Libertarians should support the wal mart strike.

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I said them paying me 5$ an hour was fine because I lived at home I had no bills...I bought school clothes with my checks the time I worked there...that's it. If you are going to employ someone do the decent thing and give them a livable damn wage...all you do by not giving them a livable wage is force the onto the government welfare. You think me and my wife enjoy getting welfare? Hell no..it sucks...much rather her employer pay a decent wage for the work she busted her ass learning to do the correct way...ya know it won't kill them to skip a few shopping trips to NYC on their multi million dollar jet. My wife loves her job its a job she loves doing but she is looking for new work because they don't pay enough...the head chef is also looking...they already lost one last month and now this one is getting tired of their shit wages/hours as well.

So if I pay someone below a wage deemed livable I'm forcing them on the govt dole?

Do you have any idea how pathetically stupid and entitled you sound?

Hell I'll give you a list of solutions besides the welfare system.

1. Further their education.
2. Switch jobs.
3. Learn a trade or specific skill. Some require NO SCHOOLING if you hunt for someone willing to train you on the job like I did and currently do for others.
4. Start your own business. Lawn service to computer tech or whatever skill you may have.
5. Get a second job.


And last but not least defraud the welfare system while you work for cash while you whine like a little bitch on USMB

Both my and my wife have done
1 and 3. Does no good.I haven't defrauded anyone...I refuse to hash this over AGAIN because in your old age you can't comprehend simple fucking things. I have explained it more than once. You enjoy your crony capitalism aka wage slavery I will continue to fight against it.

I dictate my own wages. Meanwhile you live off my taxes.

You're welcome bum

 

[National Socialist]

So if I pay someone below a wage deemed livable I'm forcing them on the govt dole?

Do you have any idea how pathetically stupid and entitled you sound?

Hell I'll give you a list of solutions besides the welfare system.

1. Further their education.
2. Switch jobs.
3. Learn a trade or specific skill. Some require NO SCHOOLING if you hunt for someone willing to train you on the job like I did and currently do for others.
4. Start your own business. Lawn service to computer tech or whatever skill you may have.
5. Get a second job.


And last but not least defraud the welfare system while you work for cash while you whine like a little bitch on USMB

Both my and my wife have done
1 and 3. Does no good.I haven't defrauded anyone...I refuse to hash this over AGAIN because in your old age you can't comprehend simple fucking things. I have explained it more than once. You enjoy your crony capitalism aka wage slavery I will continue to fight against it.

I dictate my own wages. Meanwhile you live off my taxes.

You're welcome bum

Course you do. You own your own business. I don't live off jack shit. My wife has taxes stolen from her every single check,I have taxes stolen from me when I put gas in my truck,buy something at the store,etc etc...keep dreaming son.

 

[Toro]

It's perfectly reasonable for AnCapAtheist to be a libertarian and say that companies should pay a living wage as long as he isn't saying that the government should force companies to pay a living wage. If he says that the government should force companies to pay a wage, then that isn't libertarian.

Being a libertarian doesn't necessarily mean being a stooge for corporations. Corporations are legal entities created by laws passed by the state. That's not necessarily bad or good (I think it's good FTR), but there is nothing that says capital has a God-given right to be legally protected (outside of typical property rights). For example, there is nothing inconsistent with being a libertarian and saying capital shouldn't have limited liability.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If he intends to keep that job yes he needs a livable wage. Maybe not 12$ an hour it would depend on where he lives etc....I figure 1200$ a month is enough to live off of. I can raise a family on 1500$ so 1200$ for a single guy should be easy.That's 300$ a week.That would be a bare minimum...it should go up from there...they are now telling my wife they had to cut her hours thanks to odumbass care...can't let her have more than 32 hours a week or they have to give her benefits...must really hurt those rich snobs who rake in millions every year to pay a little benefits.

So you want the employer to pay more for a person based entirely on their age, and with absolutely no consideration to the employee's skill-level or the actual job being performed?

Based on the fact they must pay bills/rent etc. If they were paying based on skill level instead of just job title then ceo's wouldn't be raking in millions every year for sitting on their ass.

Whine more please...you have no clue what I do or how I do it. So fuck off pops. It is everyone's business. Seeing how they pay shit wages which forces the employee to get welfare to make ends meet...perfect example is me and my family...wife works pays into the system but doesn't make enough...so yeah its everyone's business to know they aren't paying shit for wages. You sir are a fucking twit for believing everything you read....seriously...you are. Oh btw the welfare folks here know what I make...it asks if you make "other" money...and seeing how what I make every month varies they don't really take it into consideration because its still well below what a family of 5 must make to not be allowed to get help.

I say a teen aka anyone under 18 doesn't need to worry about bills/rent/car notes etc...they are their parents problem until 18. Once they turn 18 a livable wage should be paid. Employers keep shitting on its employees they are gonna get bit.

