• 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

and they have their place today....

Their place trying to remain relevant with bullying and govt mandates that impose their existance on States hardest hit by liberal policies.

They associate with the party who's engineering their demise.

If Unions want to survive in this world wide labor market they should turn their attentions and support to the party that lays out a plan for growth.

Not one who taxes and spends its way into bankruptcy.
 
Their place trying to remain relevant with bullying and govt mandates that impose their existance on States hardest hit by liberal policies.

They associate with the party who's engineering their demise.

If Unions want to survive in this world wide labor market they should turn their attentions and support to the party that lays out a plan for growth.

Not one who taxes and spends its way into bankruptcy.
ok, now that your done with the conservative spiel......
 
I think that is inaccurate. I was just looking at a chart in class (one I sit in on to help students with note taking and reading) showing that real wages have gone down significantly (while CEO salaries have grow from 20X worker salaries to some 671 X more).
I think there is a difference between wages and what you refer to as 'real wages.' Real wages are what you earn once inflation is factored in. Inflation is the result of government action, not capitalism. That the capitalist system isnt keeping up with the state induced inflation rate should be laid at the feet of political and monetary policy makers, not employers. I could, for example, give you a $1 per hour raise each year. That would be wage growth. If inflation were such that you needed a raise of $1.05 per year just to keep pace with rising prices, you would have a negative "real wage" growth. But again, that is not my fault, I am paying you more, deficits and money printing have just made what I pay you worth less.
 
the shareholders own the business, the CEO reports to the board of directors, the board of directors give the CEO growth and profit targets and reward him if he meets or exceeds them, because when that happens the stock value goes up and the shareholders make money. most CEOs are also shareholders, so they do have a stake in the business.

you really have no idea how corporations work, do you?

I don't think you understand what I am saying. I know how a corporation works in theory. The CEO shouldn't be paid in salary and bonuses, he should strictly own a portion of the business and realize the profits and losses. Perhaps, all senior executives should be organized like this, they should not represent the board of directors, they should BE the board of directors. Make it so you can't pay executives of a corporation a salary/bonus/stock package; and you will see those management positions being filled by people who strictly want the business to succeed because of their personal stake in the business.
 
Unions still have there place int he workplace and still evolve there demands and are still very much needed, and workers still choose to be in unions, may be a smaller amount but they sill are very relevant in the system today.

Sure, and they are all out buying Twinkies at the moment.
 
disagree, that machine produces no product, nor does it 'provide' a service, it allows the company to either not hire someone to man that aisle, or not schedule someone to run it. hence, costing someone a job or income.

Of course it provides a service, it allows you to pay for the goods that you have selected. It "costs the economy jobs" in the same way that a plow does.
 
Yes, that is how the power is used. But that does not address if we really want to lower our standard of living. Do we really want to be closer to a third world country?

How, exactly, are we lowering our standard of living by increasing the number of people who are able to get employment and escape poverty?
 
Its also odd how some don't see the Union bosses fault in what happened with Hostess.

Never met a union boss. Instead, I see high CEO salaries and worker pay being stagnet or decreasing. Benefits decreasing. Not sure how you scape out an argument that unions are destorying things under these conditions.
 
If people were really upset with the ethics of Walmart then they wouldn't be around. It's a sad fact but Walmart continues to grow and prosper because people REALLY care about the low prices and convenience and not so much about Mary, the single mother of two, who makes 8 bucks an hour stocking the shelves. If people really gave a damn they wouldn't shop there, yet they do, despite the protests, in DROVES. It's really just a microcosm of the country as a whole. Everyone loves to talk about the need for fiscal sanity but let someone dare to cut your favorite government program and we all scream bloody murder.

We all get what we deserve and right now we have a government hell bent on spending us into oblivion and corporations like Walmart who are hell bent on paying its employees next to nothing. How does it come to this? Simple. We continue to vote for it and we continue to shop there.
 
How, exactly, are we lowering our standard of living by increasing the number of people who are able to get employment and escape poverty?

You mistake a job as escaping poverty. Most of the poor work.
 
I think there is a difference between wages and what you refer to as 'real wages.' Real wages are what you earn once inflation is factored in. Inflation is the result of government action, not capitalism. That the capitalist system isnt keeping up with the state induced inflation rate should be laid at the feet of political and monetary policy makers, not employers. I could, for example, give you a $1 per hour raise each year. That would be wage growth. If inflation were such that you needed a raise of $1.05 per year just to keep pace with rising prices, you would have a negative "real wage" growth. But again, that is not my fault, I am paying you more, deficits and money printing have just made what I pay you worth less.

And yet, somehow CEOs are not only keeping pace, but exceeding the pace by a huge margin.
 
Of course it provides a service, it allows you to pay for the goods that you have selected. It "costs the economy jobs" in the same way that a plow does.
no, my friend, it doesnt.
 
Bad management, unions have been losing membership for decades, I call that bad management of unions.

Tie the golden parachute to results, I like that idea of ting pay to results, such as teachers and any worker for that matter. And further being able to fire a bad teacher. Interesting how you want to hold CEO's feet to the fire, but a bad sucking union teacher can't be fired. Even teachers who are molesters can't be fired.

Well, they've had some help. Laws have made it harder for them and easier for business to keep them out. And frankly, the "BAD" teacher thing is over played. There are very few "BAD" trachers. And they can be fired. While it is more difficult in some places than others, including different union schools, the fact remains they can be fired, and are fired. That you take such a small percentage and try to make it your lynchpin argument says something about the strength, or lack there of, of your position. ;)
 
Right you are. Our entitlement programs are designed to help exactly these people. To say that WalMart is subsidized by our entitlement programs, one must have to believe that every restaurant, every fast-food outlet, every gas station, every convenience store, every other retail store in the United States, every bowling alley, every skating rink, every (I think you get picture) are also subsidized by our entitlement programs. That would be true. And that's not a bad thing. That's a boogey-man waiting to pounce. That's the way the system was set up.

That is a bad thing, IMHO, because people are getting very, very used to paying no FIT and receiving gov't subsidies simply to live "normally". That is the voting block that will always vote "D". After PPACA gives these folks "average" medical care insurance for 2% of their meager salaries they will be hooked for life. Can you imagine the taxpayer subisidy needed to give all minimum wage folks (those making $16K/year) PPACA insurance for all premium amounts over $320/year? If you think we have entitlement deficit problems now, just wait until the year 2020. USA, USA, USA...
 
And yet, somehow CEOs are not only keeping pace, but exceeding the pace by a huge margin.
Well, generally, the rich are rich because they know how to make money. But the focus should not be on how well the rich are doing, but why the middle class is struggling. They are not struggling because the rich are succeeding. They are struggling because they are struggling to keep up with the inflation that the government tells us really isnt there. The biggest blow to the middle class has come with the skyrocketing cost of energy.
 
no, my friend, it doesnt.

:shrug: I don't know what to tell you except that you are engaging in a delusion, old friend. You are measuring that which is seen without taking into account that which is unseen. Government hiked up the price that Wal Mart paid for labor, and because labor exists on a supply/demand curve, demand then decreased. Unemployment started rising after the minimum wage increase, not after the market crash.
 
And yet, somehow CEOs are not only keeping pace, but exceeding the pace by a huge margin.

That is correct. As the global economy integrates and we enter the information age, intellectual labor is becoming increasingly valuable.
 
Its also odd how some don't see the Union bosses fault in what happened with Hostess.

And what is the salary of that Union boss who doesn't even do as much as a CEO? How many of them are Millionaires off the dues paid by "low" paid workers?

I guess to a Union guy, the fact that drivers couldn't unload their own trucks and that the company couldn't ship other goods on trucks delivering bread wasn't costing the company a bundle in extra pay and benefits for unneeded services.

Most of the bitching and complaining about Walmarts pay has come since they expanded into traditional union markets without throwing a few crumbs to the unions. Of course, they don't because they don't want to go the way of Hostess, since unlike some other companies, they cannot outsource. Walmarts pay scale is not that bad in right-to-work, low cost of living states but when compared to union shops, it sucks bigtime. So who is really wrong, the Unions demanding more money and benefits than the labor market warrants or Walmart attempting to stay in business? I guess the answer lies in who's point of view you are using.
 
IN any case, others do and fight to limit or end the idea of a minimum wage.
Ending minimum wage would effect very few people, since almost no one makes it. WalMart for all the abuse it takes from the left starts people at nearly $1 above minimum wage as does nearly everyone else.
 
Well, generally, the rich are rich because they know how to make money. But the focus should not be on how well the rich are doing, but why the middle class is struggling. They are not struggling because the rich are succeeding. They are struggling because they are struggling to keep up with the inflation that the government tells us really isnt there. The biggest blow to the middle class has come with the skyrocketing cost of energy.

Well, they are actually. The middle class once were largely union, getting good wages and companies had a contract of sorts with them to boith give and take. Now, sure, there are other factors. Energy is certainly a concern, but I wouldn't but it up as the biggest. Destruction of the contact, decreasing union influence, outsourcing and the McDonaldization of American, all with the help of government working in concert with industry, as being more problematic.
 
That's always possible. But I'd start by getting CEO pay back where it used to be. But the point is, a company that can pay as much as they do to CEOs, should a least hold them responsible for making sure the company thrives.

He was held responsible though.

He was brought in to guide a struggling company though bankruptcy and did a very good job. The company was on the verge of coming out of bankruptcy completely intact and in a better position to stay competitive in the future until one of the unions decided they were better off losing several thousand jobs at Hostess than set a precedent for wage reduction.

I get that the polarized nature of this country means you're obligated to openly abhor Hostess' CEO but he did his job very well.
 
That is correct. As the global economy integrates and we enter the information age, intellectual labor is becoming increasingly valuable.

No, that doesn't explain it. Not remotely. You have to work hard to accept that. I'm impressed.
 
He was held responsible though.

He was brought in to guide a struggling company though bankruptcy and did a very good job. The company was on the verge of coming out of bankruptcy completely intact and in a better position to stay competitive in the future until one of the unions decided they were better off losing several thousand jobs at Hostess than set a precedent for wage reduction.

I get that the polarized nature of this country means you're obligated to openly abhor Hostess' CEO but he did his job very well.

As busness likes to say, "Bottomline" he failed.
 
I get that the polarized nature of this country means you're obligated to openly abhor Hostess' CEO but he did his job very well.

No, but it means there is another view. Workers are demonized constantly. Too sledom to we place any balme on management. There was likely a way out of this, as there often is. But whenever you make it us against them, it is seldom productive. There are bsuiness who see employees as an asset, and avoid this type of confrontation and work with employees to make arrangements, and do it without the excessive CEO salaries.
 
Back
Top Bottom