• 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

Deserve is a good word.
What else are they doing to contribute to productivity, to merit a wage increase?



Well, we're just seeing the rise of 3D printing, which I believe will eliminate a lot of manual production jobs.
Even developing nations can't compete with that.

We've moved from a production economy, to a brain economy, which will change to an idea economy.
The idea economy, is the next revolution.

And how many humans ever had an idea that would provide them an income?

Sounds nice, but theres lots of people that arent equipped to be programmers and content creators.

Eventually the guy who cleans the screens at the sewage plant will be replaced by a machine. What idea is he gonna eat?
 
Which kind of contradicts the free market propoponant claim that government/unions aren't needed because higher wages come as a result of higher productivity and higher profit margins. This also flies in the face of wages at the top in companies. They have seen exponential wage increases over the past couple of decades.

So workers can expect wage cuts, firings, benefit cuts when companies do bad but if those same companies do well they shouldn't expect any of the gains?

No it doesn't.
 
And how many humans ever had an idea that would provide them an income?

Sounds nice, but theres lots of people that arent equipped to be programmers and content creators.

Eventually the guy who cleans the screens at the sewage plant will be replaced by a machine. What idea is he gonna eat?

I don't know and not to be callous, but for now, it's not my problem, nor theirs.
I can't reliably predict the future for everyone, in all circumstances.

I just think 3D printing, will render a lot of this moot, in the future (50-100 years)
 
Not necessarily, because increased productivity doesn't always mean the worker is doing more work.
In manufacturing, worker productivity has continued to increase through machine assist, ergonomics and other contributing factors.

If a company buys a machine, to increase worker productivity, why does the worker deserve more wages?

So technolological advancements should only benefit those with capital? We have two perfect scenarios. A time period in the US where productivity increases equaled higher wages for labor and now...and the past 30 years where productivity equal stagnant wages for labor and increased (exponentially) wages for top management and individuals that provided capital. Do you find our situation now preferable? That's what that viewpoint results in.
 
No it doesn't.

So why exactly do wages increase again? In tight or loose labor markets wages have barely if at all increased and during the loose labor markets they have decreased. Welcome to free market capitalism? If you're at the top of the organizational chain you receive massive pay increases during the good times and the bad, if you're at the bottome you receive the same pay during the good times and pay cuts during the bad? Please remind me why unions are bad again because the free market viewpoint seems pretty rotten for 90% of the population.
 
So technolological advancements should only benefit those with capital? We have two perfect scenarios. A time period in the US where productivity increases equaled higher wages for labor and now...and the past 30 years where productivity equal stagnant wages for labor and increased (exponentially) wages for top management and individuals that provided capital. Do you find our situation now preferable? That's what that viewpoint results in.

Technological advancements, generally, benefit everyone.
You're just thinking that in direct wages, it should benefit workers to (which it does in a way), by allowing them more profits from the business.
But employees are not hired to directly share in the profits of the business, so it doesn't make much sense to compensate them more, for doing the same or less of a job.

If employees are owned more money, when the business profits more, are they also required to pay the business, when it profits less?
 
Son of a bitch .... First of all MARXISM IS POSTIVE ECONOMICS ... get that through you're head ... its an analysis of Capitalism. Socialism was before marx and after marx, socialism is no an adherant of marx tat is what a marxist is.

Marxism is a positive economics? Do you have any evidence of this? Is there or has there ever been a successful Marxist society? Has anyone, anywhere actually successfully implemented Marx, or has all attempts to do so failed?

Name a socialist society or any attempt at socialism prior to Marx. Do you have any documented, from reliable sources, evidence that the term socialism and the associated philosophies did not start with Marx?

Marx of course did draw from different societies and then codified them into a coherent, at least to some, mass and named it Communism and created the method to move towards Communism and named it Socialism. A Marxist is not only a socialist, they are also Communist. Others, Marxist Socialist, attempt to only adhere to Socialist portions of his teachings and forgo full Communism. Other Socialist only pick and choose which portions of Marx they want, however, After Marx, all Socialism is in someway relates back to Marx, or it is not Socialism, since Marx is the one who collected and collated are relational materials and ideas into a whole.

From what I can see, Marx's strongest influence towards socialism was the tribes throughout the Americas and on Pacific Islands. While they were longterm stable, it should also be noted that they were population limited due to limited production/acquisition of food supplies and they never rose above the early stone-age level of technological advancement. Nor did they have any competition, until meeting European society, from other societal and economic structures.

Capitalism IS failing. True unfettered capitalism never existed and can never exist, the closer you get to it the more you end up at the great depression of much of the third world. post 70s' much of the west moved toward more unfettered capitalism and the result is in.

Much of the Third Worlds economic depression exists in either "socialist" countries or countries with closed/protected "capitalist" systems. Name a Third world country that actually practices open capitalism?

Our current economic failings are traced back to reagenomics ... i.e. the dismanteling of the new deal and great society politics and institution of neo-liberalism ... this is fact.

So prior to Reagan, there was not high unemployment? There was no outsourcing? There was no Debt Spending? There was no closure of American industry due to over-regulation and environmental protection laws? Our lead in Technological advancement and innovation did not decrease prior to Reagan?

After Reagan, there was no economic improvement. No reduction in unemployment?

Prior to the "new deal and great society politics and institution of neo-liberalism", America didn't rise to economic dominance in several market/industrial areas? America didn't rise to where it's economics influenced world economics? America was not the leader in technological advancements and Innovation?


new deal and great society politics and institution of neo-liberalismYou could increase every workers wage 30%, not change prices and not change exective pay and Walmart would still be profitable, and that isn't taking into accoutn increased aggrigate demand ... so claiming that infaltion would undo the positive effects is plainly false, and claiming that rising wages are undone by inflation has been disproven OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, and if you want em to show why AGAIN, I'll do it.

You assertion that it could be done without affecting salaries only holds true if the capital investors settle for much less profit. Are they not to expect a return upon their investment? Currently, their cost to invest is over $70 per share, their return is only $1.56 per share annually. While they do still have the capital asset of the stock, it is no use to them unless they either get paid dividends, sell that asset or leverage (borrow) against it. The value of that asset is fluid and depends on market trends, it can go up or down, and whether it goes up or down is directly related to the dividends it pays in many cases. The dividends that a share pays is related to the profits made by the company. Whether you dislike or don't believe in the value of capital investment, it is vital to the creation and maintenance of most companies. Without that capital investment, there would be no company and no jobs created by the company. Walmart and it's investors only make a profit of less than 4%, that is very small for a major company. In the case of walmart, it is also very dependent upon consumer purchasing.

Where is your evidence of it being disproven? Whether Walmart can or not, where is the evidence that walmart workers have earned a 30% increase? Has the individual production of walmart workers increased by 30%? Has even the friendliness and helpfulness of Walmart employees increased by 30%. Has the employment market changed to the point where walmart would have to increase pay by 30% to attract employees? Or is it a matter of you see the salaries of executives, profits generated by the company and compare them to unskilled labor and feel that the distribution of profits is unfair?

As a socialist I don't argue that all peoples value is equal ... Thats nonsense, and thus a strawman. My arguemnt is that labor is value ... not ownership of capital ... of coarse a doctor is more valuble than a secretary.

Until you stated so, I didn't know that your version of Socialism didn't adhere to that principle. Many forms of Socialism do. You might want to consider whether what you believe is really socialism. Since one of the goals of socialism is to create a classless society, any inequality in the value of individuals would lead to some form of class structure. Only when everyone receives equally can a classless society exist and then it would have to ignore the value of what individuals contribute to society. If you do believe in value in is related value received but still seek a classless society, then you might want to settle out the paradox of your beliefs.

Ownership of Capital has no value? If so, why do so many seek to have it? The capital that these investors put in has value to them? It doesn't create, grow and maintain a company? They should just contribute it and not expect it to be returned? If so, good luck getting someone to invest.

What do you think is the value of unskilled labor? You don't think that it should be valued upon the availability of workers?


Socialism is economic democracy ... So enough of the strawmen. Unions are an example of a democratizing force in the economy.

Other than to the individuals who might theoretically gain from it, Where is the good of it for society as a whole? Again, where are these successful fully socialist societies? Unfettered democracy amongst an un-informed and un-educated society is cumbersome, inefficient and leads to failure because the un-knowledgeable will always out number the knowledgeable and will vote for self gain instead of the good of the economy as a whole.

Unfettered democracy is what has led to the continuing failure of our government and it's adoption of socialist measures.

As far as Hostess that's already been answered, it was management, not unions that ruined the company, kept giving themselves raises and bonuses while running the company into the ground and cutting workers benfits.

We disagree on this and will probably always disagree on it. Any further argument about it is only antagonistic and not useful debate. Any interested third part can read the arguments presented and form their own opinion from it.

Outsourcing happened after Union decline.

No, Union decline happed as a result of outsourcing and the adoption by some of right-to-work. Just one example is GM, who opened plants in Brazil in the 1930s and in Canada, Australia and other places in the 1950s. Under your arguments, outsourcing would not of taken place until around the Reagan era, it was happening long before that. Outsourcing and international competition was why OPEC was able to create an artificial shortage in the 1970s.

The reast of you're argumetns are just strawmen. If you don't want the state the stop failures in capitalism, then watch capitalism collapse ... Capitlaism is inherently unstable and naturally grows until it bursts, I don't want governmetn action to stop that, I want to change the whole institutional framework to make it more democratic.

The state is the cause of so much of the failures in capitalism inside the country. It adopted burdensome regulation, among other things. Also, capitalism is not failing. Outsourcing is Capitalism at work and is spreading to more of mankind than just our nation. Even within our nation, a lot of the failures are because we adopted a philosophy of credit (debt) spending instead of real spending, encouraged by the government and in some cases, to meet governments goals, thus creating an artificial bubble economy which then crashed.

No no more strawmen.

Who gets to decide if something is a strawman? You? Or is it more likely that you want to call arguments "strawmen" because you cannot formulate or express reasonable, evidence based and logical arguments to counter those arguments?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to give us your definition of what a strawman is?
 
Technological advancements, generally, benefit everyone.
You're just thinking that in direct wages, it should benefit workers to (which it does in a way), by allowing them more profits from the business.
But employees are not hired to directly share in the profits of the business, so it doesn't make much sense to compensate them more, for doing the same or less of a job.

If employees are owned more money, when the business profits more, are they also required to pay the business, when it profits less?

They do...individuals are laid off and wages don't increase. I mean...sure they don't fluctuate with increases or decreases over the short term..and shouldn't...but long term productivity gains...they should get a portion. Otherwise you face the situation we do now...productivity gains have gone primarily to a small group of individuals. From every indication our labor market situation hasn't equalled outsized gains compared to other countries. It's not like that capital investment has led to long term growth beyond what would be expected. The pie has grown at the same rate it's just that the slices have been hugely distorted.

I think it's a pretty big question that needs to be answered for proponents of a more free market system. When it was largely theoretical and things like "rising tide lifts all boats" or "trickle down" that was one thing. Now there's arguments that wages shouldn't rise with productivity at really very little to any benefit to most Americans.
 
So why exactly do wages increase again? In tight or loose labor markets wages have barely if at all increased and during the loose labor markets they have decreased. Welcome to free market capitalism? If you're at the top of the organizational chain you receive massive pay increases during the good times and the bad, if you're at the bottome you receive the same pay during the good times and pay cuts during the bad? Please remind me why unions are bad again because the free market viewpoint seems pretty rotten for 90% of the population.

90% of the population?

We're talking about the very bottom rung of the ladder and I just don't know what you expect. The income gap might be at an all time high but so is the skill gap. I get that you hate the "rich" but a surgeon has needed skills that takes years to acquire whereas Walmart replaces lost employees with the next high school drop out who fills out an application.
 
They do...individuals are laid off and wages don't increase. I mean...sure they don't fluctuate with increases or decreases over the short term..and shouldn't...but long term productivity gains...they should get a portion. Otherwise you face the situation we do now...productivity gains have gone primarily to a small group of individuals. From every indication our labor market situation hasn't equalled outsized gains compared to other countries. It's not like that capital investment has led to long term growth beyond what would be expected. The pie has grown at the same rate it's just that the slices have been hugely distorted.

I think it's a pretty big question that needs to be answered for proponents of a more free market system. When it was largely theoretical and things like "rising tide lifts all boats" or "trickle down" that was one thing. Now there's arguments that wages shouldn't rise with productivity at really very little to any benefit to most Americans.

See, some gains do go to people, in the way of more jobs, increased profit sharing, less physical work per hour, greater product benefits, increased dividends, increased capital gains, etc, etc.

You're really only focusing on one aspect, wages.

Rising tides does lift all boats, otherwise the life expectancy and general quality of life around the world, would of stayed the same or gone down.
 
1. You can say it to a marine, and also a marine of any other country. Support and Funding CREATE bootcamp.

2. Hitlers policies propped up the German Capitalist class, and they fully supported him, mainly because they were afraid of socialists and communists who were very powerful at the time and because hitler promised to get out of treaties that hindered buisiness, Hitler's government created huge demand giving tons of profit for capitalists, and they were able to monopolize and cartelize.

3. I never said it was illigal did I ... I said there was legislation that prevented it, mainly through incentive structures. Also You agreed with me that co-determination is what created that buisiness enviroment.

5. I never said co-determination board decides everything, nor have I backtracked, the workers have significant power through unions AND co-determination, co-determination came about right after ww2. But again this is not JUST Germany, its most of the countries that have social democratic institutions, btw when neo-liberal policies have success (generally followed by a crash) you say its the system, yet when social democratic policies have success its the culture????

1. What makes our military successful has more to do with training, re-socialization and culture---the equipment is worthless without the training and the will to use it. Again you want to argue its people when it suits and money when it doesnt suit you.

2. I am not going to start a debate about Nazi-ism and corporatism being linked. Thats a trap of an argument and its not accurate the way you are attempting to portray it, start a thread if you want. Again, quit trying to Godwin the thread, its exactly where you are trying to steer the argument.

3. Yeah. You did. Co-determination was created by the US forces trying to bring as much peace and stability to Germany and avoid the labor union dynamic that was taking hold in the US.

5. Yeah you said its because labor unions get to make more decisions. They dont make more decisions, they give input and make 10% to at max 40% of the decisions. Neo liberal policies are failing all over Europe, Germany is the exception---everywhere else, from France to Spain to Greece, they are failing. So you your argument is they are successful when they are followed by a crash? Thanks for defeating your own argument.
 
1. I've ALWAYS been anti-Leninist, as have most socialists ...

2. Yeah ... capitalist property rights after monarchies fell .... Monarchies didn't "allow it," although generally they actually did in the end. Also why are you talkinga bout Soviet Russia???

1. Because Russia was always billed as socialism.

2. That was a trap btw. Fuedalism, lords kept their property rights how? Thats right, through violence and the promise of it. Capitalism doesnt hold onto property rights through guns it does it through the courts and through law, a tad more civil than at gunpoint. Socialism tends to hold onto property through enforced redistribution, how is it any different from capitalism? Its generally government enforced, IE through force or the threat of it.

You keep trying to say how your idea of socialism is so good but its just different people controlling how things are divvied up.
 
90% of the population?

We're talking about the very bottom rung of the ladder and I just don't know what you expect. The income gap might be at an all time high but so is the skill gap. I get that you hate the "rich" but a surgeon has needed skills that takes years to acquire whereas Walmart replaces lost employees with the next high school drop out who fills out an application.

I've been saying this for years - anyone can jock a cash register, bag a burger, stock a shelf etc - not anyone can perform surgeries, financially manage a business, interpret law, engineer etc.. Those people went to school and invested a lot of time, money and energy into learning a trade that pays them the big bucks while the fool jocking the cash register didn't learn anything, hence anyone could do his or her job. There is nothing special about them, hence they're in no position to be making demands.

As usual democrats have a difficult time understanding supply and demand.
 
I've been saying this for years - anyone can jock a cash register, bag a burger, stock a shelf etc - not anyone can perform surgeries, financially manage a business, interpret law, engineer etc.. Those people went to school and invested a lot of time, money and energy into learning a trade that pays them the big bucks while the fool jocking the cash register didn't learn anything, hence anyone could do his or her job. There is nothing special about them, hence they're in no position to be making demands.

As usual democrats have a difficult time understanding supply and demand.

Demorats understand that there are many more at the bottom (general labor pool) than in specialized, highly educated positions. Each worker, or even each welfare bum, gets but one vote - they play the polling/numbers game quite well. Yes they can!
 
Demorats understand that there are many more at the bottom (general labor pool) than in specialized, highly educated positions. Each worker, or even each welfare bum, gets but one vote - they play the polling/numbers game quite well. Yes they can!

Well, I would like them to realize that they're a dime a dozen, hence will be paid like they're a dime a dozen.

I would suggest if they want to be in a position to bid their own salaries then I would suggest they learn a skill that's in demand.
 
Well, goody for you....What do you want? a prize? My question to you, as it is to all libs when it gets to this point is this, Who the heck do you think you are to tell others where they should work, how they should live, or where they should shop? The arrogance of liberals to think that only they have a lock on the way everyone should live is stunning. It works for you great. I'll make my own decisions in life thank you.

I've posted in this thread dozens of times and my last post regarding my own spending habits was the first and only mention of how I do things and I only did so then in response to two posts regarding people saying one thing and doing another. If you like Wal-Mart and want it to continue to expand and if you think their employees deserve whatever they're getting now, why shouldn't you shop there? It's just that I personally believe in supporting local businesses and I believe in social responsibility and I spend my money according to those values, not to feel good about myself or to impress others. The only time in real life that I push my spending habits onto others is when I recommend restaurants to friends.

I was speaking to those who say "there's nothing I can do about it." Those who say "I am a charitable person but I don't do charitable things." Paul Wellstone said, "never separate the life you live from the words you speak." I have no way of knowing the life you live. And even if you're justifying your own spending habits because you don't want to make the effort to change, there's no way I could know that either, so it's up to each man and each woman to make that call for themselves.
 
Well, I would like them to realize that they're a dime a dozen, hence will be paid like they're a dime a dozen.

I would suggest if they want to be in a position to bid their own salaries then I would suggest they learn a skill that's in demand.

That is the alternative prefered by me as well. But the demorats have found an even easier way to achieve that "success" by using income redistributon, in the name of "fairness", take from the few rich and give to the many poor - effectively buying their votes with other people's money. Yes they can!
 
See, some gains do go to people, in the way of more jobs, increased profit sharing, less physical work per hour, greater product benefits, increased dividends, increased capital gains, etc, etc.

You're really only focusing on one aspect, wages.

Rising tides does lift all boats, otherwise the life expectancy and general quality of life around the world, would of stayed the same or gone down.

Sure, but all of those things aren't increased by market forces or taken on by there employers. Better working conditions were bargained by unions and eventually through union political power codified into law. Life Expectancy improved through better working conditions and most importantly access to medical care.

I agree with you...rises in productivity have the POTENTIAL to benefit all. The modern state would not be possible without technological and productivity advancements. My main argument is that it's unions/government/minimum standards that resulted in the sharing of those gains.
 
90% of the population?

We're talking about the very bottom rung of the ladder and I just don't know what you expect. The income gap might be at an all time high but so is the skill gap. I get that you hate the "rich" but a surgeon has needed skills that takes years to acquire whereas Walmart replaces lost employees with the next high school drop out who fills out an application.

You are right. 90% is too high of a number but it's still a very large % of individuals that work in low skill low pay jobs.

Sure there is a skill gap. I'm not advocating a low skilled laborer make as much as a surgeon. I'm advocating they have more power when negotiating wages and benefits with their employers.
 
Sure, but all of those things aren't increased by market forces or taken on by there employers. Better working conditions were bargained by unions and eventually through union political power codified into law. Life Expectancy improved through better working conditions and most importantly access to medical care.

I greatly disagree.
India, China, et all, didn't really start to escape poverty, until they dropped protectionism and embraced modern market production.


I agree with you...rises in productivity have the POTENTIAL to benefit all. The modern state would not be possible without technological and productivity advancements. My main argument is that it's unions/government/minimum standards that resulted in the sharing of those gains.

Individual expectations and greater earnings, brought those things.
People started making more money, union or not, government or not.

Wages, safety standards, etc don't increase, just because of those groups.
They increase because employers will pay more and offer better conditions, for better workers, in a lot of industries.
 
I greatly disagree.
India, China, et all, didn't really start to escape poverty, until they dropped protectionism and embraced modern market production.
.

I would disagree...they weren't able to compete until there was a global move to drop protectionism and embrace a more neo-liberal view of global competition. China is still a totalitarian country where corruption and protectionism exists. If you want to talk about red tape or bureacracy China is the poster boy. India as well.

Individual expectations and greater earnings, brought those things.
People started making more money, union or not, government or not.

Wages, safety standards, etc don't increase, just because of those groups.
They increase because employers will pay more and offer better conditions, for better workers, in a lot of industries.

I think you're underestimating the impact of unions. Unions had to fight bloody battles for just the right to unionize. Factory owners would increase wages (like Ford) in order to prevent their employees from unionizing. There was a major battle fought as to what employment is and what employees are owed.

Just look at baseball. It was a lucrative business and owners stacked the cards against the players. They weren't allowed to offer their labor at other baseball teams. Free agency didn't exist. Wages were a much smaller part of revenue. Same with football. Both of those industries had unique employees with very high talents. In fact the best at what they do in the world. At the same time it wasn't until strikes and the creation of a strong union until they actual started receiving pay nearly equal to what their labor was worth.

I don't think it's a coincidence that wages started to stagnant at the same time that anti-union policies and politics became popular.
 
I would disagree...they weren't able to compete until there was a global move to drop protectionism and embrace a more neo-liberal view of global competition. China is still a totalitarian country where corruption and protectionism exists. If you want to talk about red tape or bureacracy China is the poster boy. India as well.

True red tape and protectionism exists in these places, but not to the extent that it did exist.
A good example, if you happen to watch it, was Friedman's "Free to Choose" series, where he highlights how India kept archaic industry practices in textiles.
All the while, the rest of the world had mechanized.



I think you're underestimating the impact of unions. Unions had to fight bloody battles for just the right to unionize. Factory owners would increase wages (like Ford) in order to prevent their employees from unionizing. There was a major battle fought as to what employment is and what employees are owed.

Just look at baseball. It was a lucrative business and owners stacked the cards against the players. They weren't allowed to offer their labor at other baseball teams. Free agency didn't exist. Wages were a much smaller part of revenue. Same with football. Both of those industries had unique employees with very high talents. In fact the best at what they do in the world. At the same time it wasn't until strikes and the creation of a strong union until they actual started receiving pay nearly equal to what their labor was worth.

I don't think it's a coincidence that wages started to stagnant at the same time that anti-union policies and politics became popular.

Unions had an impact, but I don't believe that all employers were so dastardly that they would treat their employees like crap.
As popular as that narrative is in the history books, it's much to one sided to be believed.

My company, as an example, started with quasi democratic socialist undertones in employee treatment, without the existence of a union.
 
Back
Top Bottom