Oh, they don't? Just how ignorant are you? I've been on my own since I was sixteen, bud. Paid my own bills. Should I have been given a "living wage"? You're still missing Kevin's point and insisting upon repeating your claim without even apparently thinking it through.

That's your problem. MOST kids aren't on their own until 18. Most don't have rent until then. Most don't have utility bills until then. cell phone bills sure,that's about it...They all need to take Henry Ford as an example. Paid his workers 5$ a day which was big bucks back then. The average was 2.50 a day. He doubled it.

So only self entitled sniveling little fraudulent fucktwits such as yourself, who decided to learn no skill and had 3 kids, deserve a "living wage"?

I see. Majority multipliers.

 

[National Socialist]

I have a skill. Truck Driving requires a special license which I have.

 

[Contumacious]

Walmart Strike Black Friday: Why Libertarians Should Support This Movement

Yep...I agree 100% seems I am with the majority on this and not in the minority.Wal Mart is crony capitalism not TRUE capitalism.

In 2004, a year in which Wal-Mart reported $9.1 billion in profits; the retailer's California employees collected $86 million in public assistance, Mother Jones reported.

An employer has the right to hire an employee if they both consent.

How much the employer pays the employee or how much fringe benefits an employee gets is not mine or the government's concern.

It is not the government nor the taxpayers' responsibility to financially support the employee.

I fail to see why this a Libertarian issue.

.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I have a skill. Truck Driving requires a special license which I have.

Driving a truck is not a skill, its a job. You clearly aren't marketable and thats no ones fault but your own. Get off the fucking computer and do something for your kids you lazy fuck.

 

[National Socialist]

Walmart Strike Black Friday: Why Libertarians Should Support This Movement

Yep...I agree 100% seems I am with the majority on this and not in the minority.Wal Mart is crony capitalism not TRUE capitalism.

In 2004, a year in which Wal-Mart reported $9.1 billion in profits; the retailer's California employees collected $86 million in public assistance, Mother Jones reported.

An employer has the right to hire an employee if they both consent.

How much the employer pays the employee or how much fringe benefits an employee gets is not mine or the government's concern.

It is not the government nor the taxpayers' responsibility to financially support the employee.

I fail to see why this a Libertarian issue.

.

Its not your concern that they have to get welfare benefits because they don't get paid enough?

I have a skill. Truck Driving requires a special license which I have.

Driving a truck is not a skill, its a job. You clearly aren't marketable and thats no ones fault but your own. Get off the fucking computer and do something for your kids you lazy fuck.

1. Yes it is. I had to go to a truck driving school to learn to drive 18 wheelers,dump trucks etc. Keep showing your ignorance.
2. Every talk about my kids again I will track you down.
3. Enjoy ignore bitch,the stupidity that flows from your mouth is more than I care to deal with every day...you rank right up there with jake.

 

[NightFox]

Yep...I agree 100% seems I am with the majority on this and not in the minority.Wal Mart is crony capitalism not TRUE capitalism.

Greetings AnCapTheist, I'm new here (and a libertarian) and thanks for bringing up an interesting topic.... after reading through the replies in this topic and considering your viewpoint allow me to point out a few things for you to consider:

Let's assume an unskilled worker hires in at Wal-Mart and based on Wal-Mart's internal calculations a median worker in that position produces $6.50 an hour in services (i.e. the market value of that particular job), let's assume that Wal-Mart's costs (overhead, advertising, Social Security Matching, etc..,) is another $2.50 an hour and $1.00 per hour is return on investment for the owners (shareholders of the company), for a grand total of $10.00 per hour (so at $10.00 per hour all costs are covered).

Things to consider in that $10.00 per hour, if we assume that Wal-Marts management are good business people they have done everything to reduce their overhead (that $2.50 an hour, much of which are fixed costs largely beyond the control of the business such as taxes, SS matches, insurance, etc..) AND let's assume that the $1.00 is required to keep investment capital competitive (i.e. keep investors from moving their capital to other businesses/markets that offer a better risk/reward ratio), also assume that the $6.50 an hour in compensation (wages & benefits) is below what you consider a "living wage".

Where does Wal-Mart get the money to increase the compensation for said unskilled employee without suffering a per hour loss for that employee ?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Walmart Strike Black Friday: Why Libertarians Should Support This Movement

Yep...I agree 100% seems I am with the majority on this and not in the minority.Wal Mart is crony capitalism not TRUE capitalism.

An employer has the right to hire an employee if they both consent.

How much the employer pays the employee or how much fringe benefits an employee gets is not mine or the government's concern.

It is not the government nor the taxpayers' responsibility to financially support the employee.

I fail to see why this a Libertarian issue.

.

Its not your concern that they have to get welfare benefits because they don't get paid enough?

I have a skill. Truck Driving requires a special license which I have.

Driving a truck is not a skill, its a job. You clearly aren't marketable and thats no ones fault but your own. Get off the fucking computer and do something for your kids you lazy fuck.

