think you should run on this then, Democrats and Liberals - higher prices on most of your goods, guaranteed.
You read that right. If we find a company utilizing scale and efficiency to get you really low prices on most everything you buy, we'll go in there and fix it so that you can be assured at paying MORE for the basic goods you currently pay less for. I know, I know, it sounds too good to be true, but there it is. Republicans claim we did that to Healthcare too, so don't think we don't mean it (time will tell, last part is just for laughs, the first part is not).

Does that mean that the conservatives are the ones in favor of wages so low that the workers don't pay income taxes, but are subsidized by food stamps and Medicaid?

Liberals, then, must be in favor of reducing people's dependency on government, according to that line of reasoning.

 

[GottaGo]

Since they have a policy to bust unions, your conclusion is exactly wrong.

But if you're agreeing that giving tax breaks to businesses should be illegal, I'm with you. But I bet you're not and I bet you're quite happy WM gets these tax breaks. I sense market evangelism disingenuousness here.

First, I'm not pro Union. Quite the opposite, in fact, so you'll garner no sympathy from me on that. Unions do not supply anything a person cannot negotiate for themselves or is already covered under S/FDOL laws.

Second, giving tax breaks, if voted on by the governing body, without coercion, is done for any number of businesses. However, if bribery or coercion is used, it's illegal, and I don't care who's doing it, I won't support it.

Having been involved with a Chamber of Commerce and the EDC for 3 years, tax breaks being given as an incentive to a company (no matter the type) based on creating new jobs is very common, especially for areas in economic hardship. Give up $x in real estate taxes for employment of local people (which creates more revenue in the downstream) is not really something one has to think about much.

 

[head of joaquin]

First, I'm not pro Union. Quite the opposite, in fact, so you'll garner no sympathy from me on that. Unions do not supply anything a person cannot negotiate for themselves or is already covered under S/FDOL laws.

Like you needed to say this. Anti-union = low wages. You've made my point.

Second, giving tax breaks, if voted on by the governing body, without coercion, is done for any number of businesses. However, if bribery or coercion is used, it's illegal, and I don't care who's doing it, I won't support it.

Having been involved with a Chamber of Commerce and the EDC for 3 years, tax breaks being given as an incentive to a company (no matter the type) based on creating new jobs is very common, especially for areas in economic hardship. Give up $x in real estate taxes for employment of local people (which creates more revenue in the downstream) is not really something one has to think about much.

So you were crying crocodile tears when you blamed officials for giving WM tax breaks. You actually think its a good idea for WM to get tax benefits that run locals out of business. See, it wasn't that hard admitting it. Why did you pretend otherwise?

 

[Mach]

Does that mean that the conservatives are the ones in favor of wages so low that the workers don't pay income taxes, but are subsidized by food stamps and Medicaid? Liberals, then, must be in favor of reducing people's dependency on government, according to that line of reasoning.

No idea what conservatives think they are about these days.

Why are your two options both involving government? Either government sets wages, or government provides handouts. What about the non-government response, is that an option? I suppose if it's two political parties that share control of government, maybe they like their power and that's an absurd option to them.

 

[head of joaquin]

No idea what conservatives think they are about these days.

Why are your two options both involving government? Either government sets wages, or government provides handouts. What about the non-government response, is that an option? I suppose if it's two political parties that share control of government, maybe they like their power and that's an absurd option to them.

We tried that approach and got child labor, 6 day work weeks, industrial accidents, and the Great Depression.

It's somewhat pathological to repeat failed market evangelist policies of the past and expect any different result.

 

[Dittohead not!]

No idea what conservatives think they are about these days.

Why are your two options both involving government? Either government sets wages, or government provides handouts. What about the non-government response, is that an option? I suppose if it's two political parties that share control of government, maybe they like their power and that's an absurd option to them.

The government response isn't likely to succeed.

Perhaps unions would be a better option.

 

[Mach]

We tried that approach and got child labor, 6 day work weeks, industrial accidents, and the Great Depression.
It's somewhat pathological to repeat failed market evangelist policies of the past and expect any different result.

Absurd and irrelevant. No one has suggested repealing child labor laws, work week, accident increasing policy, etc. If they do, your knee jerk propaganda will be slightly more relevant.

America blazed the trail with capitalism and the industrial age, and everyone else basically followed suit. If you're petrified of learning lessons along the way during innovation, get out of the way, let the big girls and boys make the calls.

 

[Mach]

The government response isn't likely to succeed. Perhaps unions would be a better option.

Succeed at what precisely? Forcing a private company to do someone else's bidding based on political propaganda?

 

[head of joaquin]

Absurd and irrelevant. No one has suggested repealing child labor laws, work week, accident increasing policy, etc. If they do, your knee jerk propaganda will be slightly more relevant.

America blazed the trail with capitalism and the industrial age, and everyone else basically followed suit. If you're petrified of learning lessons along the way during innovation, get out of the way, let the big girls and boys make the calls.

I could have sworn you wrote this:

What about the non-government response, is that an option?

But if you want to backpedal, that's OK with me.

 

[head of joaquin]

Succeed at what precisely? Forcing a private company to do someone else's bidding based on political propaganda?

Yeah, just like we did with child labor, worker safety and minimum wage. Make up your mind about what you really believe and why.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Succeed at what precisely? Forcing a private company to do someone else's bidding based on political propaganda?

I dunno... is that what you think the objective should be?

 

[Mach]

I could have sworn you wrote this:
But if you want to backpedal, that's OK with me.

I'm not responsible for your comprehension issues.

"What about the non-government response, is that an option? "

That's about WalMart, the OP, to change its' wages. That has, again, nothing to do with child labor laws, 6 day workweek, the great depression, etc. Please don't misinterpret it again now that you've been corrected.

The market solves 99.9999% of daily wage and income issues without you. That you righteously believe you should intervene with WalMart is absurd. That you are trying to relate that to child labor laws, is something else entirely.

 

[Mach]

I dunno... is that what you think the objective should be?

You wrote:

Perhaps unions would be a better option.

I'm asking, a better option to do what? If you don't know, why would you write that?

Me, I would change the public school system completely (still public funding primarily), it's the root cause of most of this stuff, or certainly the lowest hanging fruit in terms of providing people with the ability to engage one of the most open and prosperous markets in human history.

 

[head of joaquin]

I'm not responsible for your comprehension issues.

"What about the non-government response, is that an option? "

That's about WalMart, the OP, to change its' wages. That has, again, nothing to do with child labor laws, 6 day workweek, the great depression, etc. Please don't misinterpret it again now that you've been corrected.

The market solves 99.9999% of daily wage and income issues without you. That you righteously believe you should intervene with WalMart is absurd. That you are trying to relate that to child labor laws, is something else entirely.

So government policy solved the child labor problem, but it can't solve the problem of large corporation's social costs by underpaying workers?

Why not? Go into detail. Frankly your position seems self serving, if not incoherent.

 

[GottaGo]

Like you needed to say this. Anti-union = low wages. You've made my point.

False.

I am not Union, and I make a decent wage. Several people I know that actually do work at Wal-Mart, make a reasonable wage. Unions will do what for these people that they can't do for themselves?

So you were crying crocodile tears when you blamed officials for giving WM tax breaks. You actually think its a good idea for WM to get tax benefits that run locals out of business. See, it wasn't that hard admitting it. Why did you pretend otherwise?

You have no clue what I think, and do not presume to think so. The tax breaks do not run another businesses out. Competitive prices might make the other businesses more competitive, or if they were floundering in the first place, can cause them to realign their business planning. You have completely ignored the influx of jobs, and the downstream revenue generated by an employer.

Learn to read what is written, not interpret what you want to see, but what is actually said. You specifically stated that it was done via illegal means or coercion (campaign donation I believe you said) which I said I did not support no matter who the business was.

You have shown your support for the 'poor working man' who has taken a job, knowing what the rate of pay was and accepted it, and now feels they deserve more, but exactly what have they done to eran that increase? What value have they given the company other than showing up and doing what they are being paid to do in the first place? What creativity or previously undiscovered method of marketing/selling/customer service can they provide that actually renders more income to the company, making them a valued employee? Likely, none.

So stop and think what you are supporting: a entry level position, which pays an entry level wage. Where do you find an unfairness in that? An employee is only worth what they themselves make the labor worth, and no more.

 

[Ahlevah]

I hate on them because they completely dominate the market wherever they pop up, causing other businesses to fail, forcing those people to then be employed for less pay at Walmart, which then leaves the community with a lower standard of living.

I think this concern is overblown. If a company offers good products and service at a reasonable price it's more than capable of competing with Wal-Mart. If it goes bust, it probably should. You know, I'm old enough to remember an argument made about how large regional shopping centers were changing the character of towns and destroying high-paying retail jobs by hiring a lot of housewives at low wages as clerks instead of paying commissions to salesmen. (Yeah, there was a time when the people who sold you a pair of shoes or a suit were largely men.) Sears was on top of the world until K-Mart and Target came along and cleaned their clock. Then Wal-Mart showed up, led by a Southern hick, and kicked K-Mart's ass. Now K-Mart IS Sears. Go figure.

Anyway, what are Mom and Pop going to do about e-commerce? I guess we'll just have to close every small bricks and mortar store in the country, eh? A company like Amazon.com can ship a lot of goods from highly-automated warehouses. Its revenues are now at $60 billion and have grown at a 35% rate over the last five years. That's just one company. Already, this economic downturn has left a lot of marginal shopping centers hurting for tenants. I suspect we'll see many of these centers turned into fields and parking lots again, as they probably should. America is still the most heavily retailed country on the planet.

 

[head of joaquin]

False.

I am not Union, and I make a decent wage. Several people I know that actually do work at Wal-Mart, make a reasonable wage. Unions will do what for these people that they can't do for themselves?

Personal anecdote: The mother's milk of conservative "argument"

You have no clue what I think, and do not presume to think so. The tax breaks do not run another businesses out. Competitive prices might make the other businesses more competitive, or if they were floundering in the first place, can cause them to realign their business planning. You have completely ignored the influx of jobs, and the downstream revenue generated by an employer.

Learn to read what is written, not interpret what you want to see, but what is actually said. You specifically stated that it was done via illegal means or coercion (campaign donation I believe you said) which I said I did not support no matter who the business was.

You have shown your support for the 'poor working man' who has taken a job, knowing what the rate of pay was and accepted it, and now feels they deserve more, but exactly what have they done to eran that increase? What value have they given the company other than showing up and doing what they are being paid to do in the first place? What creativity or previously undiscovered method of marketing/selling/customer service can they provide that actually renders more income to the company, making them a valued employee? Likely, none.

So stop and think what you are supporting: a entry level position, which pays an entry level wage. Where do you find an unfairness in that? An employee is only worth what they themselves make the labor worth, and no more.

The studies show that tax breaks for WM contribute to local businesses being destroyed. You have personal anecdotes. I have economic studies. That's the difference between progressives and market evangelists.

 

[imagep]

I think you should run on this then, Democrats and Liberals - higher prices on most of your goods, guaranteed.
You read that right. If we find a company utilizing scale and efficiency to get you really low prices on most everything you buy, we'll go in there and fix it so that you can be assured at paying MORE for the basic goods you currently pay less for. I know, I know, it sounds too good to be true, but there it is. Republicans claim we did that to Healthcare too, so don't think we don't mean it (time will tell, last part is just for laughs, the first part is not).

Scale and efficiency isn't the issue being discussed. It's low wages. A company can have lot's of scale and efficiency, and at the same time pay good wages.

 

[imagep]

Does that mean that the conservatives are the ones in favor of wages so low that the workers don't pay income taxes, but are subsidized by food stamps and Medicaid?

Liberals, then, must be in favor of reducing people's dependency on government, according to that line of reasoning.

Thats what it sounds like to me.

 

[CanadaJohn]

or does it?

[h=1]Low Wages at a Single Wal-Mart Store Cost Taxpayers about $1 Million Every Year, Says New Committee Staff Report[/h]


and you thought unions were expensive!

I can't vouch for America, but I can tell you flat out in Canada that there isn't a union around that fully or adequately represents part-time workers in whatever line of work they organize. Part-time workers are second class to union management.

 

[GottaGo]

Personal anecdote: The mother's milk of conservative "argument"

:lol: And 'people are dying in the streets because Wal-Mart is a big bad boogieman' is a liberal chant. And, by the way, learn your mark.... I'm not a conservative.

The studies show that tax breaks for WM contribute to local businesses being destroyed. You have personal anecdotes. I have economic studies. That's the difference between progressives and market evangelists.

And you haven't posted a single one in response to the discussion, so it remains an unfounded claim.

Perhaps, someday, you'll understand that a person creates their own value in an employment market. Until then, depend on other people (Unions) telling you your value, and the minimum wage that it's worth. :thumbs: