• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walmart workers demand better wages

j-mac said:
the real kicker of it all is that if the minimum wage were to disappear, I'd lay odds that wages would go up.
Click to expand...

and by what market force would wages go up with no minimum wage?
 
TurtleDude said:
a question-if the "right of association" is used to justify Unions trying to organize walmart workers, why isn't the right not to associate sufficient to allow Walmart to fire those who join unions?

I believe in both rights. and if the union is able to get enough of the available labor in a given area to join then the union "wins" or the employer moves. and if the union cannot, it loses as it should be
Click to expand...

The employer already holds that advantage and does fire people. History shows intimidation and other weapons as well.

It's not evil to want a voice in a large company.
 
Boo Radley said:
The employer already holds that advantage and does fire people. History shows intimidation and other weapons as well.

It's not evil to want a voice in a large company.
Click to expand...

want is one thing. and I don't have a problem with the employer having an advantage. it took the risk and supplied the facility
 
TurtleDude said:
I have no problem with workers wanting more pay. what I have a problem with is the government protecting unions
Click to expand...

How about the government protecting laywers?

Or Doctors or engineers?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
How about the government protecting laywers?

Or Doctors or engineers?
Click to expand...

remind me of the relevance? BTW there are too many lawyers, not enough engineers
 
j-mac said:
Hmmm....I see. So an actual number has nothing to do with it eh? How convenient. That way it never ends...As wages rise, so do prices, then wages must rise again to compensate for the price increases, and so on, and so forth until the company goes out of business and no one has a damned thing....Great plan genius.
Click to expand...

Oh so you want a actual number? I thought you meant define it as what the term means. But anyways a number i would say $12 an hour.
 
TurtleDude said:
want is one thing. and I don't have a problem with the employer having an advantage. it took the risk and supplied the facility
Click to expand...

Still only half the equation. Business requires both money and human capital.
 
Boo Radley said:
Still only half the equation. Business requires both money and human capital.
Click to expand...

and to get human capital they have to pay wages sufficient to meet their needs
 
Boo Radley said:
The employer already holds that advantage and does fire people. History shows intimidation and other weapons as well.

It's not evil to want a voice in a large company.
Click to expand...


Nope, it's not a bad thing to ask...But when the answer is no, you don't have the right to demand anything.
 
TurtleDude said:
remind me of the relevance? BTW there are too many lawyers, not enough engineers
Click to expand...

Market restrictions to new providers of services

Lawyers are protected by the bar.

As for lawyers, given the prices they charge, there is not enough. Imagine if a large number of people could practice law without having to get approval from the bar. How much lower prices will drop for real estate transactions. I am sure a legal clerk could do the same job for much less
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Oh so you want a actual number? I thought you meant define it as what the term means. But anyways a number i would say $12 an hour.
Click to expand...

And what then when prices go up to compensate for a 50% raise in wage? then what will the 'living wage' be? $20? Then $40

Your position is deeply flawed, and the bad thing is that you refuse to see it......But, I am tired, must work tomorrow to get those groceries to the stores so you can eat....Night now.
 
TurtleDude said:
and to get human capital they have to pay wages sufficient to meet their needs
Click to expand...

Yes, and that comes through negotiation, either individual or collective. But the business needs both. That's the point.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
There is no such thing as "no-skill workers".
Click to expand...

Greeter? Cart collector? Those are both no-skill jobs. Unless you consider the ability to say "Welcome to Wal mart!" and walk across a parking lot pushing carts skills. I don't. A skilled position is work that the average person can't automatically do with no training.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
The employer already holds that advantage and does fire people. History shows intimidation and other weapons as well.

It's not evil to want a voice in a large company.
Click to expand...

It is not evil to offer employment with defined entry level wages and benefits either. What many are saying is that those that had freely accepted these employment conditions, my then unionize and demand more compensation for the same (or less) work output. That did not work out so well at Hostess, and would have caused GM to go down, yet many see this as "fair". If you don't like the job, pay or working conditions, then quit and allow another to take your place. If Walmart, or any other employer offers too little, or demands too much, then they will not have applicants or ample employee retention to cover training/administrative costs and will have to change to attract and keep qualified employees.
 
j-mac said:
Nope, it's not a bad thing to ask...But when the answer is no, you don't have the right to demand anything.
Click to expand...

Says who?

The point is, it's a simple compromise.


Now, if you want to remove it from employment, UHC is still an option. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not evil to offer employment with defined entry level wages and benefits either. What many are saying is that those that had freely accepted these employment conditions, my then unionize and demand more compensation for the same (or less) work output. That did not work out so well at Hostess, and would have caused GM to go down, yet many see this as "fair". If you don't like the job, pay or working conditions, then quit and allow another to take your place. If Walmart, or any other employer offers too little, or demands too much, then they will not have applicants or ample employee retention to cover training/administrative costs and will have to change to attract and keep qualified employees.
Click to expand...

There is a process. Those companies mention, if they had worried more about their employees, and less about CEOs, they would likely have done better and not worse.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Market restrictions to new providers of services

Lawyers are protected by the bar.

As for lawyers, given the prices they charge, there is not enough. Imagine if a large number of people could practice law without having to get approval from the bar. How much lower prices will drop for real estate transactions. I am sure a legal clerk could do the same job for much less
Click to expand...


there are far too many attorneys. many of them are churning frivolous cases trying to create work for themselves. Until we have a LOSER PAYS law this will continue. I have had 11 cases with an attorney 10 have been thrown out as having no merit, one we settled for nuisance value against our advice because the client wanted it. If he had been hit with loser pays for his first case (65K in fees, 5 K in costs) I doubt he would have filed the other cases. Feel free to try to get that approved

You can also argue if doctors didn't have to go to accredited medical schools or pass state boards the cost of doctors' services would go down
 
j-mac said:
Says the guy who owns the business as he shows you the door....When you work for someone else you don't own that job.
Click to expand...

Own? Not the word I would use. But I am part of the team. We need each other, so some give and take is better for both of us.
 
Boo Radley said:
Own? Not the word I would use. But I am part of the team. We need each other, so some give and take is better for both of us.
Click to expand...

if you are willing to work for the stated wage what else is needed?
 
Boo Radley said:
Own? Not the word I would use. But I am part of the team. We need each other, so some give and take is better for both of us.
Click to expand...


Yes own, the proprietor, the person who started the business, invested his money, his blood, sweat, and tears, and the person who would offer your ungrateful arse a job.

You wouldn't call it ownership....good grief. I'm done.
 
TurtleDude said:
if you are willing to work for the stated wage what else is needed?
Click to expand...

Needed? Varies from place to place and time to time. But it isn't just individual. One group negotiating with another group.
 
j-mac said:
Yes own, the proprietor, the person who started the business, invested his money, his blood, sweat, and tears, and the person who would offer your ungrateful arse a job.

You wouldn't call it ownership....good grief. I'm done.
Click to expand...

Odds are others invested blood and sweat as well. It is often inaccurate to assume it was always just the owner by himself. The myth can be harmful when we forget the work of others.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Oh so you want a actual number? I thought you meant define it as what the term means. But anyways a number i would say $12 an hour.
Click to expand...

So, in your opinion, the minimum wage is about 35% (or $4.75/hour) too low. If we added 35% (or even just $4.75/hour) to all U.S. wages (to maintain balance) then many at the lower end would actually be worse off due to the resulting inflation, mechanization and outsourcing that naturally occur when labor costs rise. I personally like $12.25/hour, which makes a day's work (8 hours) yield $100 cash exactly - paying no income/payroll taxes at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom