• 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

1. No, not since I say it isn't socialism, due to the definition of socailism ... As it ALWAYS HAS BEEN. Property rights protects those with property, property rights should be and are subservient to social concerns.

2. I'm not gonna make a semantics argument about revolution. Labor is worth what it produces, also mutual exchange only happens within the context of the UN mutual property and capital disparencies, also its not about forcing the employer to do anything, its about changing the employer employee relationship, I'm supporting a system where it isn't up to a capitalist whether or not buisiness activity happens.

3. Europes problems are happening to those countries that followed a neo-liberal route and abandoned socail democracy. Socialism doesn't slide into autocratic rule, LENINISM IS NOT SOCIALISM. Capitalism being a plutocracy is by definition true, who controls the resources and capital and thus power? Those with the most money, i.e. plutocracy.

You're right the kings didn't change via-election ... so what? Neither do Capitalists.

1. No they should not. Russia and China are both defined as socialist. Sorry you dont see it that way or like it but they are. Socialist totalitarian regimes, but hey, I warned you thats where socialism goes.

2. Your entire stance is contradictary jargon. Capitalists are the ones that take the risks to make business happen. Without risk takers, there is no business. You want a capitalist system run for the benefit of the unions and workers---ok, whose money will you steal to create businesses and whats to stop government from taking it and making slaves of the workers if they feel like it? Once government can grant that sort of power, they most certainly can take away whatever they like.

3. No. They are happening because they are not financially viable social spending. You run out of other people's money. If people open a business and work at it and make it successful, they then control more money and resources. If 4 workers get together and open a business, guess what? They are then capitalists. Your stance is demonization and rationalization of taking from others to satisfy some need you seem to have to take from those you see as rich.

From where this conversation is going you seem to be one of those dreamer socialists that just think government can start confiscating and keep the businesses running. Government doesnt run much of anything very well for very long.

Capitalists cant forcibly take anything from someone else, they have to earn it. They are not elected officials, they are not Kings, they earned their command of resources and money--they did not forcibly take it. You seem to see business owners as evil entities that never earn anything. They arent angels but if there is no incentive to make a business successful there wont be any businesses to confiscate anything from.
 
1. There has never BEEN a socialist country, but countries that have implimented socailistic reforms have done better than countries that havn't, including in the first world, like Northern Europe vrs the US.


Not even close....So the answer is NONE....I thought so.

2. That's a strawman, I'm not arguing for Leninism ... Capitalism is enforced by a gun, thats how Capitalist property laws are made, and if you look at the history of Capitalism, it was accomplished through the barrel of a gun.


Define Socialism for me.
 
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?

Nobody told you otherwise but you saw another cheap opportunity to continue your obsessive quest because you are frustrated you could not get me infracted with your previous petty complaints. :roll:

Of course I expect you to criticize me --- its what you have done repeatedly in the past even when you have to make it up as you go along. So this is no surprise.:roll:
 
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.

If a store like walmart increases to 12 per hour across the board it would cost Wal-Mart 2.3 billion. That's 1% of company sells of 305 billion (2011).

As for shutting down and moving their domestic operations...that's not possible when we're talking the retail and service industry.

Even if 100% of the cost of a wage increase was passed to consumers (which it most likely wouldn't) then the average shopper would pay 12.50 more a year in their shopping bill.

Not exactly the doom and gloom scenario's or job killing numbers the Wall St Op-Ed page would like you to think.
 
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.

I don't see a retail boom. In fact what I'm stating is exactly what you're talking about. The rising service sector is a long term trend where other sectors have been decreasing and service has increased.
service_graph-2.jpg

It's not just this economy, it's a long term trend for US employment and the for a very large portion of US citizens that will be their job for as long as they live.
 
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.

It's semi-relational not as ironclad as you state. A 1 dollar an hour increase in the wage for a Wal-Mart employee does not translate to a 1 dollar increase for a everyone higher on the pay scale.
 
It's semi-relational not as ironclad as you state. A 1 dollar an hour increase in the wage for a Wal-Mart employee does not translate to a 1 dollar increase for a everyone higher on the pay scale.

I somewhat agree, but we are talking about two completely different things. I am refering to the nation's minimum wage standard, while I assume that you are refering to one company's entry level wages. But even in that context, if a two year Walmart veteran checker is now getting starting (minmum?) wage + $1/hour, it would seem "unfair" for them not to get that extra $1/hour, as well, since they now have no salary benefit for their added 2 years of experience.
 
I somewhat agree, but we are talking about two completely different things. I am refering to the nation's minimum wage standard, while I assume that you are refering to one company's entry level wages. But even in that context, if a two year Walmart veteran checker is now getting starting (minmum?) wage + $1/hour, it would seem "unfair" for them not to get that extra $1/hour, as well, since they now have no salary benefit for their added 2 years of experience.

Sure, that's a possibility so even throughout walmart wages went up 1 dollar an hour for every employee that wouldn't result in inflation. Even if all salaries for baseline employees increases that wouldn't result in 1 for 1 inflation. It would result in a net benefit for lower paid employees.

Let's be honest...with food stamps and other programs we are subsidizing their salaries. I stated it in another post. I don't really shop at Wal Mart but my taxes sure as hell subsidize the low prices. If someone is bumped up say over 200% of the poverty line that means less foodstamps and less other governmental programs that they receive.

We are just moving cost around here not really coming up with new costs. obamacare and Wal-mart now having to provide health insurance is just less individuals depending on Medicaid for themselves and their children. Higher wages is just less individuals depending on food stamps or housing allowance.
 
If a store like walmart increases to 12 per hour across the board it would cost Wal-Mart 2.3 billion. That's 1% of company sells of 305 billion (2011).

As for shutting down and moving their domestic operations...that's not possible when we're talking the retail and service industry.

Even if 100% of the cost of a wage increase was passed to consumers (which it most likely wouldn't) then the average shopper would pay 12.50 more a year in their shopping bill.

Not exactly the doom and gloom scenario's or job killing numbers the Wall St Op-Ed page would like you to think.

Their sales (gross income) has been about $447 billion in 2012 but that is before they pay anything.

Gross income isn't all that relevant in this conversation. It is net income that matters.
 
Sure, that's a possibility so even throughout walmart wages went up 1 dollar an hour for every employee that wouldn't result in inflation. Even if all salaries for baseline employees increases that wouldn't result in 1 for 1 inflation. It would result in a net benefit for lower paid employees.

Let's be honest...with food stamps and other programs we are subsidizing their salaries. I stated it in another post. I don't really shop at Wal Mart but my taxes sure as hell subsidize the low prices. If someone is bumped up say over 200% of the poverty line that means less foodstamps and less other governmental programs that they receive.

We are just moving cost around here not really coming up with new costs. obamacare and Wal-mart now having to provide health insurance is just less individuals depending on Medicaid for themselves and their children. Higher wages is just less individuals depending on food stamps or housing allowance.

That still makes no sense, since all other McJob (minimum wage) workers will still mooch off of taxpayer subsidies even if Walmart raised their pay/prices. The only way to make all of the federal "poor" subsidies go away is to raise the minimum wage above the "poverty" wage, which would definitely cause inflation (and massive unemployment). Rinse, and repeat...
 
Their sales (gross income) has been about $447 billion in 2012 but that is before they pay anything.

Gross income isn't all that relevant in this conversation. It is net income that matters.

We're discussing the wage increase on the cost to consumers here so we're assuming that profit remains equal.
If the full brunt of a wage increase (which isn't likely) is a hit to consumers the price increase will equal like 40 cents an average shoppers visit to Wal-Mart.
 
That still makes no sense, since all other McJob (minimum wage) workers will still mooch off of taxpayer subsidies even if Walmart raised their pay/prices. The only way to make all of the federal "poor" subsidies go away is to raise the minimum wage above the "poverty" wage, which would definitely cause inflation (and massive unemployment). Rinse, and repeat...

Wal-Mart is pretty much the baseline. I see McDonalds and other jobs paying more than Wal-Mart. In fact I worked at a grocery store while in college and I was paid 13 bucks an hour and that was like 7 years ago.
 
We're discussing the wage increase on the cost to consumers here so we're assuming that profit remains equal.
If the full brunt of a wage increase (which isn't likely) is a hit to consumers the price increase will equal like 40 cents an average shoppers visit to Wal-Mart.


Well, whether or not your figure of 40 cents is true or not, how utterly magnanimous of you to spend other peoples money for them.
 
Well, whether or not your figure of 40 cents is true or not, how utterly magnanimous of you to spend other peoples money for them.

Actually my viewpoint from the get go has been for Wal-Mart employees to bargain for their salaries. That was stated to provide a marker for the impact of higher wages on consumers.
 
Actually my viewpoint from the get go has been for Wal-Mart employees to bargain for their salaries. That was stated to provide a marker for the impact of higher wages on consumers.

Shouldn't that be the employees choice? I mean the way it stands now from what I can see is just the UFCW trying to muscle their way in.
 
Shouldn't that be the employees choice? I mean the way it stands now from what I can see is just the UFCW trying to muscle their way in.

Yes...it should definately be their choice.

Wal-Mart has a pretty long history of fighting union effort. I agree though...they should be able to organize and discuss organizing without any sort of retribution by their employer. If that's the case and they would prefer not to unionize then so be it.
 
Sure, that's a possibility so even throughout walmart wages went up 1 dollar an hour for every employee that wouldn't result in inflation. Even if all salaries for baseline employees increases that wouldn't result in 1 for 1 inflation. It would result in a net benefit for lower paid employees.

Let's be honest...with food stamps and other programs we are subsidizing their salaries. I stated it in another post. I don't really shop at Wal Mart but my taxes sure as hell subsidize the low prices. If someone is bumped up say over 200% of the poverty line that means less foodstamps and less other governmental programs that they receive.

We are just moving cost around here not really coming up with new costs. obamacare and Wal-mart now having to provide health insurance is just less individuals depending on Medicaid for themselves and their children. Higher wages is just less individuals depending on food stamps or housing allowance.

Lets be honest, not all people earning a minimum wage or a few bucks more are receiving a government subsidy. They are entry level people many still living at home, Walmart as an example hires the elderly who no one else would hire and many are working at Walmart to subsidize their SS check. Walmart hires the disadvantaged, sure they are getting a subsidy but by working at Walmart they are living a little better. So you are already subsidizing some even if they work at Walmart or someplace else. You have people working at Walmart that are people needing a second income and Walmart is right down the street and it's all they need to subsidize the other income they make to have a little better life.
 
Lets be honest, not all people earning a minimum wage or a few bucks more are receiving a government subsidy. They are entry level people many still living at home, Walmart as an example hires the elderly who no one else would hire and many are working at Walmart to subsidize their SS check. Walmart hires the disadvantaged, sure they are getting a subsidy but by working at Walmart they are living a little better. So you are already subsidizing some even if they work at Walmart or someplace else. You have people working at Walmart that are people needing a second income and Walmart is right down the street and it's all they need to subsidize the other income they make to have a little better life.

Sure you are right. Not everyone is on assistance but working at Wal-mart 30 hours or 40 hours a week means you're qualified for assistance.

I'm not saying Wal-Mart is the great Satan. I'm saying that workers able to bargain for their salaries is a good thing and I don't understand how individuals are so anti-union.
 
Sure you are right. Not everyone is on assistance but working at Wal-mart 30 hours or 40 hours a week means you're qualified for assistance.

I'm not saying Wal-Mart is the great Satan. I'm saying that workers able to bargain for their salaries is a good thing and I don't understand how individuals are so anti-union.

I'm only pro union, in limited circumstances.
A good example would be a mining town, with only company stores.

With that said, there isn't much reason to have unions for most industries, anymore.
 
Sure you are right. Not everyone is on assistance but working at Wal-mart 30 hours or 40 hours a week means you're qualified for assistance.

I'm not saying Wal-Mart is the great Satan. I'm saying that workers able to bargain for their salaries is a good thing and I don't understand how individuals are so anti-union.

Their are many reasons for every employer including government to be anti-union. Hostess is just one of thousands of reasons, to hate unions.
 
yes ... why is that? Becaue they stopped collecting taxes and they handed over their finances to goldman sachs.

Greece has been running 3%+ budget deficits since 1981.

Greece only handed things over to Goldman Sachs to COVER UP the fact that their level of spending had been ridiculous for a long period of time.
 
If a store like walmart increases to 12 per hour across the board it would cost Wal-Mart 2.3 billion. That's 1% of company sells of 305 billion (2011).

As for shutting down and moving their domestic operations...that's not possible when we're talking the retail and service industry.

Even if 100% of the cost of a wage increase was passed to consumers (which it most likely wouldn't) then the average shopper would pay 12.50 more a year in their shopping bill.

Not exactly the doom and gloom scenario's or job killing numbers the Wall St Op-Ed page would like you to think.
Have you ever taken Business 101?
Maybe Walmart should start overpaying for everything it purchases. Let's see how long it remains Walmart.
 
Wal-Mart is pretty much the baseline. I see McDonalds and other jobs paying more than Wal-Mart. In fact I worked at a grocery store while in college and I was paid 13 bucks an hour and that was like 7 years ago.

Then why would anyone work at Walmart?.....
Walmart only pays enough to ensure the positions it needs filled.... are filled. And it really shouldn't pay more. Don't like your pay? Get a promotion, or find a job that pays (even slightly) more.
 
Actually my viewpoint from the get go has been for Wal-Mart employees to bargain for their salaries. That was stated to provide a marker for the impact of higher wages on consumers.
That can lead to racial and gender differences in pay.
 
Back
Top Bottom