• 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 Gives 500,000 Workers A Raise

ludin said:
please define a living wage 10,20,30,40,100 dollars an hour.

why can't people that demand a living wage say what it is.
Click to expand...
The cost of living is lower in Quartzite Arizona than it is in Chicago, just as the cost of living is lower In Chicago than it is in Manhattan. So the amount varies from place to place. An individual's wage should be relative to the cost of living in their location, Enough so that they don't need Joe tax payer to kick in to help meet their basic bare bones needs.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
We have high unemployment, and its highest among the populace that would be effected by this raise (low-skill). Walmart isn't doing this to attract more workers.
Click to expand...

Clearly they thought the PR was worth the price. Why do they care about PR?
 
It seems to me the biggest group of employees at Walmart are not looking for full time employment nor seeking a career. The majority of employees seem to be made up of students (high school and college), moms wanting part time employment, retired persons seeking a part time job to supplement their income. I believe they require at least a high school diploma or currently in school, drug testing and background check. There's a good number of people in our society that couldn't get a job at Walmart. Ten bucks an hour may not go very far in Portland, Chicago, or NY but it does in flyover country where moms take on part time jobs to supplement the family income with a part time job and still be home with the kids when needed. Or a retired person on a fixed income looking for extra to supplement his/her income. Same with the college student trying to earn tuition for next quarter. It isn't Walmart's responsibility to provide healthcare to its part time employees. As far as I know they do provide healthcare plans for their full time employees. At some point, personal responsibility for one's choices in life needs to be addressed.
 
I see the check out girl who works at the local dollar store using a SNAP card at the neighborhood grocery store. So that tells Me that her wage at Her dollar store job isn't enough to cover bare bones needs, so we're all picking up the rest of the tab. Pay her the minimum that is needed to survive here and then we don't have to pick up that tab.
 
HenryChinaski said:
I see the check out girl who works at the local dollar store using a SNAP card at the neighborhood grocery store. So that tells Me that her wage at Her dollar store job isn't enough to cover bare bones needs, so we're all picking up the rest of the tab. Pay her the minimum that is needed to survive here and then we don't have to pick up that tab.
Click to expand...

Whose fault is that Chinaski? The Dollar Store? hardly.
 
jet57 said:
Both on line and through ABC news we learn that walmart has capitulated:


Walmart Gives 500,000 Workers A Raise


For some time in these discussions about walmart abuses and organizing drives I predicted that the pressure would defeat them. Within a year the starting wage at walmart will be $10 an hour. This will of course increase the strength of the organizing drive and have a good effect on the drives for Mcdonald's as well.

Nice work.
Click to expand...

Just ask Bono, capitalism works and is the strongest force for good and prosperity on the planet.
 
HenryChinaski said:
I see the check out girl who works at the local dollar store using a SNAP card at the neighborhood grocery store. So that tells Me that her wage at Her dollar store job isn't enough to cover bare bones needs, so we're all picking up the rest of the tab. Pay her the minimum that is needed to survive here and then we don't have to pick up that tab.
Click to expand...

How do you nationalize "here"? What it takes to survive in your here is different than what it takes to survive in my here.
 
imagep said:
I suspect that has more to do with consumer demand for self-check out areas, or maybe just a way to start training customers to get used to self checkout.

I really wouldn't think that Walmart would fire cashiers just for the purpose of voluntarily giving raises, that doesn't even make sense. Everything that Walmart does is about making larger profits, period.
Click to expand...

With a profit margin of under 4%, I would believe survival, not larger profits.

To pay that new wage, how many items will have their prices raised? The new wage may actually help walmart make larger profits vs replacing cashiers, since it is very difficult to raise prices on items by .5 cents.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Why is it anyone's fault? I don't know Her or Her deal. I'm not judging, just pointing out the way it is.
Click to expand...
Well the "way it is" is more than not due to consequences of poor choices. And as things are set up now, those who make the less are compensated through government subsidies to the point they often come out better than the couple who both work with a couple of kids not on any government subsidies.
 
Declan said:
How do you nationalize "here"? What it takes to survive in your here is different than what it takes to survive in my here.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I've been saying! There need some sort of regulation of a standard that individuals make at least the bare minimum to get by for basic necessities where they live without having to rely on My money.
 
vesper said:
Well the "way it is" is more than not due to consequences of poor choices. And as things are set up now, those who make the less are compensated through government subsidies to the point they often come out better than the couple who both work with a couple of kids not on any government subsidies.
Click to expand...
What makes you think that She made poor choices? We don't know anything about Het life situation or circumstances. At this moment in her life, Her circumstances and situation might dictate that she needs temporary assistance. If her employer was paying her enough to Cover the bare-bones minimum, then I wouldn't have to pick up the tab for the rest of the rent. She's working at the dollar store, why am I paying part of her rent?
 
vesper said:
It seems to me the biggest group of employees at Walmart are not looking for full time employment nor seeking a career. The majority of employees seem to be made up of students (high school and college), moms wanting part time employment, retired persons seeking a part time job to supplement their income. I believe they require at least a high school diploma or currently in school, drug testing and background check. There's a good number of people in our society that couldn't get a job at Walmart. Ten bucks an hour may not go very far in Portland, Chicago, or NY but it does in flyover country where moms take on part time jobs to supplement the family income with a part time job and still be home with the kids when needed. Or a retired person on a fixed income looking for extra to supplement his/her income. Same with the college student trying to earn tuition for next quarter. It isn't Walmart's responsibility to provide healthcare to its part time employees. As far as I know they do provide healthcare plans for their full time employees. At some point, personal responsibility for one's choices in life needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that, except it's my observation that the Walmarts in my town don't look like they have very many students working for them, if any. We have six colleges, so I'm sure there are plenty of students looking for jobs, but for whatever reason, they ain't finding them out our Walmarts. This might just be a regional thing.
 
HenryChinaski said:
I see the check out girl who works at the local dollar store using a SNAP card at the neighborhood grocery store. So that tells Me that her wage at Her dollar store job isn't enough to cover bare bones needs, so we're all picking up the rest of the tab. Pay her the minimum that is needed to survive here and then we don't have to pick up that tab.
Click to expand...

That's what frustrates me the most about means tested welfare. And it seems like every time I bring this issue up, it's mostly conservatives who support this system.

I really don't understand why anyone would prefer for the government to have to keep up low wage paying companies employees, rather than the employers to have to pay decent wages.
 
vesper said:
Whose fault is that Chinaski? The Dollar Store? hardly.
Click to expand...

No, it's certainly not the fault of the low wage paying employer, but they take advantage of the situation.

I'd much prefer to totally eliminate means tested welfare, cut taxes, and just expect our employers to pay a decent wage. And if I had to pay a couple of percent more at Walmart and McDonalds, then so be it, it's still cheaper than paying for welfare.
 
HenryChinaski said:
What makes you think that She made poor choices? We don't know anything about Het life situation or circumstances. At this moment in her life, Her circumstances and situation might dictate that she needs temporary assistance. If her employer was paying her enough to Cover the bare-bones minimum, then I wouldn't have to pick up the tab for the rest of the rent. She's working at the dollar store, why am I paying part of her rent?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this person's predicament is due to. But I do know overwhelmingly those on government subsidizes, entitlements are because of poor life choices. Whether it be not finishing their 12 years of government provided public schooling by choice or not seeking further jobs training, to having children out of wedlock they had no possible way to provide. Today we live in an all time high record of babies being born out of wedlock and no fathers around to provide for them. We also live in a time when divorce is at an all time high resulting in poverty. Drug addiction has become another problem. All poor choices that taxpayers seem to be hung out to dry to provide for those who have failed to provide for themselves. It has gotten to the point a low middle class family of 4, both parents working and paying taxes does with less than a single mom with two kids on government subsidies. All I am saying it isn't the corporation's fault nor should it be the majority who are responsible be responsible for them and it is time personal responsibility be re-instated.
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
I have no idea what this person's predicament is due to. But I do know overwhelmingly those on government subsidizes, entitlements are because of poor life choices. Whether it be not finishing their 12 years of government provided public schooling by choice or not seeking further jobs training, to having children out of wedlock they had no possible way to provide. Today we live in an all time high record of babies being born out of wedlock and no fathers around to provide for them. We also live in a time when divorce is at an all time high resulting in poverty. Drug addiction has become another problem. All poor choices that taxpayers seem to be hung out to dry to provide for those who have failed to provide for themselves. It has gotten to the point a low middle class family of 4, both parents working and paying taxes does with less than a single mom with two kids on government subsidies. All I am saying it isn't the corporation's fault nor should it be the majority who are responsible responsibility and it is time personal responsibility be re-instated.
Click to expand...

You're full of crap, She could be in a situation that is no fault of her own. She could be a single mother where the Father walked out on her and She has no other means except to collect temporary welfare while she's attending night school. Maybe She's an orphan, who the hell knows. But the point is, that if Her wage was in alignment with what it costs to live in this town, then You and Me wouldn't be paying Her rent and buying Her food.
 
Excon said:
You seem to be confused.
Click to expand...
Not at all.

First of all, it was you who was dismissed.
Click to expand...
Yea by you. And you have yet to respond with anything other than blinded accusations.

Secondly, what you provided had nothing to do with our exchange.
Click to expand...
No. you claimed I held my opinion based off little to no reasoning. I then posted a study that backs up my opinion with factual information, and several studies.

Let me remind you.
​
Yep! What you said was; My ..., my ..., (my) ..., not Berkeley ..., Berkeley ..., Berkeley.
Click to expand...
What about it?

As for the article you provided citing Berkeley. :doh
Click to expand...
this is what we call a logical fallacy. This one you are holding is called "poisoning the well". Its a variation of an ad hominem

Entry level wages were never meant to survive on.
And frankly the consumer should not be saddled with any price increase because greedy unskilled workers want more than they are worth.
What exactly do you and others not understand about that?
Click to expand...
Hmm.. I find this very funny of you. You hold the exact opposite of my opinion, but you say my opinion "fanciful imagination."

So back to your original nonsensical statement. You haven't shown they deserve any such thing. Or didn't you know there is a difference between deserve and desire?
Click to expand...
Except I did, but you dismissed it.
 
American said:
What's a livable wage?
Click to expand...
Someone who works 40 hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the necessary basics for quality of life, health care, transport, food, shelter, utilities, and minimal recreation.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Someone who works 40 hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the necessary basics for quality of life, health care, transport, food, shelter, utilities, and minimal recreation.
Click to expand...
I'm not even figuring in recreation, I'm just thinking bare-bones cheapest apartment, food and transportation money, that's not much to ask for, yeah but I agree with you and see where you're coming from.
 
HenryChinaski said:
You're full of crap, She could be in a situation that is no fault of her own. She could be a single mother where the Father walked out on her and She has no other means except to collect temporary welfare while she's attending night school. Maybe She's an orphan, who the hell knows. But the point is, that if Her wage was in alignment with what it costs to live in this town, then You and Me wouldn't be paying Her rent and buying Her food.
Click to expand...

I am not full of crap I stated I have no way of knowing why this woman is in the predicament she is. Period. What I did state that the majority who are dependent on government subsidies and entitlements are due to poor life choices. That's the facts pal.

We have a safety net to encompass those who are in need. Unfortunately it has been abused to include anyone who screws up their life by choice and then expects everyone else to provide for them. Didn't save for retirement? No problem, let mama government take care of your needs. Didn't take your birthcontrol before engaging in sexual activity. No problem your child has Uncle Sam to provide for it. Didn't finish your government provided education? So what, those paying taxes will be more than glad to give you a roof over your head, keep the heat on and take care of you from cradle to grave.
 
sangha said:
Right wingers have faith in the absurd notion that business are keeping prices low and so they believe businesses can raise prices at will. Rational people know that businesses already are pricing their products at the level which produces the most profit.
Click to expand...

No we have great faith in the free market principles that the left so greatly misunderstands and laments.
 
Fenton said:
No we have great faith in the free market principles that the left so greatly misunderstands and laments.
Click to expand...

Free market = Most who work for living make a dollar an hour, or put another way, 'Right Wing wet dream' but if the "free-market" deems it so then your pay will be increased up to two dollars an hour.
 
Last edited:
HenryChinaski said:
That's exactly what I've been saying! There need some sort of regulation of a standard that individuals make at least the bare minimum to get by for basic necessities where they live without having to rely on My money.
Click to expand...

The isn't the "fair wage" really what it takes to survive in the worst area in the jurisdiction , in this case the nation, and then it becomes the responsibility of the state and local governments to t impose a wage higher than that upon their area? If so, isn't that really stacking the deck in favor of one city over the other? If so, is that an acceptable arrangement even if it is your employer that decides to move from Cleveland to San Antonio or wherever because workers will work cheaper?

The last time I looked there was like a total of 240ish economic dead zones in the US, many of which were dead zones before the .recession came and the last MW increase went onto checks that are still that way. Doesn't raising MW suck more money out of those areas than it injects into them if your MW worker is shopping at Walmart, or online at Amazon, or at any of the many big box places whose revenues leave the community much faster than it enters it?

Is there a better way to lift boats than through wage floors because it sounds good? Isn't this really macro blurring of systemic and growing micro problems? Isn't what we need some kind of localized solution instead of some kind of one-sized fit all national solution.? I think so, I am just not sure the best way to go about doing it.
 
Declan said:
The isn't the "fair wage" really what it takes to survive in the worst area in the jurisdiction , in this case the nation, and then it becomes the responsibility of the state and local governments to t impose a wage higher than that upon their area? If so, isn't that really stacking the deck in favor of one city over the other? If so, is that an acceptable arrangement even if it is your employer that decides to move from Cleveland to San Antonio or wherever because workers will work cheaper?

The last time I looked there was like a total of 240ish economic dead zones in the US, many of which were dead zones before the .recession came and the last MW increase went onto checks that are still that way. Doesn't raising MW suck more money out of those areas than it injects into them if your MW worker is shopping at Walmart, or online at Amazon, or at any of the many big box places whose revenues leave the community much faster than it enters it?

Is there a better way to lift boats than through wage floors because it sounds good? Isn't this really macro blurring of systemic and growing micro problems? Isn't what we need some kind of localized solution instead of some kind of one-sized fit all national solution.? I think so, I am just not sure the best way to go about doing it.
Click to expand...
It seems simple in my view, if the employer is paying a bare minimum that has been deemed necessary in order to survive wherever that employee is working, City, region, whatever, then the worker who is collecting those wages doesn't need My money to cover the rest of the rent and/or weekly food bill. They can cover the bare bones needs and We taxpayers save dough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom