• 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

Oh so its their own fault then

Mostly, yes. That is not to say that being poor (or rich), or not being as rich (or poor) as another, is a permanent condition - life is subject to change. As ones skills, ideas and life experiences improve (or deteriorate) so may their lot in life. Luck is what we call the situation where opportunity meets preparedness; opportunity is largely beyond our control as it often depends on outside circumstances, however preparedness is largely up to us. :)
 
The goods/services that they provide are not in high demand. :)

I don't understand why people don't understand this.

Honestly I think they do it just happens to be an inconvenience to their argument, hence it is ignored. The fact that they ignore it shows how flawed their argument really is, hence their progressive philosophy.

Look, anyone can work at Walmart...... Hell, in a couple of hours I'm about to replace a door - can those who work at Walmart do that? No they cant - at least 95% of them cant. However the guy can replace the door can work at Walmart.
 
I don't understand why people don't understand this.

Honestly I think they do it just happens to be an inconvenience to their argument, hence it is ignored. The fact that they ignore it shows how flawed their argument really is, hence their progressive philosophy.

Look, anyone can work at Walmart...... Hell, in a couple of hours I'm about to replace a door - can those who work at Walmart do that? No they cant - at least 95% of them cant. However the guy can replace the door can work at Walmart.

That is true. However most Walmart workers can be trained to replace a door. Is it not odd that most public school educations "prepare" one for a Walmart job (or a McJob) but not to replace a door, balance a checkbook, prepare a personal budget or apply for a better job?
 
Last edited:
That is true. However most Walmart workers can be trained to replace a door. Is it not odd that most public school educations "prepare" one for a Walmart job (or a McJob) but not to replace a door, balance a checkbook, prepare a personal budget or apply for a better job.

Sounds like the Home Economics class needs more of this and less of how to make Texas Sheet Cake.
 
That is true. However most Walmart workers can be trained to replace a door. Is it not odd that most public school educations "prepare" one for a Walmart job (or a McJob) but not to replace a door, balance a checkbook, prepare a personal budget or apply for a better job?

Sure, many people can learn how to replace a door and install it, however most have no desire to learn that trade - they want to bitch about their job stocking shelves because they feel $8.50 an hour is "unfair."

If they want more goddamn money they can go learn something that will pay them more money and if they're too stupid to realize that then no - they're too stupid to learn how to put in a door.
 
Sure, many people can learn how to replace a door and install it, however most have no desire to learn that trade - they want to bitch about their job stocking shelves because they feel $8.50 an hour is "unfair."

If they want more goddamn money they can go learn something that will pay them more money and if they're too stupid to realize that then no - they're too stupid to learn how to put in a door.

Or they can elect politicians that give them (income redistribution) subidies to make that McJob provide them a "living wage" or perhaps unionize and demand that more pay/benefits be awarded for the same work. Yes they can!
 
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.

Well a lot of these companie we're discussing are retail companies. They only face competition from other domestic retailers. If wage rates for sandwhich makers and stockers went up sure we'd face slightly higher costs at the cash register but millions of Americans would be closer to making living wages.

I agree...in general I prefer the market to determine values. In wages not so much. It's one thing to allow the price of steel to fluctuate on markets it's another to allow unskilled labor wages to hit rock bottom.
 
Oh so its their own fault then

To an extent, absolutely. In a truly competitive market, there will winners and losers. Whether you win or lose is entirely upon your shoulders and how you prepare to meet the challenges.

Today, in the US, there are two factions that are preventing an open competitive market. Unions and their supporters who lobby for laws to restrict the introduction of new technologies to the market in the name of job security. This is very noticeable in the steel industry. The other faction attempts to protect current market players and works to suppress competition arising that would displace current companies, Corporate Protectionism. This is very evident in the Oil and Coal industries, among others. Although these two factions' approach motivations are different, they compliment each other.

Whether someone rises and gains wealth from the current system is almost entirely based upon their own choices, there is a limited number that can rise. Changing the system could allow others to rise and make more from their labors/ideas than they can in the current systems. The current system only limits how much wealth they can generate from their ideas, however, they will make some wealth even in the current system if they create ideas and new products.

While the current system may, in some ways, limit the amount of wealth an individual might gain, it does not prevent them from exercising their own initiative to rise. The only true limit upon any given individual, is the individual.
 
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.

No...I agree....unskilled labor should not be what any workers strives for. We're not going to return to the glory days of the 1950's when you could graduated from high school and get employed at a factory for a great salary.

The fact is though.....retail and service are increasing the % of individual's they hire in this country. There's not demand for lawyers/doctors/accountant/brokers/programmers etc to create enough good middle class jobs. Service industry and retail either can continue not to pay well...in which case we continue to see the trends we do now with a large number of Americans fall behind the curve and fall into poverty, or there can at least be some wage increases.
 
To an extent, absolutely. In a truly competitive market, there will winners and losers. Whether you win or lose is entirely upon your shoulders and how you prepare to meet the challenges.

Today, in the US, there are two factions that are preventing an open competitive market. Unions and their supporters who lobby for laws to restrict the introduction of new technologies to the market in the name of job security. This is very noticeable in the steel industry. The other faction attempts to protect current market players and works to suppress competition arising that would displace current companies, Corporate Protectionism. This is very evident in the Oil and Coal industries, among others. Although these two factions' approach motivations are different, they compliment each other.

Whether someone rises and gains wealth from the current system is almost entirely based upon their own choices, there is a limited number that can rise. Changing the system could allow others to rise and make more from their labors/ideas than they can in the current systems. The current system only limits how much wealth they can generate from their ideas, however, they will make some wealth even in the current system if they create ideas and new products.

While the current system may, in some ways, limit the amount of wealth an individual might gain, it does not prevent them from exercising their own initiative to rise. The only true limit upon any given individual, is the individual.

Even without government intervention you'll have non competative markets, and even with fully competative markets you'll have internal contradictions and externalities and tons of inconsistancies and power discrepancies.

Neo-classical theory never takes into account market discrepencies in power.

Also in the US you have a much worse class mobility and opportunities than in social democratic countries ... so there is something different there.

In the system we have no the ones that get rich are not the ones that contribute most to society, they are the ones that infact do activity that HURTS society.
 
Well a lot of these companie we're discussing are retail companies. They only face competition from other domestic retailers. If wage rates for sandwhich makers and stockers went up sure we'd face slightly higher costs at the cash register but millions of Americans would be closer to making living wages.

I agree...in general I prefer the market to determine values. In wages not so much. It's one thing to allow the price of steel to fluctuate on markets it's another to allow unskilled labor wages to hit rock bottom.

But you ignore the inflation factor, the biggest "tax" of all upon the low wage worker. Higher skilled workers are also paid based somewhat on that "minimum" wage (M) such as M + x, or M * x. If the wages for unskilled/semi-skilled are raised then not only what they produce goes up in cost, but all other wages for providing goods/services will as well - a vicious cycle of inflation would follow.
 
No...I agree....unskilled labor should not be what any workers strives for. We're not going to return to the glory days of the 1950's when you could graduated from high school and get employed at a factory for a great salary.

The fact is though.....retail and service are increasing the % of individual's they hire in this country. There's not demand for lawyers/doctors/accountant/brokers/programmers etc to create enough good middle class jobs. Service industry and retail either can continue not to pay well...in which case we continue to see the trends we do now with a large number of Americans fall behind the curve and fall into poverty, or there can at least be some wage increases.

So you see a retail boom?

Well in order for that to occur we need jobs outside of retail, which are the jobs that could potentially facilitate a "retail boom."

People need jobs, and the only way people can create a "retail boom" is if they have money to spend... Right now the job market is "depressed" to say the least...

IMO, the only reason why - otherwise skilled individuals - are taking retail jobs is because they have no choice, they have to do something to put food on the table.

So with that said, there is no "retail boom" there is a bunch of people willing to do anything - even outside of their trade/skill - to put food on the table.

Hell, one of my cousins graduated with a degree in physics from MIT, you know what he does? he creates pop-up ads. The kid could work for NASA, yet he is stuck taking a remedial job...

IMO, in this economy people will take what they can get just so they can eat.

Retail is not a career, but where the hell else are these people supposed to work?

This economic **** is some kinda trap..... Crying over Walmart salaries will only make the problem worse.
 
Or they can elect politicians that give them (income redistribution) subidies to make that McJob provide them a "living wage" or perhaps unionize and demand that more pay/benefits be awarded for the same work. Yes they can!

And that is exactly what has happened in this last election. This country has flipped, from one of self-resilience and responsibility, to a majority of government reliance.
 
And that is exactly what has happened in this last election. This country has flipped, from one of self-resilience and responsibility, to a majority of government reliance.

Yep. The "fundamental transformation" of the USA is well underway. The current debate seems not to be about whether unskilled/semi-skilled workers should get only the minimum wage but who should ensure that they get more.
 
And that is exactly what has happened in this last election.

No, what happened this election is the GOP put up a weak candidate like the Dems did in 2004. Sorry, but claiming the majority of voters are on government reliance is simply not true.
 
Or they can elect politicians that give them (income redistribution) subidies to make that McJob provide them a "living wage" or perhaps unionize and demand that more pay/benefits be awarded for the same work. Yes they can!

Don't give them any ideas... hahaha.
 
No, what happened this election is the GOP put up a weak candidate like the Dems did in 2004. Sorry, but claiming the majority of voters are on government reliance is simply not true.

The hell it's not, we are now an official "Welfare State" and worse we're headed to the likes of Greece where the people scream in the streets "I demand my entitlements".

Read my signature below, on liberals.
 
Even without government intervention you'll have non competative markets, and even with fully competative markets you'll have internal contradictions and externalities and tons of inconsistancies and power discrepancies.

Neo-classical theory never takes into account market discrepencies in power.

Also in the US you have a much worse class mobility and opportunities than in social democratic countries ... so there is something different there.

In the system we have no the ones that get rich are not the ones that contribute most to society, they are the ones that infact do activity that HURTS society.

Power discrepancies will always exist. Sure, socialist theory attempts to eliminate them, but that is idealistic thinking and as mankind is not idealistic, it cannot happen. Human nature is for us to be competitive, we will always be competitive and since socialist ideals eliminate competitiveness, they go against basic human nature.

What evidence do you have to present that supports your statements about class mobility and opportunities?

How do the rich hurt society? If they kept all their wealth in liquid assets, then yes, it would be hurtful, but since they invest in capital assets which creates and upholds companies, which employee society, how is that hurtful?
 
Haymarket, you need to understand the difference between going after a bad post and going after you. I went after what you said. I made no comment about you. I will not be baited by you. I will call you out for remarks that are bad arguments. Want that to stop? Stop making bad arguments.

yeah.... sure .... whatever ..... just like the other posts in the other threads o0n other topics which you managed to do the same thing.

Nobody is baiting you. Your obsessive need to pretend that you have some mandate to "call me out" is rather silly. And more importantly, it does NOTHING to add to debate or intelligent discussion. It only appears to be personal and petty.
 
The hell it's not, we are now an official "Welfare State" and worse we're headed to the likes of Greece where the people scream in the streets "I demand my entitlements".

Read my signature below, on liberals.

Liberals, progressives, socialist and other leftist simply refuse to understand that their "compassionate" ideals mean saving one at the cost of hundreds.
 
Liberals, progressives, socialist and other leftist simply refuse to understand that their "compassionate" ideals mean saving one at the cost of hundreds.

I think it's more selfish than that: "Saving me at a cost to hundreds of you is quite acceptable."
 
there is a limited number that can rise. .

Yes, but we're not at that limit. To reach that limit everyone would basically need to be engaging the market at the highest level of effort or we'd need to hit a resource limitation or a combination. Since most people choose not to prioritize engaging the market fully (free time, family, hobbies, relationships, these things are near-priceless for many of us), and we're not out of resources, there is an enormous amount of slack in the system. As a direct result of that slack, if someone has the basic tools and wants to go out and increase wealth beyond that average, they have a wide open field to claim. So you get higher wealth disaprity. If everyone was trying to stake their claim, it would be a lot more spread out, you wouldn't have such a disparity. It would look a lot more like socialist-dream-system. People simply do not want that though, they want to work as little as possible, for a comfortable life where they can spend most of their time pursuing other interests.

If everyone around you is capable, hard working, smart, professional, ambitous, creative, etc., there is not going to be a large disaparity on average, in income. They aren't stupid, they know they can do each others job, they don't tolerate such unfairness. Organizations like that are often a lot more flat, and higher on average salary, and CEOs who come up through the ranks and only make 5-10x salary rather than 100x, or 1000x. It's just that so many of us, as Harry G. points out, simply do not want to spend our short lives on this planet getting rich. This necessarily means that those who DO want to get rich, and the efforts they put out, are in low supply. There is more for them to go out and earn, because so many of us leave it unclaimed on the table.
 
yeah.... sure .... whatever ..... just like the other posts in the other threads o0n other topics which you managed to do the same thing.

Nobody is baiting you. Your obsessive need to pretend that you have some mandate to "call me out" is rather silly. And more importantly, it does NOTHING to add to debate or intelligent discussion. It only appears to be personal and petty.

I can post whatever the **** I want to within the rules of the forum. If you post stupid crap, you can expect someone to take you to task for that bad posting.

Tell me something, if you make a terrible argument that contributes nothing to conversation, how are you adding to debate or intelligent discussion?
 
Well a lot of these companie we're discussing are retail companies. They only face competition from other domestic retailers. If wage rates for sandwhich makers and stockers went up sure we'd face slightly higher costs at the cash register but millions of Americans would be closer to making living wages.

I agree...in general I prefer the market to determine values. In wages not so much. It's one thing to allow the price of steel to fluctuate on markets it's another to allow unskilled labor wages to hit rock bottom.

Most big box retail companies operate on very narrow profit margins and make their money from having thousands of stores. These companies can't raise wages without significant cost increases, layoffs, store closures, and reduced hours. At some point the increase in costs make it completely unprofitable to operate a company in the United States, businesses shut their domestic operations, and move to another country.

A sandwich maker lucky enough to keep his job after wide eyed college students "help" him won't be any closer to living a better life because of the increased costs at the register. It will just mean the guy who worked next to him is fired while prices go up on everyone else. We go through this literally every single time wide eyed college students think they're the first people to suggest an increase in minimum wage.
 
Back
Top Bottom