- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 104,411
- Reaction score
- 67,645
- Location
- Uhland, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Oh so its their own fault then
The goods/services that they provide are not in high demand.
I don't understand why people don't understand this.
Honestly I think they do it just happens to be an inconvenience to their argument, hence it is ignored. The fact that they ignore it shows how flawed their argument really is, hence their progressive philosophy.
Look, anyone can work at Walmart...... Hell, in a couple of hours I'm about to replace a door - can those who work at Walmart do that? No they cant - at least 95% of them cant. However the guy can replace the door can work at Walmart.
That is true. However most Walmart workers can be trained to replace a door. Is it not odd that most public school educations "prepare" one for a Walmart job (or a McJob) but not to replace a door, balance a checkbook, prepare a personal budget or apply for a better job.
That is true. However most Walmart workers can be trained to replace a door. Is it not odd that most public school educations "prepare" one for a Walmart job (or a McJob) but not to replace a door, balance a checkbook, prepare a personal budget or apply for a better job?
Sure, many people can learn how to replace a door and install it, however most have no desire to learn that trade - they want to bitch about their job stocking shelves because they feel $8.50 an hour is "unfair."
If they want more goddamn money they can go learn something that will pay them more money and if they're too stupid to realize that then no - they're too stupid to learn how to put in a door.
Unionizing workers does not add value; it adds cost.
The market does an excellent job of determining value. I understand laborers want to be paid more but, in the interests of self-preservation, they need to understand that they're just not worth more. Democrats and union leaders have played them like a fiddle but the reality is most of these companies operate on margins so thin that they couldn't possibly stay in business if labor was paid too much more.
If they are so replaceable why should a CEO listen to even a union?
Oh so its their own fault then
I think you're missing the part about "supply and demand."
There will always be someone there to take an unskilled job for less than what your unions demand. You see, what unions are trying to do is create a monopoly on unskilled labor...
BTW, it's not OK to be an unskilled worker. The reason why people go to learn a skill is to get compensated more - that's the driving force - that's the reason why people go to college or learn a trade - so they get skills that are in demand that pay more than stuffing boxes or stocking a store shelf. Remedial jobs shouldn't be careers, they should be jobs for kids in high school or college or for the elderly who want something productive to do with their time.
Walmart pay should inspire people to learn something that is in demand - that pay should tell the individual that they need to do something with their lives -- not -- "I'm perfectly content with this stupid job but I want more money doing it."
Yeah, I will admit Walmart has some sketchy business practices, however that should be an eye-opener to do something else.
Remember no one is being forced to work for Walmart - there are plenty of options out there.
To an extent, absolutely. In a truly competitive market, there will winners and losers. Whether you win or lose is entirely upon your shoulders and how you prepare to meet the challenges.
Today, in the US, there are two factions that are preventing an open competitive market. Unions and their supporters who lobby for laws to restrict the introduction of new technologies to the market in the name of job security. This is very noticeable in the steel industry. The other faction attempts to protect current market players and works to suppress competition arising that would displace current companies, Corporate Protectionism. This is very evident in the Oil and Coal industries, among others. Although these two factions' approach motivations are different, they compliment each other.
Whether someone rises and gains wealth from the current system is almost entirely based upon their own choices, there is a limited number that can rise. Changing the system could allow others to rise and make more from their labors/ideas than they can in the current systems. The current system only limits how much wealth they can generate from their ideas, however, they will make some wealth even in the current system if they create ideas and new products.
While the current system may, in some ways, limit the amount of wealth an individual might gain, it does not prevent them from exercising their own initiative to rise. The only true limit upon any given individual, is the individual.
Well a lot of these companie we're discussing are retail companies. They only face competition from other domestic retailers. If wage rates for sandwhich makers and stockers went up sure we'd face slightly higher costs at the cash register but millions of Americans would be closer to making living wages.
I agree...in general I prefer the market to determine values. In wages not so much. It's one thing to allow the price of steel to fluctuate on markets it's another to allow unskilled labor wages to hit rock bottom.
No...I agree....unskilled labor should not be what any workers strives for. We're not going to return to the glory days of the 1950's when you could graduated from high school and get employed at a factory for a great salary.
The fact is though.....retail and service are increasing the % of individual's they hire in this country. There's not demand for lawyers/doctors/accountant/brokers/programmers etc to create enough good middle class jobs. Service industry and retail either can continue not to pay well...in which case we continue to see the trends we do now with a large number of Americans fall behind the curve and fall into poverty, or there can at least be some wage increases.
Or they can elect politicians that give them (income redistribution) subidies to make that McJob provide them a "living wage" or perhaps unionize and demand that more pay/benefits be awarded for the same work. Yes they can!
And that is exactly what has happened in this last election. This country has flipped, from one of self-resilience and responsibility, to a majority of government reliance.
And that is exactly what has happened in this last election.
Or they can elect politicians that give them (income redistribution) subidies to make that McJob provide them a "living wage" or perhaps unionize and demand that more pay/benefits be awarded for the same work. Yes they can!
No, what happened this election is the GOP put up a weak candidate like the Dems did in 2004. Sorry, but claiming the majority of voters are on government reliance is simply not true.
Even without government intervention you'll have non competative markets, and even with fully competative markets you'll have internal contradictions and externalities and tons of inconsistancies and power discrepancies.
Neo-classical theory never takes into account market discrepencies in power.
Also in the US you have a much worse class mobility and opportunities than in social democratic countries ... so there is something different there.
In the system we have no the ones that get rich are not the ones that contribute most to society, they are the ones that infact do activity that HURTS society.
Haymarket, you need to understand the difference between going after a bad post and going after you. I went after what you said. I made no comment about you. I will not be baited by you. I will call you out for remarks that are bad arguments. Want that to stop? Stop making bad arguments.
The hell it's not, we are now an official "Welfare State" and worse we're headed to the likes of Greece where the people scream in the streets "I demand my entitlements".
Read my signature below, on liberals.
Liberals, progressives, socialist and other leftist simply refuse to understand that their "compassionate" ideals mean saving one at the cost of hundreds.
there is a limited number that can rise. .
yeah.... sure .... whatever ..... just like the other posts in the other threads o0n other topics which you managed to do the same thing.
Nobody is baiting you. Your obsessive need to pretend that you have some mandate to "call me out" is rather silly. And more importantly, it does NOTHING to add to debate or intelligent discussion. It only appears to be personal and petty.
Well a lot of these companie we're discussing are retail companies. They only face competition from other domestic retailers. If wage rates for sandwhich makers and stockers went up sure we'd face slightly higher costs at the cash register but millions of Americans would be closer to making living wages.
I agree...in general I prefer the market to determine values. In wages not so much. It's one thing to allow the price of steel to fluctuate on markets it's another to allow unskilled labor wages to hit rock bottom.
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?