• 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

iliveonramen said:
Well it's pretty accepted across the board in economics. The relationship between productivity and wages is pretty much a core principle.

As for the efficient methods and equipment...that's generally how productivity increases. The industrial revolution was based on mechanization and led to a massive productivity increase...and led to higher wages as well.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but thats not as binding as you think it is. Skills and abilities mean much more to wages than productivity does. Productivity lowers costs, it does not have as widespread an effect on wages as things like job sharing, job rotation and aquiring the new skills for maintaining all the new automation.

Want to make more money? Never stop learning.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If it got handed to the employee's? Are you nutz? There would be chaos without someone at the top. No company can function unless someone is at the top.



Would you rather they just closed up shop? Fire all thier 1.4 million employees? They could you know. They have enough money that them or thier children's children wouldn't have to work thier entire lives.
Click to expand...

1. Really tell that to Mandrigan and all the other majorly successfull cooperateives.

2. THey close up shop because they still want to make money.
 
Blue_State said:
Isn't that why we promote the leaders and most effective employees?
Click to expand...

Leadership traits are different than being good at whatever frontline work someone does. Leadership positions are paid better but the skills required are different. The Rockefeller quote that to me is relevant.

The ability to deal with people is as purchasable a commodity as sugar or coffee, and I will pay more for that ability than for any other under the sun.
Click to expand...

Someone can be very very very good at their job but not necessarily someone that is cut out to be in a leadership position. They also should be rewarded for doing what they do well.
 
MaggieD said:
Ha! It's really disappointing to me to see the number of posters who think our capitalistic system is a failure. I don't think this is a fair representation of the population at large, certainly not any of the people I personally know, but maybe the people who are so dead set against capitalism are young people who lacked opportunity...? Or avid union members...? I just don't know.

Low-end jobs are always going to be there. They have to be. A WalMart Associate is not a career opportunity. It's a stepping stone. Or a fill-in job. To think that people believe that everyone has to earn a minimum of....what? $25,000 a year? Sounds absolutely ludicrous to me. It is never going to happen unless we inflate into it.

Edit: And to think that a union at WalMart will eventually have cart pushers who've been with the company for 15 years making $40,000?? OMFG.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If you don't believe capitalism is the best thing around, take a look at how even Communist China is applying it everyday as their business model. What communist priniciple is being used to build their economy?
 
RGacky3 said:
That has been answered before ... BTW, is that why German industry is doing so horribly right now?
Click to expand...

German industry is doing so well because they have a reputation based upon quality workmanship and brand integrity that is second to none. Their profit model per item is higher because of this. Especially in the auto industry.
 
iliveonramen said:
Well it's pretty accepted across the board in economics. The relationship between productivity and wages is pretty much a core principle.

As for the efficient methods and equipment...that's generally how productivity increases. The industrial revolution was based on mechanization and led to a massive productivity increase...and led to higher wages as well.
Click to expand...
But workers have chosen the safety of an hourly rate over the piece mill rate for their compensation.
This choice has been codified into law as the minimum wage.
The piece mill rate can pay better, but has some of the same risks as the plant owner.
People choose the smaller steady check over the bigger check with risks.
The plant owner assumes the risks, and gets the reward if any.
The labor cost are reduced to a commodity.
I have always told students, when they get to a company, try to make themselves a resource,
as commodities are replaceable.
 
iliveonramen said:
Leadership traits are different than being good at whatever frontline work someone does. Leadership positions are paid better but the skills required are different. The Rockefeller quote that to me is relevant.



Someone can be very very very good at their job but not necessarily someone that is cut out to be in a leadership position. They also should be rewarded for doing what they do well.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't we expect all of our employees to be very good at their job? And then shouldn't we promote the ones who are capable to move to the next level?
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure that's reality. Ever since unions have been smashed by conservatives rising productivity hasn't meant rising wages. Hence the stagnant wages for decades that conservatives pretend to care about. Typically wages should rise with productivity...that's the whole "trick down" theory which has been thoroughly discredited.

Bussiness owners are well compensated for taking risk. In what reality is that not the case? Better yet...how many fortune 500 companies are ran by managment that had any part in the founding of the companies they run?
Click to expand...

So exactly what is it that you want? Do you want labor to determine how much they are paid? do you want to govt to set wages for all jobs? do you want the govt to confiscate profits from all businesses? Tell me exactly what you want? and "living wage" is not an answer--thats a BS cop out.
 
RGacky3 said:
We obviously don't. I want a democratic economy ...
Click to expand...

we have a democratic economy. supply and demand are democratic principles. what you want is a socialist economy.
 
Bobcat said:
So exactly what is it that you want? Do you want labor to determine how much they are paid? do you want to govt to set wages for all jobs? do you want the govt to confiscate profits from all businesses? Tell me exactly what you want? and "living wage" is not an answer--thats a BS cop out.
Click to expand...

I want labor to be in a better bargaining position than they are currently. That's it. Organized workers can bargain as a whole and get a higher portion of the profits...which they deserve. Bargaining still occurs. Wages are still set by how profitable a company is, workers just have more power when wages are decided.
 
Blue_State said:
Shouldn't we expect all of our employees to be very good at their job? And then shouldn't we promote the ones who are capable to move to the next level?
Click to expand...

Sure...but the next level means different things. If someone is a great cashier they may not have the skill set to manage other cashiers. That does require different skills. That doesn't mean the cashiers experience accumulated over time doesn't equal a benefit to the company.

