• 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

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'll check it out.

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.

I don't think employers are dastardly at all. I think they have pressure to reduce costs and very little pay their workers a livable wage. I also think that a small company where direct relationships are built with employees is drastically different than large organizations where labor is just a cost and a number. I think you can take almost anyone, stick them in a system where their incentive is to keep wages low with very little if any incentive to increase the cost of labor and the result is long term stagnant wages.

I think in an arms length environment people don't look after the well being of others. It has positivies and negatives. I think the main negative is hard numbers are king at the expense of morality. Some of the positives are...well that hard numbers are king.
 
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!

Yep, that's what they do.

I'm from Chicago, and it is absolutely disgusting... Democrats here buy votes in plain view and think it's funny - as if its politics as usual....

Every democrat in Illinois may as well hold a sign that reads; "vote for me because I will try to get you the most free entitlements as possible."

The unions back the progressives and the progressives back the unions and it's all about $$$$$$$$. The unions donate campaign funds and the progressives pay them back via contracts and backing union labor. Meanwhile the non-union private sector gets screwed.

So naturally here in Chicago we end up with a bunch of dishonest thieves for politicians who routinely use taxpayer money to fund their own financial exploits and hardly anyone cares about their unethical behavior because these progressives give them "free entitlements" for their vote.

The typical progressive doesn't care about the economic health of this nation just as long as they're getting something for free from government... That's all progressives care about - what they can get for free! This is why Chicago is one of the worst cities in every category - from the murder rate to unemployment to education... No one cares just as long as the government financially supports them as much as possible. The typical progressive doesn't care if 12th graders are reading at a 4th grade level just as long as these kids get free breakfast and free lunches on the taxpayer dole, or teachers (unions) making 80-120k a year reading 17-year-old idiots Dr. Seuss books.

Progressives believe it's the governments responsibility to financially support them, and it's the governments responsibility to make sure via unions they get paid 40 dollars an hour scrubbing toilets....
 
I'll check it out.

I know you're not as "pro market" as I am, but it is a good series.
The best part I think is the afterward, where he openly debates people of different political beliefs, over the subjects in the video.


I don't think employers are dastardly at all. I think they have pressure to reduce costs and very little pay their workers a livable wage. I also think that a small company where direct relationships are built with employees is drastically different than large organizations where labor is just a cost and a number. I think you can take almost anyone, stick them in a system where their incentive is to keep wages low with very little if any incentive to increase the cost of labor and the result is long term stagnant wages.

I think in an arms length environment people don't look after the well being of others. It has positivies and negatives. I think the main negative is hard numbers are king at the expense of morality. Some of the positives are...well that hard numbers are king.

I think the wage declines we've seen have been made up in increases in other benefits.
I would rather measure total compensation, instead of just wages.
It presents a much more real number.
 
I think the wage declines we've seen have been made up in increases in other benefits.
I would rather measure total compensation, instead of just wages.
It presents a much more real number.

That's definately fair. Compensation is a better measure than total wages. I'll have to check out some compensation information for workers for the past couple of decades since those numbers are not discussed as much.
 
iliveonramen said:
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.

You negotiate with power when you have it to give. If your skill set is so mundane that it's replaceable with the nod of the head, you have no power. No power, no negotiation.

The better solution is to go out and get yourself a chip to ante up at the boardroom table instead of forcing government to grant someone unearned power.
 
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.

I don't even know what that means. They have every right to demand anything they want but since they're so low skilled and easily replaced there is just no real reason an employer should cave to every demand. I don't really see what the issue is.
 
First of all, it has nothing to do with responsibility ... It has to do with the Capitalist will always pay himself the most he can, and the workers the least he can. The way it should be is whatever pay you can get, that's the market, its not a meritocracy, it never has been.

And yet those with more responsibility gets paid more....wonder why that is...hmm...

Second of all, sitting down and "asking" for more pay because you think you deserve it won't do ****, unless you can back it up with some sort of power, and you can have a lot more of that with a union, the capitalist controls all the capital, so if workers want leverage they need to fight collectively.

The power is in your work. I've had plenty of jobs where all I did was talk to the correct person, ask for a raise told him/her why I thought I deserved it and got it. Not once have I needed someone else to advocate for me. So sorry but experiance and reality show that a union is not absolutely necessary. And I have NEVER been in a union. Nor would I want to be.

What you're basically saying is the workers should just play the game the way the Capitalist wants them too ... Nonsense, you play the game in a way that where you have the highest leverage, thats how capitalists do it, thus that is how workers should do it.

No. I am saying that honesty and hard work are the best policy. Stand out from other grunts and you will advance. Thats the way it has been for quite some time now.

mental activity AND institutional frameworks and institutional advantages and so on.

Thank you for admitting that mental activity is a nessecity and is used.

Instiutional frameworks is available to everyone...not just the rich and CEO's. You can make just as much use of it as anyone else.

As for "institutional advantages" I can only assume that you are talking about inheritance in that. But the thing is that doesn't mean crap for anyone else. Mr. Walton himself shows that. Along with lots of other billionaires.

The senate and congress are examplse of a currupt plutocracy, where the representatives answer to buisiness leaders.

Nothing more than a talking point.

also WE HAVE TONS AND TONS OF EXAMPLES THAT WORK AS DEMOCRACIES .... the richest area in europe, Emilia-Romagna, is famous for its cooperatives ...

Wait....what happened to Germany? Are you no longer touting them as the best example? :shrug: Oh well. I would still bet that the US is still richer than "Emilia-Romagna"...Never even heard of that place before so obviously it isn't that famous.

Thats rediculous ... thats like arguing that the reason black people are better off now is because black people have better morals now.

That's not arguing that at all. If you want an example of how morals affects how people are affected then would you say that blacks are better off economically now than they were when they were slaves? Or when they were segregated and racism was far worse than now? In both cases morality shifted. And they got better off economically than they were before.

Thats nonsense, people were just as greedy 50 years ago as they are not, the difference the institutions.

No actually they weren't. Most people would actually turn down jobs that they thought were immoral to do. Yes there were plenty of people that were greedy. Thats just the nature of Man. But morals DO change. The very fact that slavery is outlawed in the US should be ample evidence of that.

Or is it that everyone suddenyl got more greedy at the same time the US made neo-liberal reforms, and the reforms had nothing to do with it. Common now.

The change was not sudden by any means. If you want an example of the difference in morals then take a look at underwear commercials 50 years ago vs today's. And before you get in a tizzy that is JUST an example of the change in morality.

Wrong, just based on facts. the first governments were tribal, i.e. run by elders and relatively democratic, when land became more important you had monarchies and theocracies with mostly command economies, even in major cities like in Rome and greece, markets were not the main distributive method, trading was mainly between societies not within.

While tribal they were NOT a democracy. You're thinking "tribal" in the sense of the Native Americans. I'm thinking tribal as in Neandrathals. But if you want to go strictly by what is considered "capitalistic" and "socialism" as they are understood today then you are still wrong. Capitalism as it is understood today can be traced back to the Middle Ages. Socialism on the other hand traces its roots to The French Revolution in 1789.

Wiki ~ History of Capitalism
Wiki ~ History of Socialism

As far as Germany, yeah ... its not socialist, but it has a lot more socialistic policies than other places which are a big reason it's successful.

Socialism is not what makes Germany successfull. Hard work does.

There has never been a socialist country, you have cooperatives, and areas that were socialistic and countries that implimented socialistic policies, but there hasn't been a socialist country.

Why not? If socialism is so great then why hasn't it been implemented? There are plenty of socialistic parties, both past and present.

Like I said ITS NOT A SOCIALIST OR A CAPITALIST IDEA .... It's just a fact on how Capitalism works.

Either way you are advocating the use of something that is used by capitalism. The very thing that you are railing against.

And yeah, I do know what socialism is, its economic democracy.

No it is not. Socialism is where no one but the government owns property and everyone works to take care of everyone else.

No ... its not by what they think they are worth, the metric I'm going by is the value they actually produce, and by that workers by definition don't get waht they are worht otherwise capitalism (profit) would'nt work.

And what value do they produce? What product does a stocker produce in order to show thier value? How do you figure this number?

Most of the time the CEO isn't that invested in the company, they have investments all over the places and are many times on boards of other companies, they have reall big golden parachutes and a lot less stake in a company than a worker who's livelyhood depends on it.

Did you really just say this? Wow. No company would allow the CEO of another company on thier board. Thats a sure way to get your ideas stolen. And those idea's make them money. A CEO may move from one company to another but they sure as hell are not on multiple boards in multiple companies.

As for not investing in the company...your kidding right? IIRC one of Hostess's CEO's invested a little over 100 million dollars in Hostess to keep it from going bankrupt. Yeah, those CEO's may have a "golden parachute" but how do you think they got those parachute's? They educated themselves, worked to make themselves worth the CEO position and negotiated themselves with the right people to get that parachute. They did not need a union to do it either.

I wasn't arguing that CEO's don't do anything btw.

You sure did imply it.

Wiat what???? So why are you not rich? Are you just lazy?

Compared to some yes. I am. To others, nope. See I'm quite comfortable with not making millions. I want enough to pay my bills and pay for a few wants. Beyond that I'm content. I don't want millions for the simple fact that its got more trouble than it is worth. See, I'm not greedy.

Also are you arguing seriously that CEOs got 300% more compensation because their job god easier????

Thier job didn't get more easier, it just got more efficient. Indeed the job actually has gotten more complicated. Mostly due to more complicated laws and a more complicated market. Something which workers don't have to worry about.

Also technology made workers more productive too ...

Yes it did. But not more complicated.

Given that I'm taking it you have no problem with dictatorships ... as long as they are benevolant.

Dictatorships don't allow for freedoms. So no, I am not for them.

Its not just Germany, its Sweden, Norway, Emilia-Romagna, and other places, the common demoniator is strong Unions and strong social democracies and cooperative ... Not some moral differences.

People are JUST AS GREEDY in Germany as they are everywhere else, the difference is the institutional frameworks, i.e. the economic system.

Wrong. Germany is less greedy than those in the US. Though admittedly its possible that thier form of socialistic capitalism could have something to do with it.

American Phsycholigical Association ~ How greed outstripped need

Arguing that its just moral differences is moronic, and akin to arguing that black people in America are more poor because they are just dumber.

I never stated that morality was the ONLY factor. But it IS a HUGE factor. So your analogy does not fit.

The difference is, I can speak and do what I want with my body without any social isntitution ... I don't own capitalist property beyond my possessions without a social instituion, without that its just a claim as valid as me claiming I'm the king of New Zealand.

It is this very social institution which allows you to speak what you want and do what you want with your body...though that last there is debateable...after all you cannot legally kill yourself or take narcotics. But either way your statement does nothing to address my statement that the owner ship of property is a protected right in the Constitution.

The difference is no one relies on my living room for lively hood, nor does my living room affect society. Giant corporations do.

Ah so you're now moving the goal posts because you've been shown that your original ideaology messed with your things. Funny that... So basically it is perfectly OK to demand things from others so long as your things are not among those demands.
 
I don't even know what that means. They have every right to demand anything they want but since they're so low skilled and easily replaced there is just no real reason an employer should cave to every demand. I don't really see what the issue is.

Which is exactly my point. One worker is replacable. All your workers organized into a union make up the majority of value added in the production process. Organizing give low skilled workers more power in negotiating wages and benefits. Why wouldn't workers unionize? You've pointed out exactly why employers don't want workers to unionize and why workers should want to unionize.
 
Which is exactly my point. One worker is replacable. All your workers organized into a union make up the majority of value added in the production process. Organizing give low skilled workers more power in negotiating wages and benefits. Why wouldn't workers unionize? You've pointed out exactly why employers don't want workers to unionize and why workers should want to unionize.

If they are so replaceable why should a CEO listen to even a union?
 
I don't even know what that means. They have every right to demand anything they want but since they're so low skilled and easily replaced there is just no real reason an employer should cave to every demand. I don't really see what the issue is.

That's exactly what Hostess did.

I suppose if I owned a large corporation and if unions were attempting to screw me - I wouldn't sell the operation, however I would shut it down for a few months and replace all of the labor with temporary workers via temp agencies after the CBA expired... Why bother with unions when labor can be contracted elsewhere?

I wouldn't allow a bunch of unskilled layman to dictate my business via threats of strike (hence a cease in operation).
 
Which is exactly my point. One worker is replacable. All your workers organized into a union make up the majority of value added in the production process. Organizing give low skilled workers more power in negotiating wages and benefits. Why wouldn't workers unionize? You've pointed out exactly why employers don't want workers to unionize and why workers should want to unionize.

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.
 
Im sure you didnt see it..but I posted two last week about pharmacuetical companies killing people by hiding the risks to life that they knew existed from the public and the doctors..no one goes to jail just fines..

and I would agree that's a problem. You play with others' lives like that, you rate the consequences. But the notion that "a couple of pharmaceutical companies" can somehow be extrapolated to all business owners or all large businesses makes no more sense than the notion that a couple of Police Officers who rape young women can be extrapolated to all or most police officers are thug pigs who can't wait to take advantage of the power society gives them to victimize the innocent.

Thats what infuriates me..big banks..big pharma big anything that get caught stealing billions or hundreds of millions from the public..no one goes to jail and they get a 100 million dollar fine for stealing a half a billion...its all bs cp..there are many components to the reasons I feel the way I do...the difference is..you only look for the good in corporations and there is good to find...I look for the bad and theres plenty of that too.

I find the bad in people - I don't expect anthropomorphic qualities out of a corporation. The only difference between an executive who steals $100 million from his company and the guy that stole the money out of my car is that one had better access.
 
Which is exactly my point. One worker is replacable. All your workers organized into a union make up the majority of value added in the production process. Organizing give low skilled workers more power in negotiating wages and benefits. Why wouldn't workers unionize? You've pointed out exactly why employers don't want workers to unionize and why workers should want to unionize.

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.
 
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?

Companies also buy machines to replace workers. They are starting to do more of that here in the central valley. Imigrant labour starting to become too expensive.
 
Companies also buy machines to replace workers. They are starting to do more of that here in the central valley. Imigrant labour starting to become too expensive.

It still takes an employee to operate and maintain a machine... I used to be a machine operator/mechanic... I was part of a union but had no desire to be... Those machines don't run on their own and anyone who knows how to run them and fix them is skilled. I was a CNC operator and out of 500 or so employees only 20 of us could do what I did (run and fix the machines) everyone else tho was pretty much replaceable.
 
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. Sonofabitch we're talking past each other here, but you need the equipment first ....

2. ok then

3. No I didn't say it was illigal, I said there were policies that prevented it, just like in many cities there are policies that prevent smoking, like high taxes on ciggaretes. Also I find it funny that the US thought Co-determination was such an awesome idea they put it in german and not the US ... thats funny, or maybe I'm right that they wanted to restrict the power of German Capitalists, they thought they were restricting the german economy.

5. Jeez, THEY HAVE MORE DECISION MAKING POWER, If you start out with 0 votes and you suddenly get 40% of the votes you suddenly have a little more power do you ... Germany doesn't have a neo-liberal policy, also Greece and Spain failed when they started financializing and de-regulating their economy, strong socail democracies are diong well.
 
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.

1. And what? It was billed that way by RUssians trying to defend theri system, and Americans trying to demonize it. Not by actual socialists.

2. Courts and law are just mediators between the gun. Also Socialism isn't always government enforced, infact most socialists don't even want to involve the government, they want a revolution where the state doesn't play the role, the workers and communities do.

The difference is socialism is democratic and cpaitalism is plutocratic, plain and simple, and yeah it is different people, just like the American revolution had different people making the rules, i.e. the people rather than the king.
 
And yet those with more responsibility gets paid more....wonder why that is...hmm...

Who makes that decision? Yeah the CEO ... also did CEOs suddenly get 300% more responsible? And workers -something%



The power is in your work. I've had plenty of jobs where all I did was talk to the correct person, ask for a raise told him/her why I thought I deserved it and got it. Not once have I needed someone else to advocate for me. So sorry but experiance and reality show that a union is not absolutely necessary. And I have NEVER been in a union. Nor would I want to be.

No. I am saying that honesty and hard work are the best policy. Stand out from other grunts and you will advance. Thats the way it has been for quite some time now.

We are talking economics, not personal experience, and the fact is OVERALL, less union strength less wages, of coarse its better to be honest and hard working, but its also better to have collective action, but I'm glad you want to just give everything up to the boss.


Thank you for admitting that mental activity is a nessecity and is used. .

Never claimed otherwise, and honestly its irrelevant


Instiutional frameworks is available to everyone...not just the rich and CEO's. You can make just as much use of it as anyone else.

As for "institutional advantages" I can only assume that you are talking about inheritance in that. But the thing is that doesn't mean crap for anyone else. Mr. Walton himself shows that. Along with lots of other billionaires.

No, its strict property laws, its corporate policy, its capital gains tax rates, its tons and tons of other institutional frameworks, its limited liability and so on, these things are for buisiness owners.




Wait....what happened to Germany? Are you no longer touting them as the best example? :shrug: Oh well. I would still bet that the US is still richer than "Emilia-Romagna"...Never even heard of that place before so obviously it isn't that famous.

No, not when you compare living standards, also jstu because you've never heard of it doesn't change anything, I'm not touting Germany as my best example I'm using it as one example. Either way, the evidence is in, in the US poverty is growing.

That's not arguing that at all. If you want an example of how morals affects how people are affected then would you say that blacks are better off economically now than they were when they were slaves? Or when they were segregated and racism was far worse than now? In both cases morality shifted. And they got better off economically than they were before.

What shifted was institutions, its not like in the 60s white people suddenly became unracist and stopped being douches, no, black people FOUGHT for institutional changes, and overtime those effect the morals.


No actually they weren't. Most people would actually turn down jobs that they thought were immoral to do. Yes there were plenty of people that were greedy. Thats just the nature of Man. But morals DO change. The very fact that slavery is outlawed in the US should be ample evidence of that.

What changed slavery was a civil war, not a sudden change of morality.


The change was not sudden by any means. If you want an example of the difference in morals then take a look at underwear commercials 50 years ago vs today's. And before you get in a tizzy that is JUST an example of the change in morality.

What changed is the religiosity, power of the church and so on. Look are you really saying that the US economy sucks because people are not moral? And in Northern europe people are simply MORE moral? And its not the institutional framework?



While tribal they were NOT a democracy. You're thinking "tribal" in the sense of the Native Americans. I'm thinking tribal as in Neandrathals. But if you want to go strictly by what is considered "capitalistic" and "socialism" as they are understood today then you are still wrong. Capitalism as it is understood today can be traced back to the Middle Ages. Socialism on the other hand traces its roots to The French Revolution in 1789.

Wiki ~ History of Capitalism
Wiki ~ History of Socialism

I'm talking tribal as in germanic tribes, native american tribes, nomad tribes and so on. Socialism goes way before the French Revolution, the French revolution just called it socialism, just like ideas of liberty go way way beyond the enlightenment. As far as the history of Capitalism, yeah it existed small scale in the middle ages, but not as a ruling system, hell socialism exists small scale now.


Socialism is not what makes Germany successfull. Hard work does.

Yeah ... Germans are just somehow genetically better than Americans ... or just have better morals .... honestly that the dumbest argument.


Why not? If socialism is so great then why hasn't it been implemented? There are plenty of socialistic parties, both past and present.

You could make that same argument about democracy 300 years ago.


Either way you are advocating the use of something that is used by capitalism. The very thing that you are railing against.

I wasn't advocating ANYTHING ... do you know the difference between positive and normative economics??? I WAS EXPLAINING HOW CAPITALISM WORKS ... pay attention.


No it is not. Socialism is where no one but the government owns property and everyone works to take care of everyone else.

Not according to 90% of socialists ... who I think would have a better say than you do.


And what value do they produce? What product does a stocker produce in order to show thier value? How do you figure this number?

The stocker produces a system in which products can be sold, I think a better way to figure out value is democratically, rather than dictatorially, i.e. not the CEO chooses (it jst so happens he's worth millions and millions).

Did you really just say this? Wow. No company would allow the CEO of another company on thier board. Thats a sure way to get your ideas stolen. And those idea's make them money. A CEO may move from one company to another but they sure as hell are not on multiple boards in multiple companies.

As for not investing in the company...your kidding right? IIRC one of Hostess's CEO's invested a little over 100 million dollars in Hostess to keep it from going bankrupt. Yeah, those CEO's may have a "golden parachute" but how do you think they got those parachute's? They educated themselves, worked to make themselves worth the CEO position and negotiated themselves with the right people to get that parachute. They did not need a union to do it either.

Except for the fact that it happens all the time. Also You're example about Hostess is just one example, most CEO's are not as invested as the workers, without the jobs the workers are in desperate poverty, the CEOs are generally fine.

They god those parachutes by extracting wealth from workers ....


Compared to some yes. I am. To others, nope. See I'm quite comfortable with not making millions. I want enough to pay my bills and pay for a few wants. Beyond that I'm content. I don't want millions for the simple fact that its got more trouble than it is worth. See, I'm not greedy.

I see, so you COULD be rich you just don't want to be.


Thier job didn't get more easier, it just got more efficient. Indeed the job actually has gotten more complicated. Mostly due to more complicated laws and a more complicated market. Something which workers don't have to worry about.

If it became more efficient for one person then its necessarily less work, also what new complicated laws? workers have to worry about changes in markets all the time because their ass is on the line, but so you honestly think that CEOs are working 300% harder than 10 years ago? Or producing 300% more value .... or in whatever way you think Capitalism is a meritocracy


Yes it did. But not more complicated.

yes it did ...


Dictatorships don't allow for freedoms. So no, I am not for them.

Seamed like you are in favor of them ... Capitalism doesn't really allow freedoms either, unless you can afford them.



Wrong. Germany is less greedy than those in the US. Though admittedly its possible that thier form of socialistic capitalism could have something to do with it.

American Phsycholigical Association ~ How greed outstripped need

Yeah institutions change attitudes.


I never stated that morality was the ONLY factor. But it IS a HUGE factor. So your analogy does not fit.

And morality is shaped by the institutional framework.


It is this very social institution which allows you to speak what you want and do what you want with your body...though that last there is debateable...after all you cannot legally kill yourself or take narcotics. But either way your statement does nothing to address my statement that the owner ship of property is a protected right in the Constitution.

Ah so you're now moving the goal posts because you've been shown that your original ideaology messed with your things. Funny that... So basically it is perfectly OK to demand things from others so long as your things are not among those demands.

The constitution is not cannon .. nor is it natural law.

Also property rights are not self autonomy rights, you don't own yourself you ARE yourself, ownership is a relation.

I'm not moving goal posts AT ALL ... you're just unable to understand arguments.
 
Why do you assume that he's not? And what exactly is "rich" to you?

He's a worker ... given you're guy's ideology, he should just start his own buisiness and get rich.
 
So just because he's a worker he's automatically poor? Again, what exactly is "rich" to you?

Never said he was poor ... I don't have a metric for what is rich, but if he doesn't consider himself rich, why not?
 
I think you're missing the part about "supply and demand."

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.

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".

So it's clear you don't work at Wal-Mart. I'll say - for the sake of the argument - that you're a lawyer. If 30 million Americans went through law school and passed the bar in just this year alone, would you expect lawyers to start making $8.00 an hour? Because if supply and demand determine the pay for a give occupation, the level of skill required to perform a given job is irrelevant. Building upon the supposition that lawyers are so abundant they only make $8.00 an hour, at that point it would be a better idea to work at Wal-Mart, as you'll make the same amount of money there but avoid the horrors of student loans.

Only supply and demand matter, so you better go run and learn the most in demand skill around - graphic design and web development! You're right, cash register jobs are meant for high school kids and college dropouts. One day, you'll only have to explain to your grandchildren why you were so lazy you couldn't even go into the field of graphic design.

What happened to "you can be anything you want to be" and what happened to going into a field that makes you happy? What about Americans like my uncle, who suffer from mental and/or physical problems that make it hard for them to find employment in many different work environments? Would you tell those people that they don't deserve to earn a comfortable living because so many other Americans can do their job? Would you tell them that they can be easily replaced?

Here's the real question- if working at Wal-Mart is so easy, why do 70% of their employees quit within a year? I think you should simply go work there for a few months and report back. The bottom line is that working there isn't easy. The turnover rate is so high because they hire people who need jobs, take advantage of them by getting them to work hours that are too long, some of them off the clock, and only have of their employees have health care. Costco covers over 95% of their employees. Anyway, my point is that your comments seem to be pointed at backing up the claim that Wal-Mart is paying and treating their employees the way they deserve to be treated. And I think Americans deserve to make a living if they're working hard and putting in long hours. It's just the right thing to do, and it's also the right thing to do to put our economy back on track.
 
Back
Top Bottom