Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liberals

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

Minimum wage laws keep this [1 cent an hour] from being the case.

Click to expand...

wrong of course since 90% make far more than the minimum wage. Why? The Republican free market. This is logic a liberal can follow.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

1. No, companies do not have to compete for workers. .

Click to expand...

then why pay some $10 million a year when you could pay them $10,000?????????????????????????????????????

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

2. Plenty of companies are in the market with "substandard" wages and products, and do exceedingly well. Starbucks coffee is horrible, and they don't pay their people well, last I heard.

Click to expand...

1) Starbucks coffee costs a fortune because people love it, obviously!!!!!!!!
2) if their pay is substandard I will pay you $10,000. Bet

See what happens when a libsocialist tries to get real???

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

in this case, the standard is not fair or just-

Click to expand...

you mean according to your arbitrary standards its not fair or just, not the market's standards, and your standard is implimented at liberal gunpoint-right??

as a typical violent libcommie you have 10,001 places where you want to substitute your arbitrary standards for market standards, at gunpoint- right??

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

James972 said:

wrong of course since 90% make far more than the minimum wage. Why? The Republican free market. This is logic a liberal can follow.

Click to expand...

Already explained...with logic apparently a conservative cannot follow.

James972 said:

then why pay some $10 million a year when you could pay them $10,000?????????????????????????????????????

Click to expand...

CEOs and other company officers, who make $10m per year, are employers, not employees. They form their own club.

James972 said:

1) Starbucks coffee costs a fortune because people love it, obviously!!!!!!!!
2) if their pay is substandard I will pay you $10,000. Bet

Click to expand...

As for whether people actually love the product:

Here are a slew of taste tests indicating people think Starbucks coffee sucks:

https://thebolditalic.com/guess-the...-italic-san-francisco-145e59e4b7dc#.2oavq3lci

Taste test: We pitted Amazon?s new private-label coffee against Starbucks, Folgers and Stumptown ? and you won't believe who won - GeekWire

No Joke: Walmart Coffee Tastes As Good As Starbucks | TIME.com

A bitter shot for Starbucks: McDonald’s wins taste test | The Seattle Times

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Starbucks-considered-bad-by-coffee-purists

And here's a pretty good layperson's explanation of how retail chains manipulate customers to purchase less-than-stellar products:

http://www.business2community.com/c...-starbucks-coffee-0995182#0llJr1Hqu7ypS5UM.97

As to pay, here's how PayScale.com ranks Starbucks' pay against other chains that employ baristas:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Barista/Hourly_Rate

Looks to me like, of the 14 companies compared, three pay less than Starbucks, 3 pay the same, and 7 pay more, a few significantly more.

According to the data found at the MWE database at BLS, average service industry pay for nonunion civilian food preparation and serving-related occupations is $10.60 per hour. See:

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=wm

Of course, you have to know how to use a database...

Glassdoor.com says that Starbucks baristas make $9.42 per hour on average. See:

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Starbucks-Salaries-E2202.htm

Of course, you keep ignoring the main point, which is that "substandard" or "standard" are the wrong points of comparison. What is standard can still be wrong.

James972 said:

See what happens when a libsocialist tries to get real???

Click to expand...

No. I don't know what a libsocialist is.

James972 said:

you mean according to your arbitrary standards its not fair or just

Click to expand...

There's nothing arbitrary about what is fair and just.

James972 said:

not the market's standards

Click to expand...

One point that is foremost among the not-terribly-huge complex of points I've made is that the market is manipulated by Smith's masters (employers, basically). Smith himself made the observation, and what he observed remains true, at least in my experience.

James972 said:

and your standard is implimented at liberal gunpoint-right??

Click to expand...

If I had my way, businesses would be much more strictly regulated with respect to wages, and those regulations would be enforced. I doubt, however, that guns need to be pointed.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

Already explained...with logic apparently a conservative cannot follow.



CEOs and other company officers, who make $10m per year, are employers, not employees. They form their own club.



As for whether people actually love the product:

Here are a slew of taste tests indicating people think Starbucks coffee sucks:

https://thebolditalic.com/guess-the...-italic-san-francisco-145e59e4b7dc#.2oavq3lci

Taste test: We pitted Amazon?s new private-label coffee against Starbucks, Folgers and Stumptown ? and you won't believe who won - GeekWire

No Joke: Walmart Coffee Tastes As Good As Starbucks | TIME.com

A bitter shot for Starbucks: McDonald’s wins taste test | The Seattle Times

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Starbucks-considered-bad-by-coffee-purists

And here's a pretty good layperson's explanation of how retail chains manipulate customers to purchase less-than-stellar products:

http://www.business2community.com/c...-starbucks-coffee-0995182#0llJr1Hqu7ypS5UM.97

As to pay, here's how PayScale.com ranks Starbucks' pay against other chains that employ baristas:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Barista/Hourly_Rate

Looks to me like, of the 14 companies compared, three pay less than Starbucks, 3 pay the same, and 7 pay more, a few significantly more.

According to the data found at the MWE database at BLS, average service industry pay for nonunion civilian food preparation and serving-related occupations is $10.60 per hour. See:

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=wm

Of course, you have to know how to use a database...

Glassdoor.com says that Starbucks baristas make $9.42 per hour on average. See:

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Starbucks-Salaries-E2202.htm

Of course, you keep ignoring the main point, which is that "substandard" or "standard" are the wrong points of comparison. What is standard can still be wrong.



No. I don't know what a libsocialist is.



There's nothing arbitrary about what is fair and just.



One point that is foremost among the not-terribly-huge complex of points I've made is that the market is manipulated by Smith's masters (employers, basically). Smith himself made the observation, and what he observed remains true, at least in my experience.



If I had my way, businesses would be much more strictly regulated with respect to wages, and those regulations would be enforced. I doubt, however, that guns need to be pointed.

Click to expand...

How would you enforce those regulations if employers refised to follow them? Thats right. With people carrying guns.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

Thumper said:

How would you enforce those regulations if employers refised to follow them? Thats right. With people carrying guns.

Click to expand...

I've never heard of a case of an employer having to be forced, at gunpoint, to follow a law. I've heard of some employers being arrested (usually by men with guns on their hips, sure--but not drawn) for not following laws. Not that it ever will happen, but if there were laws governing wages more strictly, those laws would be enforced like any other law. Are you seriously complaining that laws sometimes have to be enforced?

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

I've never heard of a case of an employer having to be forced, at gunpoint, to follow a law. I've heard of some employers being arrested (usually by men with guns on their hips, sure--but not drawn) for not following laws. Not that it ever will happen, but if there were laws governing wages more strictly, those laws would be enforced like any other law. Are you seriously complaining that laws sometimes have to be enforced?

Click to expand...

And what would happen if someone was to refuse to be arressed for an assinine law?

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

Thumper said:

And what would happen if someone was to refuse to be arressed for an assinine law?

Click to expand...

Presumably, they'd be tackled to the ground for resisting arrest, and they'd have their day in court. Before it would be necessary for law enforcement to draw guns on an employer, I would think that employer would have to draw first. The kind of scenario you seem to be envisioning just never happens. Most regulations on corporations are followed without anyone being arrested, and even when broken, they are usually enforced by levying fines.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

Presumably, they'd be tackled to the ground for resisting arrest, and they'd have their day in court. Before it would be necessary for law enforcement to draw guns on an employer, I would think that employer would have to draw first. The kind of scenario you seem to be envisioning just never happens. Most regulations on corporations are followed without anyone being arrested, and even when broken, they are usually enforced by levying fines.

Click to expand...

There are many instances of police using lethal force against people when they didnt need to.

But I think you understand my point. Calling for a law to force employers to pay more is the same thing as pointing a gun to their head to get them to pay more.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

Thumper said:

There are many instances of police using lethal force against people when they didnt need to.

But I think you understand my point. Calling for a law to force employers to pay more is the same thing as pointing a gun to their head to get them to pay more.

Click to expand...

I disagree it's quite the same thing, but I would agree that simply putting a law on the books is a kind of force, and isn't something I consider lightly. In this case, there's something at stake that is worth a great deal. As I see it, the force that puts downward pressure on wages has no adequate counter-force in market economics. Left to its own devices, a market will eventually lead to a few people with a great deal of wealth, and poverty for everyone else.

Throughout history, the holy grail of politics has been to find a system that permits long-term stability. For a long time, political theorists thought that the search for such a system should be confined to pure politics. It's only been in the last couple of centuries that anyone has begun to recognize that stability depends as much on how an economy distributes wealth as the form the government takes. What is at stake in discussions like this is the long-term stability of a nation and a people, just as much as the individual happiness of those people and the level of justice inherent in their interactions overall.