Best example I can think of...went to a resturaunt this weekend and put in my order. My mom's meal took awhile for them to prepare. I never complained, never said anything to the waiter but he apologized and took the cost of the meal off. I will be going back to that resturaunt. I would of never complained. I would of waited, been aggrevated and would of probably never went back to the resturaunt again because in my mind their service would of sucked. Instead I'm a happy customer. The waiter was an older gentleman. Probably been a waiter for a very long time and was very good at it. He saved them a customer. He may not have the skill set to run a resturaunt but if I had some run of the mill waiter they would of lost my business for the rest of my life. He adds value to that company
 
longview said:
But workers have chosen the safety of an hourly rate over the piece mill rate for their compensation.
This choice has been codified into law as the minimum wage.
The piece mill rate can pay better, but has some of the same risks as the plant owner.
People choose the smaller steady check over the bigger check with risks.
The plant owner assumes the risks, and gets the reward if any.
The labor cost are reduced to a commodity.
I have always told students, when they get to a company, try to make themselves a resource,
as commodities are replaceable.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on all accounts.

At the same time I don't see why labor as a commodity shouldn't be able to collectively bargain for a fair price. They are an input just like wheat or steel. I agree with you...becoming irreplacable on an individual level is great advice. That doesn't mean they shouldn't improve their bargaining position by joining together.
 
I look at it like this, we have risk takers and wage earners.
The risk takers put their livelihood on the line every single month.
The know they can work hard enough, sell enough product,
fix enough widgets to make their bills each month.
I am a wage earner, I like a safe steady paycheck, and I understand their are limitations
that come with that choice.
I understand myself enough to know I am not built for the stress and risk of self employment.
 
MaggieD said:
The way for the worker to "get more" in the real world is to become more proficient at his job, accept more responsibility, and get promoted -- or, even more likely -- to get a job at another company using the skills he's learned to advance his career.

Unions, on the other hand, reward . . . what? They don't reward ingenuity. In fact, your ingenuity isn't even welcome. They don't reward accepting more responsibility. In fact, you'd better not take on more responsibility than your job classification requires. They don't reward working faster or better. In fact, you'd better not make the rate change on a job. Unions reward length of service. Whoop-dee-freakin-doo.

I just don't get it. What a way to reward a worker. What a fine way to work together with a company to help them be profitable. Whoosh.
Click to expand...

It gets better. The Union will hold the opinion that the worker should NOT be more productive, because that would only help the evil corporation in the end.
 
iliveonramen said:
I agree with you on all accounts.

At the same time I don't see why labor as a commodity shouldn't be able to collectively bargain for a fair price. They are an input just like wheat or steel. I agree with you...becoming irreplacable on an individual level is great advice. That doesn't mean they shouldn't improve their bargaining position by joining together.
Click to expand...
Where the difference comes in, is that if all of the steel or wheat providers got together and set the price,
they would be breaking the law.
It also restricts the freedom of someone who might be willing to work for less.
 
Bobcat said:
BS, total unadulterated BS, working harder than required is how people get ahead, its how people earn promotions.
Click to expand...

The notion that hard work leads to money, in modern times, is mostly just a stupid cliche promoted by right wing pundits to encourage people to be exploited.

In today's world, as a critical ingredient of financial success, hard work takes a significant back seat to street smarts. This is certainly true in a free market, but the US isn't even a free market, given the extent of subsidies that corporations like Wal-Mart enjoy.

Success today is simply a matter of living by one creed: doing whatever it takes to make money. This may involve deception, extortion, theft, lobbying, and occasionally, hard work.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure...but the next level means different things. If someone is a great cashier they may not have the skill set to manage other cashiers. That does require different skills. That doesn't mean the cashiers experience accumulated over time doesn't equal a benefit to the company.

Best example I can think of...went to a resturaunt this weekend and put in my order. My mom's meal took awhile for them to prepare. I never complained, never said anything to the waiter but he apologized and took the cost of the meal off. I will be going back to that resturaunt. I would of never complained. I would of waited, been aggrevated and would of probably never went back to the resturaunt again because in my mind their service would of sucked. Instead I'm a happy customer. The waiter was an older gentleman. Probably been a waiter for a very long time and was very good at it. He saved them a customer. He may not have the skill set to run a resturaunt but if I had some run of the mill waiter they would of lost my business for the rest of my life. He adds value to that company
Click to expand...

Pretty excellent example.

If the waiter was as good as you said, he should be compensated. He should get more tables, which will mean more money for him. If he is at full capacity on the number of tables he can handle, then he should move to a more elegant restaurant with better fair. That will increase his tips and he will be making more money.

However, if he not as good as a waiter in a more elegant environment, he will not make more money. Cream rises to the top.
 
Blue_State said:
Pretty excellent example.

If the waiter was as good as you said, he should be compensated. He should get more tables, which will mean more money for him. If he is at full capacity on the number of tables he can handle, then he should move to a more elegant restaurant with better fair. That will increase his tips and he will be making more money.

However, if he not as good as a waiter in a more elegant environment, he will not make more money. Cream rises to the top.
Click to expand...

Cream only rises to the top in a pure, unmonopolistic (and unmonopsonistic) free market. The US today isn't even remote close to that.
 
solletica said:
Cream only rises to the top in a pure, unmonopolistic (and unmonopsonistic) free market. The US today isn't even remote close to that.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, the waiter in this example cannot leverage his good work and get a better job paying more or more opportunities to wait on more tables?
 
solletica said:
Cream only rises to the top in a pure, unmonopolistic (and unmonopsonistic) free market. The US today isn't even remote close to that.
Click to expand...

Nor will the US, or any other country, EVER come close to that.
 
Blue_State said:
In your opinion, the waiter in this example cannot leverage his good work and get a better job paying more or more opportunities to wait on more tables?
Click to expand...

Never. If he wants to get a better waiting job, he needs to get to know the manager/employees of a better restaurant or their (Facebook) friends on a personal level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom