Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?[W:1258]

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about, when wages go up so does withholding which you will find out when you get a job. What a business pays its workers in none of your business or the Federal Government that collects taxes from those businesses on the profits they make. Your state raised the minimum wage and yet you want the Federal Govt. to do it on a national scale as if you really care. You don't so stop with the bs.

Yes, I know when wages go up so does withholdings. What exactly is your point??? And, on the contrary it IS my business when business is paying their help so low that it is costing my community a lot of money that should be going else where and not to help the corporations pay its workers.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Sorry but I have seen no evidence that this is a Federal Issue nor have you provided one. You ignored what a McDonald's worker is paid in North Dakota or the fact that your state raised the minimum wage yet you want this to be a federal issue all because you want people to believe you care when the reality is you don't. You are so naive when it comes to business and no concept of return on investment and risk taking. What risk have you ever taken in business? Ever invested your own money in a business only to see the entity that doesn't have a dime invested take more and more of it?

I've said over and over and over again it IS a federal issue when welfare states are draining everyone's money.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

You can buy a decent carpet cleaner for less than $200 bucks these days. The cleaning fluid is $8 a gallon at Sams and it works great. You would likely get your money back after just one cleaning.

Now me, I pay to get my yard work done. I just can't stand doing it. Fortunately, I am able to swap out the products that I produce for the cost of the yard work, so it's more of a time exchange than anything else.

I spend less than $100 per cleaning for our carpets--we only have the carpets cleaned in two large rooms. It is a little more if we have a piece of upholstered furniture cleaned at the same time, and I sure don't want to do that either.

But the bottom line is, people have a maximum they are willing to pay for just about anything. If top quality is not a priority and price is, Wal-mart is a retailing genius who taps into that particular market. And they know what their market is, what their competition is charging, and their stuff is 'on sale' every single day. True they offer little in the way of service and sometimes even finding somebody to answer a question about something is difficult to come by--we are talking about a low skill work force here--but their clientele don't care. When you're shopping for basic groceries, towels, washcloths, bed linens, garden stuff, pet supplies, etc. etc. etc., the customers don't need any help. They want to find what they're looking for, pay for it, and leave.

The Mom and Pop store selling the same stuff will be able to provide more answers, service, personal attention. But because they cannot attract the volume of a Wal-mart they can rarely meet Wal-mart prices. And unless the customer really really needs the expertise and service, they will choose Wal-mart over the Mom and Pop store. The employee at the Mom and Pop store won't be paid much, if anything, over what he could make at Wal-mart though, and he has a lot less opportunity for upward mobility at the Mom and Pop store.

But the anti Wal-mart folks don't care. For them it's the principle, not the concept or the consequences that concern them. Unfortunately, the principle they support won't help the people they think they want to help.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Altus Oklahoma is a small military town. They had a few small groceries but if you needed anything significant you had to travel down the road a piece to Lawton. Then Walmart opened a store there. Local business stayed local and they hired many times over the number of people those small businesses employed. That's typical of what happens in places where Walmart sets up shop.

No, that's not necessarily typical. Many places have closed down after Walmart moved in.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

I'm sure you do not see the correlation between an oversupply of low skilled labor and low end wages as a problem. That would require a basic understanding of economics.

Same with the belief that wages are or should be, about inflation. If that were true, then lower wages should decrease inflation.

Labor, like everything else, is tied only to supply and demand. When labor decides that S & D should not apply to them, jobs go overseas where labor is cheaper, or lower priced labor comes here.

No, what requires a basic understanding of economics is the FACT that wages have stagnated for the lower quintiles for DECADES. At the same time productivity has gone up. Wages at the lowest end should have gone up over the years too.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

If you don't like public money being used in that fashion, then you...as the government...are to blame for letting it be used in that fashion.

Only if we continue to allow this misuse.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

You have to raise the floor within reason. I gave you a reasonable level.

No you did not. You chose the historic MW high (1968 level adjusted for inflation) and then stated even that was too low.

Perhaps the problem is not that entry level wages are too low but that the "safety net" benefit levels are too high. You seek to establish high "safety net" levels and then complain that they are in excess of entry level wages; that simply allows gov't to create a problem and then demand that others pitch in to solve it.

After that MW fix then you will demand COLA increases for all other entitlements (SS and pensions) to fix the damage caused by that MW fix. You are, indeed, quite generous with other people's money.

 

[Bob N]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

) because I almost missed your reply to me. eace

I agree with you. I just installed 8.1, and quite a few things no longer work on this site. I'm trying to fix it.

Cool.

 

[Bob N]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

So what?

Your quote says nothing about the effects of the Bush tax cuts. That is, after all, what you were talking about wasn't it?

No. You brought up jobs, right? Well, you did read about that one recession?

 

[Bob N]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Guess what! it only took Obama 4 years to spend six trillion.

Guess what! It's hard to get out of what his predecessor left for him.

 

[imagep]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

I think that the disconnect, between the anti-low wage folks and the anti-minimum wage folks is based upon the different ways that we view the economy, and what drives the economy.

Those who are against a minimum wage tend to believe that the rich and large corporations are the main driver of our economy, and without them, there would be no jobs.

Those who support a minimum wage and a higher minimum wage tend to believe that our economy is driven by the consumer (demand).

I understand both sides of the argument, but strong demand is an absolute necessity for a strong economy. Companies can't sell stuff to customers who don't have any money. Without sales, companies can not expand, for that matter they can't exist at all. So while it is important that companies make money, they can't significantly expand in a world where demand is stagnant.

To a degree, it's the "chicken or egg" argument. Supply siders believe that the supply side creates jobs, and that those workers then create demand. That's absolutely accurate and true. However, the supply side responds to demand on an individual company bases. Individual companies will never try to increase sales by producing more than they expect to sell, thus they are reactive much more than proactive.

If all income brackets were increasing in income at about the same rate, then we likely wouldn't even be having this discussion, because the supply siders would have been proven correct - supply creates demand. But since that is simply not true, at least not true in this particular economy at this point in history (admittedly it was true from the end of WW2 through about the mid 1970s), then focusing on the supply side is simply bad economic policy.

 

[Bob N]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

No I didn't. You brought up the horse and I said that anybody could take the same deduction under the same circumstances. And you totally ignored it and went with a non sequitur and non responsive post. Don't feel bad. Most folks from the leftist/liberal/progressive/statist/political class do that when they have no argument for somebody's statement of fact. So you have lots of company.

I'm sorry but no, you wanted proof, not me.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

No, that's not necessarily typical. Many places have closed down after Walmart moved in.

It IS typical which is why so many communities offer Wal-mart attractive deals to move in. With Wal-mart anchoring the economic base of the community, a whole lot of people will get work that didn't have it before, and people are attracted from miles around providing customers for gas stations, restaurants, small speciality shops, and retailers that offer products Wal-mart doesn't. Yes the Mom and Pop store unable to adapt to competition from a Wal-mart probably won't survive, but other businesses will take their places. There are exceptions, of course, when it doesn't work that way, but those will be exceptions rather than the rule. There is a reason shopping malls go down hill fast if they lose their anchor stores and the reverse is true when they attract a big deal retailer to move in. Wal-marts work like that for small town economies.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Right because it was never suppose to increase with inflation.

The purpose of minimum wage was to provide a bottom floor for the lowest skilled work possible. You work a minimum wage job. you learn some skills you then apply to a better job with the skills that you learned.

in todays age you need some kind of additional training or college to apply for those jobs unless you have just been doing it so long that it doesn't matter.

there is only 2% of the working population most of which are under the age fo 25 that is making minimum wage.

Sorry, but all wages should have moved up. Those at the bottom quintile did not. They stagnated for decades. That should not have happened. People would still use it as a stepping stone to help them save for things like college which can't possibly happen on today's minimum wage. Also, please site your source showing that 2% of the working population most which are under 25 is making minimum wage. TIA

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

I'm sorry but no, you wanted proof, not me.

No. I didn't want or ask for any proof. Still having problems with that reading comprehension I see. That's too bad. There are remedial courses for that you know.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

No, that's not necessarily typical. Many places have closed down after Walmart moved in.

Are you speaking of during a stable economy, or during recession? What if these businesses closed because of recession rather than Walmart?

 

[jimbo]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

No, what requires a basic understanding of economics is the FACT that wages have stagnated for the lower quintiles for DECADES. At the same time productivity has gone up. Wages at the lowest end should have gone up over the years too.

Probably because there is an oversupply of unskilled labor.

The illegals bring two things to the market. Lower wages and higher productivity.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Guess what! It's hard to get out of what his predecessor left for him.

Six trillion dollars less in debt. Any debt added after Obama took office goes on Obama's tab.

 

[Bob N]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

No. I didn't want or ask for any proof. Still having problems with that reading comprehension I see. That's too bad. There are remedial courses for that you know.

Here.

Unless you can point to a deduction that Mr. Romney or anybody else takes that you could not take under the same circumstances, you have no leg to stand on.

I can't take that deduction and Mitt never made a penny off that horse so I don't know how in the **** he did it. :shrug:

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

No you did not. You chose the historic MW high (1968 level adjusted for inflation) and then stated even that was too low.

Perhaps the problem is not that entry level wages are too low but that the "safety net" benefit levels are too high. You seek to establish high "safety net" levels and then complain that they are in excess of entry level wages; that simply allows gov't to create a problem and then demand that others pitch in to solve it.

After that MW fix then you will demand COLA increases for all other entitlements (SS and pensions) to fix the damage caused by that MW fix. You are, indeed, quite generous with other people's money.

??? I seek to establish high safety net levels? Please do site me saying this or even suggesting it? TIA I think you are just constructing a strawman instead of address the actual points in my post.

 

[Bob N]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Six trillion dollars less in debt. Any debt added after Obama took office goes on Obama's tab.

Yep. Like I said: it's pretty hard to get the country back on it's feet after Bush's recession.

 

[imagep]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

??? I seek to establish high safety net levels? Please do site me saying this or even suggesting it? TIA I think you are just constructing a strawman instead of address the actual points in my post.

That's what people do when they realize that they have suffered a loss in a debate.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

It IS typical which is why so many communities offer Wal-mart attractive deals to move in. With Wal-mart anchoring the economic base of the community, a whole lot of people will get work that didn't have it before, and people are attracted from miles around providing customers for gas stations, restaurants, small speciality shops, and retailers that offer products Wal-mart doesn't. Yes the Mom and Pop store unable to adapt to competition from a Wal-mart probably won't survive, but other businesses will take their places. There are exceptions, of course, when it doesn't work that way, but those will be exceptions rather than the rule. There is a reason shopping malls go down hill fast if they lose their anchor stores and the reverse is true when they attract a big deal retailer to move in. Wal-marts work like that for small town economies.

Not according to this research: What Happens to Small Businesses When Walmart Moves In?

 

[imagep]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

...Lower wages and higher productivity.

That's part of the issue. As we are becoming more productive as a society, then why are we willing to accept lower wages, regardless of the ethnic composition of our population?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Are you speaking of during a stable economy, or during recession? What if these businesses closed because of recession rather than Walmart?

Saying the slow decline has been going on since 1982, for both.