Put simply, systems that drive a substantial-enough portion of a populace to desperate measures are not stable (feudal systems, laissez-faire systems). Systems that do not deal fairly with all people are not stable (dictatorships, fascism). Everyone alive today has grown up under stable conditions, though I think that's slowly coming to an end, and we're all going to get quite a lesson in what it means to live in a disorderly and unstable society. Once we've spent a few decades living through that, maybe people will have enough experience with it to judge more effectively whether it's worth it to regulate more closely how wealth is distributed.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

s I see it, the force that puts downward pressure on wages has no adequate counter-force in market economics.

Click to expand...

You are trying to battle or contravene an aspect of any market-economy that is "natural". Prices go up, prices go down - whether for goods or services (and Labor is indeed a "service").

Let's not try to get too "intellectual" about why prices go up or down, when we know full well that they are moved by market-forces. And if we want to return to the socialist "theory" of government-set pricing, then we should be prepared to accept the consequences that we all know too well.

That is, socialism simply did not work.

The purpose of government is "to do as much good for society as is humanly possible". But, sometimes we think that means "guarantying outcomes". Which is always a dangerous game in any socio-economic system that involves highly unpredictable human interaction on the massive scale of a free market-economy ...

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

If I had my way, businesses would be much more strictly regulated with respect to wages, and those regulations would be enforced. I doubt, however, that guns need to be pointed.

Click to expand...

a liberal is all about violence. Nobody is going to pay the wage the libNazi demands unless the libnazi has a pointed gun and prisons.
And lets be honest shall we, a liberal is a communist with 10001 other interventions in the free market in mind all of which would depend on liberal gun violence. Jefferson and capitalism are about peaceful and voluntary relationships.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

Lafayette said:

The purpose of government is "to do as much good for society as is humanly possible".

Click to expand...

Wrong of course. That merely creates civil war as each govt and each politician decides what is good for its/his special interest groups at the expense of other special interest groups.

The purpose of our govt is to protect the natural right to individual liberty. This is why our liberals spied for Stalin.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

Lafayette said:

That is, socialism simply did not work.
.

Click to expand...

That's an understatement given that 120 million human souls slowly starved to death. Sadly, a liberal will lack the IQ to understand Aristotle, Christ, Locke, Sidney, Jefferson, Friedman and individual liberty, and thus is forced to accept the superstition of magical govt.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

Left to its own devices, a market will eventually lead to a few people with a great deal of wealth, and poverty for everyone else.
.

Click to expand...

absurd of course, Bill Gates for example could not have $70 billion unless 100's of million of people had the wealth to buy his software. Capitalism is like love, its reciprocal, both parties must serve each other. If you offer low pay or poor working conditions the best workers leave for better pay and conditions. 10,000 companies go bankrupt each month when their jobs and/or products are no longer the best in the world.

College grads earn more.The free market demands that they get more, not less than HS grads. Econ 101, class one day one.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

James972 said:

a liberal is all about violence. Nobody is going to pay the wage the libNazi demands unless the libnazi has a pointed gun and prisons.
And lets be honest shall we, a liberal is a communist with 10001 other interventions in the free market in mind all of which would depend on liberal gun violence. Jefferson and capitalism are about peaceful and voluntary relationships.

Click to expand...

While I am not a pacifist, I don't particularly like violence. In this case, force must be met with force--employers use force to coerce people into taking the jobs they offer--if you don't have a job (unless you win the lottery or are an exceptionally good thief), you starve. That's just as much a threat as leveling a gun on someone.

Of course you're aware there are just as bad carricatures of conservatives: fascist fundamentalists who would use a gun to force everyone to attend the same church, lyching black people, Indians, latinos, and homosexuals along the way. And just as there are a few on the extreme conservative end of the scale who do support exactly that view, there are a few on the extreme left end of the spectrum who are basically as you describe. But most are not, on either side.

Sure, liberals generally want more government regulation than most conservatives, but even the most extreme among us would stop somewhere. You may disagree with my methodology, but attributing evil goals to liberals (i.e. goals that they recognize as evil, and choose to go through with anyway) is not merely extreme, it's dangerous. I say the same to liberals who think conservatives are evil.

Now, all of this said, explain to me why the market is idolized here. More specifically, explain why government power is so feared, while corporate power is welcomed. Corporations wield a lot of the same kinds of power as government can these days. Large corporations have their own well-armed security forces who are loyal to their corporate masters. More and more corporations are dictating to their employees what they can and cannot do off the clock (and often making no distinction between on and off time for salaried employees). As I have argued (and shown, in my view), these interactions are only nominally voluntary.

James972 said:

absurd of course, Bill Gates for example could not have $70 billion unless 100's of million of people had the wealth to buy his software. Capitalism is like love, its reciprocal, both parties must serve each other. If you offer low pay or poor working conditions the best workers leave for better pay and conditions. 10,000 companies go bankrupt each month when their jobs and/or products are no longer the best in the world.

College grads earn more.The free market demands that they get more, not less than HS grads. Econ 101, class one day one.

Click to expand...

Your example comes after the labor movement and WWII. Go back to laissez-faire economics after the Civil War, culminating in the gilded age, when there were few regulations, resulting in horrible living conditions for the poor (there was no middle class, really), wages of the kind you're jokingly describing. At the same time, a few elite were living in great wealth, politicians were corrupt, and there was practically no regulation on business. Folks on your side are gradually pushing us back to that--a time we've learned to forget.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

While I am not a pacifist, I don't particularly like violence. In this case, force must be met with force--employers use force to coerce people into taking the jobs they offer--if you don't have a job (unless you win the lottery or are an exceptionally good thief), you starve. That's just as much a threat as leveling a gun on someone.

Of course you're aware there are just as bad carricatures of conservatives: fascist fundamentalists who would use a gun to force everyone to attend the same church, lyching black people, Indians, latinos, and homosexuals along the way. And just as there are a few on the extreme conservative end of the scale who do support exactly that view, there are a few on the extreme left end of the spectrum who are basically as you describe. But most are not, on either side.

Sure, liberals generally want more government regulation than most conservatives, but even the most extreme among us would stop somewhere. You may disagree with my methodology, but attributing evil goals to liberals (i.e. goals that they recognize as evil, and choose to go through with anyway) is not merely extreme, it's dangerous. I say the same to liberals who think conservatives are evil.

Now, all of this said, explain to me why the market is idolized here. More specifically, explain why government power is so feared, while corporate power is welcomed. Corporations wield a lot of the same kinds of power as government can these days. Large corporations have their own well-armed security forces who are loyal to their corporate masters. More and more corporations are dictating to their employees what they can and cannot do off the clock (and often making no distinction between on and off time for salaried employees). As I have argued (and shown, in my view), these interactions are only nominally voluntary.



Your example comes after the labor movement and WWII. Go back to laissez-faire economics after the Civil War, culminating in the gilded age, when there were few regulations, resulting in horrible living conditions for the poor (there was no middle class, really), wages of the kind you're jokingly describing. At the same time, a few elite were living in great wealth, politicians were corrupt, and there was practically no regulation on business. Folks on your side are gradually pushing us back to that--a time we've learned to forget.

Click to expand...

I know this is a touchy subject, stupidly IMHO, but the Southern counter complaints of Northern manufacturers forcing a worse kind of slavery, wage-slavery, were not unfounded.

I've even seen some papers that have showed that slaves had a higher quality of life versus a Northern immigrant worker. I'll see if I can find it. This is generally after slave importation was made illegal, the market for slave supply shrunk and they could demand more. Surprisingly similar to the effect of Unions.

Also, slaves were owned capital while workers were rented capital.

How do you treat a Maserati you own (average slave price was 100k+ in 2016 dollars, post importation cessation) versus one you Rent?

The real Question then becomes, how do you treat a LEASED vehicle.

The contract makes the difference.

Only a Union can help workers negotiate a Lease level strength of contract.

The TRUE problem, is how do we stop Unions from becoming too strong? From making our labour uncompetitive, like many European countries.

IMHO, we must pit Industry wide National unions versus Industry wide National Employers/Industry Associations. Both sides Need equal fire power.

The above is less necessary in more competitive, productive, efficient and higher value added (as well as a source of foreign currency) and "exposed" industries, read export oriented industries. Because foreign competition itself compels Unions to make competition oriented adjustments unenjoyed by their constituency. I can probably find this paper too, if you're interested.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

Chinandenga said:

The TRUE problem, is how do we stop Unions from becoming too strong? From making our labour uncompetitive, like many European countries.

IMHO, we must pit Industry wide National unions versus Industry wide National Employers/Industry Associations. Both sides Need equal fire power.

Click to expand...

This is the one of the most bewilderingly insane things I have ever read.

Industry-wide national unions are monopoly suppliers of labor, and industry-wide national employers/industry associations are monopoly suppliers of whatever the **** they sell, so you're basically taking the problem of monopolistic pricing and multiplying that problem by itself, requiring a repeal of antitrust regulations, and pretending it's a solution.

Did you forget there's a third side to this equation who gets royally ****ed under your humble opinion? The consumers/taxpayers/ratepayers who pay the price for all that monopoly power. Two wolves and a sheep "negotiating" and "voting democratically" about what's for dinner, in other words.

There should be no monopoly power in society except the unavoidable natural monopoly power of government. In other words, if anyone is becoming "too powerful," it is because the controls put in place to preempt monopoly power are becoming outdated and undermined need to be strengthened and modernized.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

Neomalthusian said:

This is the one of the most bewilderingly insane things I have ever read.

Industry-wide national unions are monopoly suppliers of labor, and industry-wide national employers/industry associations are monopoly suppliers of whatever the **** they sell, so you're basically taking the problem of monopolistic pricing and multiplying that problem by itself, requiring a repeal of antitrust regulations, and pretending it's a solution.

Did you forget there's a third side to this equation who gets royally ****ed under your humble opinion? The consumers/taxpayers/ratepayers who pay the price for all that monopoly power. Two wolves and a sheep "negotiating" and "voting democratically" about what's for dinner, in other words.

There should be no monopoly power in society except the unavoidable natural monopoly power of government. In other words, if anyone is becoming "too powerful," it is because the controls put in place to preempt monopoly power are becoming outdated and undermined need to be strengthened and modernized.

Click to expand...

There are PLENTY of countries which COMPEL National Industry Associations to annually negotiate with National Industry Unions. Austria is a prime example.

I believe Germany has some too, but I'm not a hundred percent sure.

Just because you cant comprehend something doesn't mean its insane. It means you need to appropriate more time to the subject's understanding.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

Chinandenga said:

There are PLENTY of countries which COMPEL National Industry Associations to annually negotiate with National Industry Unions. Austria is a prime example.

I believe Germany has some too, but I'm not a hundred percent sure.

Just because you cant comprehend something doesn't mean its insane. It means you need to appropriate more time to the subject's understanding.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean that, sorry. You're ignoring the existence and welfare of consumers. "Pitting" monopoly capitalists (producers) against monopoly unions (also producers) has only one solution, which is to push the price for consumers dramatically higher than it needs to be, which decreases their living standards. It takes the monopoly problem and intentionally compounds it, and there is no protection for the consumer. The consumer's protection is his or her right to purchase from an alternate producer who doesn't gouge.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

employers use force to coerce people into taking the jobs they offer.

Click to expand...

actually that would be slavery. Under capitalism people are free not to take jobs, and to quit jobs whenever they want or whenever they can find a better one. there is no coercion. There is no liberal violence on either side. Everything is done peacefully and by mutual agreement. If a business is about to go bankrupt but could be saved if workers agreed to a very low wage the business must live, nonviolently, with the decision the workers make even if that decision will cause bankruptcy. To allow all sides: workers, employers, consumers, to compete to use govt violence against the other sides breeds constant civil war and destroys all economic incentives. Now you understand how communism slowly starved 120 million to death.

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

Sure, liberals generally want more government regulation than most conservatives, but even the most extreme among us would stop somewhere. .

Click to expand...

no!! liberals are naturally and eternally violent people. When Obama took over govt was bigger than ever and all he wanted was bigger govt still!!! When Sanders( open Nazi communist) ran govt was bigger than ever and guess what he wanted!!! When communism fails liberals want more communism and then still more communism. Its the essential Nazi instinct in human nature that our Constitution was designed to avoid. But even it is failing. Violent control over others is in human nature; liberals are the vanguard!!

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

More specifically, explain why government power is so feared,.

Click to expand...

our founders determined that govt power was the source of evil in human history. That is the entire wisdom of the Constitution. Its all about limiting the power of liberal govt. Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb while he was slowly starving 60 million to death?

Re: Let's force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/HR raise because we are caring liber

ashurbanipal said:

government power is so feared, while corporate power is welcomed..

Click to expand...

OMG!!!! Govt is a very violent monopoly and thus the enemy of civilization. There are 30 million corporations in America who compete with each other and who survive only by offering us the best jobs and products in the world. They are like the blood in our veins, the greatest social welfare program in human history by 10000 times! We don't fear them we love them for keeping us alive, unless of course we are brainwashed Marxist parrots thinking like 18th Century fools!!