• 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!

Target employees upset about working on Thanksgiving…

Business? No, I do not think so. Businesses will always pay low skilled workers on the lower end of the pay scale. This is pretty basic stuff. The problem is the governemtn artificially creating inflation.

You'll note what I say that there is a problem right now because it's been the governments policy to create inflation but it's not fundementally adding anything to the economy. Costs rise. Prices rise but margins do not as a percentage so employee's don't get to benefit.

I don't think anyone ever argued that businesses should not pay lower skilled workers lower wages.
 
it doesn't take an economics major to realize that companies are in business to make as much money as they possibly can.

Duh.

So are workers. So what?
 
oh yeah :roll: I'm sure the company is just going to absorb the cost and decrease their profit margin :roll: in case you haven't noticed...companies are in business to make money for their owners...NOT to provide a "living wage" for their workers.

So what?

Businesses need their workers to make money. Workers need the jobs to make money. They will pay as little as they can, and workers will demand as much as they can get.
 
That's a simplistic way to view things and I suggest that you probably can't prove that any increase in menial wages would result in price hikes.

It's basic economics. Costs go up, prices go up. Again I'll note, the problem right now is that prices have gone up but wages have not.
 
I don't think anyone ever argued that businesses should not pay lower skilled workers lower wages.

then you obviously haven't read many of the threads here that come up on this topic. there is always some liberal whining that people "deserve a living wage" regardless of how uneducated, untrained, unskilled or unmotivated they are.
 
but it is a wash. they aren't buying more stuff, they are just paying more for the stuff they were already buying.

No they aren't. They're only paying more for the 10% they buy at Wal-Mart, remember?

walmart isn't buying more product from its suppliers. the only thing that has changed is that the people who didn't get the raise because they don't work at wallyworld get screwed into paying higher prices. that doesn't help the economy.

But now it's suppliers have more money, for the same amount of product.

I see what you're saying, that it's just an inflation spiral. But it's not, because production and worker productivity grows too. Suppliers now have more money for the same product, and they can invest that in new plant and equipment or training or computers or more efficient manufacturing techniques or more workers (!), or buy more supplies to produce more, which they now have an incentive to do because they are getting more for it...

who said anything about paying people less? :shrug:

But that's exactly what is happening. That's one way Wal-Mart has lowered prices.
 
It's basic economics. Costs go up, prices go up. Again I'll note, the problem right now is that prices have gone up but wages have not.

Uhh, no, it isn't. Depending on the cost, prices may or may not go up, and they they also do not tend to rise and fall at the same rate as the cost itself. Again, do you guys have one ounce of evidence for your claims?

ie. If a company is taxed 5%, they may pass none of it along, 1% along or even all 5% - depending on the situation. So, where is your evidence of the rise and fall? kthxbai

then you obviously haven't read many of the threads here that come up on this topic. there is always some liberal whining that people "deserve a living wage" regardless of how uneducated, untrained, unskilled or unmotivated they are.

Well thank you for contradicting yourself. I see that you equate respectable pay with paying lower-skilled workers the same wages as everyone else. I don't think anyone said that.
 
Last edited:
then you obviously haven't read many of the threads here that come up on this topic. there is always some liberal whining that people "deserve a living wage" regardless of how uneducated, untrained, unskilled or unmotivated they are.

It hasn't come up on this thread though.
 
So what?

Businesses need their workers to make money. Workers need the jobs to make money. They will pay as little as they can, and workers will demand as much as they can get.

which is exactly what I said and your genius reply was to insult me :shrug: they will pay as little as they can. if they are forced to pay more, they will not absorb the cost and make less money, they will raise the price and make the same amount of money.

crude oil prices go up, does big oil absorb the cost? hell no, they raise gas prices. what makes you think that walmart would act any differently?
 
They are filing bankruptcy.

Yes. But they gave huge amounts of concessions, in a direct attempt to avoid it, even if it didn't work out. So once again, you made a blanket statement that was demonstrably false. Unions do give concessions in an attempt to help their employer and preserve their jobs. So don't say they don't.
 
It hasn't come up on this thread though.
um...yeah, and how is that in any way relevent to what he said? he did not specify that he had never seen it in this thread :roll:
 
Yes. But they gave huge amounts of concessions, in a direct attempt to avoid it, even if it didn't work out. So once again, you made a blanket statement that was demonstrably false. Unions do give concessions in an attempt to help their employer and preserve their jobs. So don't say they don't.

but only as a last resort and only when failure to do so will result is the loss of their jobs.
 
Well thank you for contradicting yourself. I see that you equate respectable pay with paying lower-skilled workers the same wages as everyone else. I don't think anyone said that.

it depends on what you liberals claim "a living wage" to be. I have seen many of your bretheren claim that the HS dropout janitor at mickey D's "DESERVES" the same standard of living as the PhD rocket scientist
 
it depends on what you liberals claim "a living wage" to be. I have seen many of your bretheren claim that the HS dropout janitor at mickey D's "DESERVES" the same standard of living as the PhD rocket scientist

That's not a liberal. That's a communist or some ****. lol
 
which is exactly what I said and your genius reply was to insult me :shrug: they will pay as little as they can. if they are forced to pay more, they will not absorb the cost and make less money, they will raise the price and make the same amount of money.

By that logic, they should be paying workers nothing.

You have no idea what they'd do. Labor is just another cost. They go up and down, and businesses deal with it in different ways.

crude oil prices go up, does big oil absorb the cost? hell no, they raise gas prices. what makes you think that walmart would act any differently?[/QUOTE]

Wal-Mart has competition, for one thing. When crude oil prices go up, they go up for all suppliers since oil is a single commodity with a price set on a worldwide market.
 
it depends on what you liberals claim "a living wage" to be. I have seen many of your bretheren claim that the HS dropout janitor at mickey D's "DESERVES" the same standard of living as the PhD rocket scientist

Nobody here has made that claim. Focus, Oscar.
 
but only as a last resort and only when failure to do so will result is the loss of their jobs.

A last resort? It was back in 2003 - EIGHT years before American declared bankruptcy. And notice that they still have their jobs.
 
um...yeah, and how is that in any way relevent to what he said? he did not specify that he had never seen it in this thread :roll:

Then why is he talking about it?

That's my point - it's not relevant.
 
Uhh, no, it isn't. Depending on the cost, prices may or may not go up, and they they also do not tend to rise and fall at the same rate as the cost itself. Again, do you guys have one ounce of evidence for your claims?

ie. If a company is taxed 5%, they may pass none of it along, 1% along or even all 5% - depending on the situation. So, where is your evidence of the rise and fall? kthxbai

Can I argue that if costs rise 5% that a company may decide to not pass along all 5%? No, but they are going to make it up somewhere especially with those traded on the markets. If they do not somehow cover these costs their stocks tank. So do I think this is an asinine way of doing things? I do, but still it is right now what it is.

So perhaps a few walk in and are laid off because Wal-Mart just installed the new self check out registers. Businesses are going to cover their increased costs somehow.

Again though, the real problem right now seems to not get addressed. The government creating artificial inflation.
 
which is exactly what I said and your genius reply was to insult me :shrug: they will pay as little as they can. if they are forced to pay more, they will not absorb the cost and make less money, they will raise the price and make the same amount of money.

crude oil prices go up, does big oil absorb the cost? hell no, they raise gas prices. what makes you think that walmart would act any differently?

Those making minimum wage are getting killed with energy costs right now also. They've increased many times over while wages have stagnated. If this was a fundemental thing it would require a different arguement but they are what they are because of the government artificially inflating the markets.
 
That's not a liberal. That's a communist or some ****. lol

point being, I have seen people on this forum make that claim. contrary to what you have asserted. their political lean is irrelevent
 
Yes. But they gave huge amounts of concessions, in a direct attempt to avoid it, even if it didn't work out. So once again, you made a blanket statement that was demonstrably false. Unions do give concessions in an attempt to help their employer and preserve their jobs. So don't say they don't.

Closing the barn door after the horse has escaped doesn't work.
 
Can I argue that if costs rise 5% that a company may decide to not pass along all 5%? No, but they are going to make it up somewhere especially with those traded on the markets. If they do not somehow cover these costs their stocks tank. So do I think this is an asinine way of doing things? I do, but still it is right now what it is.

So perhaps a few walk in and are laid off because Wal-Mart just installed the new self check out registers. Businesses are going to cover their increased costs somehow.

Again though, the real problem right now seems to not get addressed. The government creating artificial inflation.

They may or may not need to make up all of that 5%. However, assuming they do, perhaps they put 10% of the rise into cost, and 90% into labor cuts. I personally believe two jobs that pay $12 an hour are more beneficial to society than 6 that pay $6.50 an hour.

point being, I have seen people on this forum make that claim. contrary to what you have asserted. their political lean is irrelevent

Well, when that guy comes around, PM me so that for once we can actually argue on the same side! :)
 
Back
Top Bottom