• 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

Not much of a negotiating stance in the case of walmart, unless you just happen to be in a really strange and rare place, the negotiations are simple.

Walmart -- this is what we pay for this job

Potential employee -- your pay is too low and there are no benefits

Walmart -- then seek a job elsewhere and let one of the 18+ other people looking for a job in. Thanks for stopping by.

Pretty easy in this case because it is unskilled labor and the demand for jobs is much, much higher than the number of jobs available. Actually, I think is pretty nice of Walmart to offer above minimum wage, especially in a market where they probably wouldn't have to.
There's always some degree of wiggle-room, but unskilled labor isn't supposed to be a career.
 
Chances are, if you can't go somewhere else for a better paying job then you're not worth more.

With national unemployment being high, why should they pay me more when they can hire someone else to do it for less? Maybe I should just be thankful I have a job and count my blessings. If I want a raise then I need to show a reason for why I deserve it, but even then there's a cap to how much that job is worth.
 
No apparently you arent calling people thugs, you are calling them fascists instead--thats much better. :roll:

No, I'm doing that either. Anyone thinking I am has a comprehension issue.

:coffeepap
 
Thta isn't wthat I said .... I never said I support government sponsered theft, government CREATES property ... I support property being treated as it is, a socail institution, not a natural right.

Also I am here in reality ... Capitalism is failing ...

We are talking about Walmart and unions ... and I think the person who thinks that walmart workers would be better off without any collective action needs to wake up to reality ... when they are surrounded by evidence and logic showing the opposite.

Psst, check your Lean. Socialist. Many of us know that Marx's socialist theories and methods called for Government theft as a means of bring about change from capitalism. Of course, as a socialist, you may not view the government seizing the assets and properties of those who fight against socialism as theft. So either you are not a real socialist (an adherent of Marx) and are really a sudo-socialist, or you are ignorant of what Marx wrote or you support government theft of private properties/monies.

No, capitalism is not failing. The sudo-socialistic economic policy of regulated capitalism is failing. True, unfettered capitalism does not exist in the US and hasn't for a very longtime now, if it ever existed. Our current economic failings can all be tracked back to the introduction of greater and greater governmental controls and the introduction of "social" policy in the government.

No one, at least that I have read, ever said that walmart workers, as individuals would not be better off, at least for a time. You are only looking at the effects upon a portion of the 1.4 million walmart employees. You are not taking into account what it would do the the far greater number of walmart shoppers. You seem to think that it would only effect walmart workers and walmart management. It affects far more people than that. The savings to customers has been what has driven walmart to the place it now is. To meet the pay levels that some workers demand and the whole "living wage" idea, it would have to greatly increase it's pricing. The people who can only afford walmart pricing will no longer be able to afford much of anything. People who can afford walmart prices on non essential products may no longer be able to afford them, decreasing consumer sales in an already depressed and fragile economy. This would not just affect walmart either, it will affect everyone in the chain that gets the products manufactured and delivered to the individual stores. Walmart is big enough that it may have a significant effect upon the whole economy.

As a socialist, you approach the matter from the view point that all people have a minimum value and that each persons value is equal. This lack of a realistic concept of value is at the core of the failures and the falsehood of the promised paradise preached by socialist. However, to a company, any company, an individuals value to that company is directly related to what that individual contributes to the company. A person value to society is only what that individual gives to society and since we do not have nor can we ever have equal input to a society, every person in the society cannot have equal value to the society. There are many in our society that only take from it and never give back, or give back only a very small amount compared to what they take. Pure logic would dictate ridding society of those who have a negative value, however, because they are a person, we do not follow pure logic but instead try to act humanly towards them.

Even those who do not go as far as a socialist but still feel that a worker should have a minimum value, though not equal are following down the path towards socialism, thus they are socialistic, even if they don't admit it. If they were to achieve their goal of a "living wage" with benefits for all, they would not stop there but would immediately start working to eliminating what they see as inequities in the system. Unions, especially collective bargaining, are following down this path. As we have seen, this has caused total failure in a case like Hostess and massive outsourcing in other businesses. It has also caused some to start calling for greater and greater government actions to stop these failures in the economy, however, the government cannot stop the effects of this causal factor without becoming socialist. You may desire this affect, but some of us can use logic and reason and see that this failure of value in socialism will only lead to failure of a socialist systems. Socialism depends on everyone acting idealistically and we all know that greed influences far more people than any idealistic model.
 
I can't read the minds of these Wal-Mart workers but you and others have repeatedly attributed their protests to selfishness or at the very least you're saying they just want more money they haven't earned. While I can't deny that thought may be exactly what's going through their head, a lot of protestors and a lot of unions are working to ensure that everybody gets a fair deal. To ensure that if you work hard enough, you will be able to get by so long as you are dedicated, resilient, and able. Yes, Wal-Mart hired these employees for whatever wage and yes, they agreed to it, but that doesn't mean it's fair.

I used to know a guy who came to the US from India and got a job at this Indian restaurant where they paid everybody less than minimum wage and had a dozen or so of their employees live in an apartment together. They agreed to it, so it's fair, right? They couldn't change it, though, because they were getting paid under the table (as fair as I knew) so they had no say. This is the result of employees losing their voice. They will be exploited and used to further increase the billions of dollars Wal-Mart is pulling in, so long as they cannot be heard. If I were in the Indian chap's position, I would have demanded fairness, but I wouldn't do it out of selfishness or the conquest for wealth and power. I'd do it to help every one of those poor guys stuffed into a two bedroom apartment.

These days, people are struggling just to tread water and every day they go to work and every day they get paid the same amount as the slacker kid who works the register once a week. They agreed to it, but that doesn't mean it's fair. I think you were talking about Wal-Mart's benefits being pretty standard and comparable to those offered by smaller businesses. The only reason for that is the employees and American citizens who demanded better treatment. Rosa Parks didn't ask everybody if they were cool with her sitting at the front of the bus. Kennedy didn't say "we will go to the moon within ten years if you guys feel like doing it."

Every thought of yours begins with the same premise, which is that Wal-Mart employees are already receiving a fair amount of money. But why is $8 an hour fair? What is that based on? And if you had a job for $8 an hour and weren't making ends meet, why wouldn't you demand to get what you think is fair. The whole "if you don't want the job, go find another one" is only a small step removed from "if you don't like [the current president] you can move to Canada."
Just stop, you are using the word selfish. I am saying that employees have a lot of nerve demanding anything, you earn and renegotiate wages, or you accept your conditions. I'm sick of people overestimating their value and trying to force employers to pay them more than what they are worth.
 
There's always some degree of wiggle-room, but unskilled labor isn't supposed to be a career.

Kind of like me then I guess. Killing people and breaking things wasn't supposed to be my career, but that is what it ended up being. If I don't like where I ended up, I can only blame myself, not others. It is a shame that more people don't realize that where they end up and what they have is caused by their own choices in life.
 
Kind of like me then I guess. Killing people and breaking things wasn't supposed to be my career, but that is what it ended up being. If I don't like where I ended up, I can only blame myself, not others. It is a shame that more people don't realize that where they end up and what they have is caused by their own choices in life.

Much respect to you for looking at what more you could have done for yourself before looking at others doing something for you.
 
Theres aways a give and take. No one gets everything they want. it is a negotiation, even if they strike. Rarely have strikes end with getting everything, if ever. They merely reach a point they both can live with.

Did the workers in Hostess want to be let go? I some how doubt it.
 
Except thats not how it would work, because we see in cooepratives people that have more responsiblity generally get paid more ... just not rediculously more, I mean we have tons of examples of this.

Of course people that have more responsibility get paid more. Thats how it should be. But that has nothing to do with cooperatives. The individual has more responsibility so they get paid more. The individual that has less gets payed less. Thats the way it should be.

No it isn't ... they pay themselves, what gives them that right is not mental labor, its control of capital.

And how do they first get control of that capitol? Through thier mental acuity. It certainly isn't by sitting on thier ass.

Of coarse it is the right and moral way to go about it ... It is right and moral to take responsiblity for yourself and your well being, and not accept being a wage slave.

No, the right and moral way is to go and sit at a table and discuss merits. Not go outside and make a scene chanting some slogan that is worthless costing the company money. That just creates bad feelings and hardship for people that have nothing to do with your dispute.

I'm saying the workers should have a say.

They do have a say in thier wage. All they have to do is accept or not accept the wage offered at the date of hire. If they get hired and want more later on down the line then they should ASK, like adults. Not through temper tantrums like spoiled children.

Also having a part in the decision making would make them part of the management .... any argument you make against that is the same that monarchists would make against democracy.

Gotta love these silly statements. A company cannot work as a democracy. Again, look at our Senate and Congress to see what a democracy is like in action.

And what? 50 years ago you didn't have the saem wealth disaprity you have now ... I'm not saying everyone has to be equal, I'm saying everyone should have the same say in the decisions that effect their lives.

So? 50 years ago we also had more morals, and less greed. We have changed alot in 50 years.

And that is not what you are saying at all. You are saying that you want the grunts to have just as much say as those that built the company. Even the ones that just started working.

Nonsense, Capitalism HAS'NT always been around, infact socialist forms of organization existed before capitalism.

Wrong. The very first form of "government" if you can call it that was strength makes right. If you're stronger than the other guy then you can take what he has. Capitalism started the moment when Strength makes Right stopped being the main thing and people started trading one item for another. Even Germany, which you tout as being socialistic (which its not) (or at least the picture perfect way of unions) is based on capitalism.

As far as socialism never working ... thats nonsense, the system that can be taking advantage of more is Capitalism, infact it happens all the time, which is why now its basically run by a couple bankers.

Name me one socialist country that has worked.

... Its not a capitalistic of socialistic idea, its just a fact on how capitalism works, I'm not for or against it.

Contradictory. If its a socialistic idea (which its not) how can it also be based on capitalism which is the anti-thesis of socialism? Do you even know what socialism actually is?

Workers will never get their labors worth, because they are in the disadvantage of not holding capital.

Sure they will. And do. 7% of our working force is in a union in the US. 53% of our workforce is either middle class or rich....going by US standards of wealth. I would have to say that those that are middle class and rich easily get thier labor's worth. The lower 47% is debateable as to thier worth. And you cannot go by what the individual thinks that they are worth because they will always claim that they are worth far more than they really are.

The point is the workers will get fired, pensinos cut and so on before the CEO's compensation gets cut.

So? Considering the CEO has more invested into the company than the common worker it only makes since that they are not the first to get cut. Why should they be? Just because YOU don't see them doing anything does not mean that they don't.

BTW, I Have a question, over the last 20 years executive compensation has risen 300% ... have CEOs gotten 300% better?

Beats me. I'm not a CEO. I'm one of those lower 47% people. But it is quite possible with the advancements in technology making things easier to keep track of things that a CEO needs to keep track of.

Semantics ... Ownership is power.

So? Power does not equal bad. Power is neutral. It is how the power is used that makes good or bad.

Except IT DOES WORK .... you have many many examples of extremely successful cooperative firms ... infact the richest region in Europe is run mainly by cooperatives ... You're just talking out of ignorance.

Oh yes, the whole unionized Germany bit. Do you even know the differences between the US and Germany? I tried to point towards it once before but you ignored it. I'll ask again, How much greed is there in Germany compared to the US? (and yes, I already know the answer)

You're assuming that capitalist property is a natural right ... it isn't ... its a social construct.

If you want to get semantical any right is a social construct. But guess what. It doesn't matter what you think or not because in the US capitalist property (property period) IS a right. It is even in the Constitution. 5th and 14th Amendment.

My living room is not a social construct because it does'nt affect other peoples lives.

And items on shelves don't affect other peoples lives either. But we're not talking about inanimate objects. We're talking about you, your property.

BTW, if we want to expand on your idea that a CEO did not build the company from the ground up because of society then the same would apply to your living room. Because without society your living room would not have been able to have been built. Using your same arguement those that built your house has a right to say how that house is treated, lived in, what is in it, how much they should get for you living in it etc etc.
 
Ok after reading about Hostess ... you're full of **** ... Hostess went through 7 CEOs in 10 years, they had missmanaged for years, loosing income, the workers ALREADY took a hit while executives were taking pay increass ... the company would have gone under with or without the strike ... You cannot seriously blame Hostess on teh unions ... when you get ever increasing pay increases for executives while running the company into the ground .... you can't blame the union for wanting to put a stop to that.

You apparently only read what you wanted to read and ignored the part (if you even looked for it) that unions had in Hostess's downfall. You should also probably note that I never ONCE said that the CEO's of Hostess never messed up. But they were not he only reasons for Hostess going downhill. And it wasn't the union wanting to put a stop to Hostess's mismanagement. The wanted to be paid more. Which is not very smart to demand of a company that is on the brink of bankruptcy...wouldn't you say? But no. They had to demand more knowing that Hostess was struggling. Knowing that they couldn't take a strike. Was even warned that if the workers didn't get back to work then Hostess WOULD fold and have to liquidate. Yet the workers did not care that Hostess was struggling. They didn't care that a continued strike would bankrupt them. All they cared about was getting more money. Not caring that they were asking for more than Hostess could give.

But you don't care about that either do you? You only care that Hostess CEO's were making more than the workers and by your definition of morality that is just wrong. Because you see everyone as equal. Regardless of the fact that people are not equal in the things that matter to a buisness.

As far as the crappy worker ... the other workeres would'nt wnat a crappy worker in either ... so chances are in a democratic workplace he'd be out. However we have examples of strong union countries, in scandanavia and germany ... are those countries unproductive???? Nope ... emprical evidence always works best.

You should really take a look at what the unions do in Germany and Germany itself before comparing it to the US. We have two totally different cultures.

As for the crappy worker. 1: Democracy does not work when running a company. 2: A crappy worker can still be well liked. That alone would keep him in his position if it was up to a democracy. Just look at Obama. He's a crappy President yet he is well liked by enough people to keep him in office. And don't even try to claim that I think Romeny or any of the other politicians that ran for POTUS was good. I thought that they were ALL crap.

Working hard helps, but without collective power, the boss will ALWAYS put losses on the workers and take gains for himself ... being a good slave won't change that, the boss will ALWAYS pay himself the most he can and pay the workers the least he can.

He/should will still do that even with a union. As he/she should. In a company the owner is always the most important. Everyone else is replaceable with other workers compared to the owner.

No they arn't other than IPOs the company doesn't see any of the money when a stock is bought. Most people buy stocks to get capital gains ... not for long term investment, shareholders actually have very little long term interest in a company, which is one major problem with capitalism.

Yes shareholders of today have very little interest in long term. But that has nothing to do with the stock itself and has everything to do with greed and short term thinking. If a shareholder wanted they could take over the company long term. Just because it doesn't happen doesn't mean that it can't happen.

So then its irrelevant.

Thinking that lieing is irrelevent is one huge problem with you youngsters these days.

What else did you say that you want me to respond to?

All of it that you did not already respond to.
 
1. Where is the evidence that German manufacturs are "more agile" ....?

2. That doesn't explain much since German auto manufacturs were extremely unionized ... also that doesn't change the fact that the auto industry was doing fine when unions were strongest.

3. Where is the evidence that supply chains are smaller? Also purchasing locally is partially German socail policy, i.e. public policy restricting companies ... not Capitalism. As far as strikes, where is the evidence that post ww2, the US had more strikes? Also remember Unions are STRONGER in Germany.

4. We were not JUST talking about the auto-industry, but that isn't culture at all, that's just management.

5. Ok ... doesn't really change my point though ... Also we were not JUST talking about the auto-industry

1. They do smaller manufacturing runs and their manufacturing industry was smaller in scope post WW2. It was much cheaper for them to retool with a smaller machine base.

2. Unions were strongest in the US in early 60s into the late 70s---at which point decline in auto manufacturing began. You still arent getting the point about German unions being vastly different from US unions. US unions are adversarial in nature, German unions work with management and have open information policies. Its not just unions in the US, management is just as guilty.

3. Go look it up. Im not going to explain something to you thats common knowledge on supply chain management. GM focuses on redundancies in their supply chain, Toyota focuses on building relationships with sub contracting manufacturers. Japanese companies follow that model and Germans do the same thing. It could have arisen from lack of having a lot of manufacturers competing in niche markets, I dont know. I just know that it is.

4. No, son, thats marketing.

5. Yeah we werent. Where are most US electronics made again? Asia? We are still engaging in a push economy in several sectors. The second consideration is combatting the illegal trade activities China is engaging in from piracy, to copyright theft, to product dumping. US innovation is great, our ability to capitlize on it long term? Not so much.
 
I want labor to be in a better bargaining position than they are currently. That's it. Organized workers can bargain as a whole and get a higher portion of the profits...which they deserve. Bargaining still occurs. Wages are still set by how profitable a company is, workers just have more power when wages are decided.

Wages are not set by how profitable a company is.

They're set by market based conditions.

A guy cutting deli meat in King Kullen's earns roughly the same as a guy cutting deli meat in Pathmark regardless of which stores is doing better.
 
Perhaps you can list your credentials to tell us all what qualifies you to judge who may or may not speak about a Wal Mart job let alone attack me for daring to comment about them?

I dont need any credentials to understand that comparing a job to a root canal is a stupid argument. Look, I complained about your plainly over the top comment. Dont want that to happen? Stop saying stupid stuff.

Stop accusing everyone attacking you. I attacked your argument. Quit whining.
 
Did the workers in Hostess want to be let go? I some how doubt it.

Perhaps not. But when they gave concessions and the CEO got a big bonus, it likely set this stand off in motion.
 
Perhaps not. But when they gave concessions and the CEO got a big bonus, it likely set this stand off in motion.

People would be better off worrying about themselves, rather than displaying their envy of someone else's station in life. Maybe then they would move up instead of trying to bring others down.
 
People would be better off worrying about themselves, rather than displaying their envy of someone else's station in life. Maybe then they would move up instead of trying to bring others down.

Sounds good, but it doesn't work that way. And when management holds all the power, workers have often been abused. We do have history you know.
 
Thoughts anyone?

Yeah, no one is forced to work at Walmart....

Working at Walmart is not exactly like doing brain surgery. Go to college, learn a trade IDK.....

If an individual doesn't like working for Walmart then they DONT HAVE TO.....This isn't the USSA just yet where you're assigned jobs - no there is free will.

I don't comprehend why someone would want to continue working with a company they hate?

It's not exactly like a Walmart pops up in a city of 2500 and becomes the only store in town.
 
Just stop, you are using the word selfish. I am saying that employees have a lot of nerve demanding anything, you earn and renegotiate wages, or you accept your conditions. I'm sick of people overestimating their value and trying to force employers to pay them more than what they are worth.

I'll be concise because I've already said a lot. Two quick points:

1. Many individuals who are offered a job at Wal-Mart can't turn it down because they're not in a position where they can wait longer and be more discerning. Good jobs are as elusive as the legendary bigfoot. They take an unfair deal because they're sick of watching the Price is Right all day while they scan the classifieds. With the amount of money Wal-Mart makes, it makes sense that these people are protesting - they think they are worth more than they're getting. And it's not just that they think they're paid too little, it's that they want all the future Wal-Mart applicants to receive a fair offer.

2. Responding to this:

As far as pay goes, yes, the company SHOULD have all the power. It is thier money. The only part of it that is the employee's is the amount that they agreed to when they were hired.

When the writer's guild of America went on strike, part of it was that digital media was exploding and the writer's weren't seeing any money from it. It wasn't in their contract because it wasn't an anticipated issue in the past. With your line of reasoning, the writer's guild shouldn't have gone on strike because proceeds from internet sales and viewership were not in their contract. Does that seem fair to you? Bottom line - this isn't about giving handouts, this is about enforcing the laws without which working conditions and the existence of a competitive market would be depleted.
 
I'll be concise because I've already said a lot. Two quick points:

1. Many individuals who are offered a job at Wal-Mart can't turn it down because they're not in a position where they can wait longer and be more discerning. Good jobs are as elusive as the legendary bigfoot. They take an unfair deal because they're sick of watching the Price is Right all day while they scan the classifieds. With the amount of money Wal-Mart makes, it makes sense that these people are protesting - they think they are worth more than they're getting. And it's not just that they think they're paid too little, it's that they want all the future Wal-Mart applicants to receive a fair offer.
To the bolded. Why can't they turn them down? If they aren't in a position where they have a resume that is "better than Walmart" and they have to accept it why aren't there more options? Could it be that there is no employee leverage? If that is the case then it's their value at the time.

You see, if a person is qualified for IT positions, offshore positions, management positions, and other better paying jobs they get those jobs. If all a person can get is Walmart cashier they shouldn't be trying to leverage an employer. This in a nutshell is what I am saying, if it's my company and an employee is "at will" they have accepted the terms of employment, if they try to be management there are two choices, I can a) Remind them that I am in charge or B) Fire them. The employee has two choices A)Recognize their current labor value or B) Find out the hard way what their real leverage is.
 
1. Many individuals who are offered a job at Wal-Mart can't turn it down because they're not in a position where they can wait longer and be more discerning. Good jobs are as elusive as the legendary bigfoot. They take an unfair deal because they're sick of watching the Price is Right all day while they scan the classifieds. With the amount of money Wal-Mart makes, it makes sense that these people are protesting - they think they are worth more than they're getting. And it's not just that they think they're paid too little, it's that they want all the future Wal-Mart applicants to receive a fair offer.

As my dad says. Never quit looking for a better job. If you have to work at Wal-Mart to pay the bills then fine, work there. But don't stay there. While you work there look for another, better paying job. Once you find it then quit and start the process over. When you're in the 47% everyone starts out at the bottom rung. But if you don't look for another job while getting paid crappy pay then you deserve that pay because it shows that you are not worth more than that. Or if you want to stay (more than likely cause you like the job/company) then always try and get a better position. You do that by educating yourself and applying for higher positions. Never, ever stay static. Push yourself and grow. You do that then your pay will grow also. All without once resorting to joining an union and most definitely without resorting to extortionist tactics.

When the writer's guild of America went on strike, part of it was that digital media was exploding and the writer's weren't seeing any money from it. It wasn't in their contract because it wasn't an anticipated issue in the past. With your line of reasoning, the writer's guild shouldn't have gone on strike because proceeds from internet sales and viewership were not in their contract. Does that seem fair to you? Bottom line - this isn't about giving handouts, this is about enforcing the laws without which working conditions and the existence of a competitive market would be depleted.

Bold: The writers strike was understandable. It had something to do with them directly and was a new technology. When was the last time a new piece of technology affected some stocker at Wal-Mart?

Underlined: Sorry, it has nothing to do with enforcing laws unless it has to do with safety. Pay has nothing to do with a workers safety. The only law there is about how much money a person must get is the minimum wage. And a competitive market is just not possible when you have no real skills. Anyone can put a can on a shelf and as such anyone doing that is quite expendable.
 
Bold: The writers strike was understandable. It had something to do with them directly and was a new technology. When was the last time a new piece of technology affected some stocker at Wal-Mart?
Underlined: Sorry, it has nothing to do with enforcing laws unless it has to do with safety. Pay has nothing to do with a workers safety. The only law there is about how much money a person must get is the minimum wage. And a competitive market is just not possible when you have no real skills. Anyone can put a can on a shelf and as such anyone doing that is quite expendable.
Pretty sure I never posted the quote you're attributing to me.

fyi
 
Sounds good, but it doesn't work that way. And when management holds all the power, workers have often been abused. We do have history you know.

Mgmt doesn't "hold all the power"... You don't have to work there. You can find employment elsewhere, or if you are confident enough in a skill, or trade you have you can start your own business and work for yourself.

Your's is a false dilemma...
 
I'll be concise because I've already said a lot. Two quick points:

1. Many individuals who are offered a job at Wal-Mart can't turn it down because they're not in a position where they can wait longer and be more discerning. Good jobs are as elusive as the legendary bigfoot. They take an unfair deal because they're sick of watching the Price is Right all day while they scan the classifieds. With the amount of money Wal-Mart makes, it makes sense that these people are protesting - they think they are worth more than they're getting. And it's not just that they think they're paid too little, it's that they want all the future Wal-Mart applicants to receive a fair offer.

2. Responding to this:



When the writer's guild of America went on strike, part of it was that digital media was exploding and the writer's weren't seeing any money from it. It wasn't in their contract because it wasn't an anticipated issue in the past. With your line of reasoning, the writer's guild shouldn't have gone on strike because proceeds from internet sales and viewership were not in their contract. Does that seem fair to you? Bottom line - this isn't about giving handouts, this is about enforcing the laws without which working conditions and the existence of a competitive market would be depleted.

You need to realize that value, or in this case salary, is heavily based on supply versus demand. Jobs like a Hostess factory worker or Walmart store employee are jobs which the vast majority of working adults would qualify for. Therefore, these jobs will and should fall at the bottom of the working salaries. The fact that these workers are expecting more than their jobs are worth is due in part to the stupid entitlements bug going around.
 
Back
Top Bottom