1. Yes it is. I had to go to a truck driving school to learn to drive 18 wheelers,dump trucks etc. Keep showing your ignorance.
2. Every talk about my kids again I will track you down.
3. Enjoy ignore bitch,the stupidity that flows from your mouth is more than I care to deal with every day...you rank right up there with jake.

You brought up your kids idiot I didnt. Besides if you can't even track down a job like a real man im not to worried about you tracking me down. Besides your welfare check wouldn't even pay the gas for you to get here.

Loser

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Based on the fact they must pay bills/rent etc. If they were paying based on skill level instead of just job title then ceo's wouldn't be raking in millions every year for sitting on their ass.

You're not making any sense. On the one hand, you argue that Pizza Hut paying you $5/hour before you were 18 was fine, and on the other hand you argue that places like Pizza Hut aren't paying based on skill-level. Wal-Mart and Pizza Hut don't offer "living wages" because those jobs don't require any amount of skill.

I said them paying me 5$ an hour was fine because I lived at home I had no bills...I bought school clothes with my checks the time I worked there...that's it. If you are going to employ someone do the decent thing and give them a livable damn wage...all you do by not giving them a livable wage is force the onto the government welfare. You think me and my wife enjoy getting welfare? Hell no..it sucks...much rather her employer pay a decent wage for the work she busted her ass learning to do the correct way...ya know it won't kill them to skip a few shopping trips to NYC on their multi million dollar jet. My wife loves her job its a job she loves doing but she is looking for new work because they don't pay enough...the head chef is also looking...they already lost one last month and now this one is getting tired of their shit wages/hours as well.

And yet skill-level doesn't necessarily change simply because of your financial situation. If I'm getting paid $5/hour as a 17 year old dependent minor on Monday, my job and my skill-set do not change overnight when I become an 18 year old independent adult on Tuesday. My skills are still the same, and the job is still the same, therefore there's no reason I should be getting paid more on Tuesday than I was on Monday.

As to whether you enjoy getting welfare, I couldn't say. I would, however, say that you do seem to have a victim mentality whereby you take no responsibility for your situation and simply want to blame alleged greedy fat-cats for all of your troubles.

 

[kaz]

Yep...I agree 100% seems I am with the majority on this and not in the minority.Wal Mart is crony capitalism not TRUE capitalism.

Greetings AnCapTheist, I'm new here (and a libertarian) and thanks for bringing up an interesting topic.... after reading through the replies in this topic and considering your viewpoint allow me to point out a few things for you to consider:

Let's assume an unskilled worker hires in at Wal-Mart and based on Wal-Mart's internal calculations a median worker in that position produces $6.50 an hour in services (i.e. the market value of that particular job), let's assume that Wal-Mart's costs (overhead, advertising, Social Security Matching, etc..,) is another $2.50 an hour and $1.00 per hour is return on investment for the owners (shareholders of the company), for a grand total of $10.00 per hour (so at $10.00 per hour all costs are covered).

Things to consider in that $10.00 per hour, if we assume that Wal-Marts management are good business people they have done everything to reduce their overhead (that $2.50 an hour, much of which are fixed costs largely beyond the control of the business such as taxes, SS matches, insurance, etc..) AND let's assume that the $1.00 is required to keep investment capital competitive (i.e. keep investors from moving their capital to other businesses/markets that offer a better risk/reward ratio), also assume that the $6.50 an hour in compensation (wages & benefits) is below what you consider a "living wage".

Where does Wal-Mart get the money to increase the compensation for said unskilled employee without suffering a per hour loss for that employee ?

Well stated. And to add to that, let's say they do increase the compensation to pay the worker more than the value created by the job. The low skilled worker took the job because they didn't have a better offer. When Wal-Mart increased wages, they would have started to get better applicants who didn't want to work for what they offered below. Wal-Mart, not being idiots, will hire the more skilled workers who are now applying and the low skilled workers who were good enough for what Wal-Mart wanted them to do lose their jobs completely.

Cause and effect, simple to you and me, unfathomable to liberals. They make every decision as if nothing else will change. Then when it does, they try to fix that problem the same way, and so on. It never works because every action has a reaction. There is a simple solution, free market.

 

[kaz]

You're not making any sense. On the one hand, you argue that Pizza Hut paying you $5/hour before you were 18 was fine, and on the other hand you argue that places like Pizza Hut aren't paying based on skill-level. Wal-Mart and Pizza Hut don't offer "living wages" because those jobs don't require any amount of skill.

I said them paying me 5$ an hour was fine because I lived at home I had no bills...I bought school clothes with my checks the time I worked there...that's it. If you are going to employ someone do the decent thing and give them a livable damn wage...all you do by not giving them a livable wage is force the onto the government welfare. You think me and my wife enjoy getting welfare? Hell no..it sucks...much rather her employer pay a decent wage for the work she busted her ass learning to do the correct way...ya know it won't kill them to skip a few shopping trips to NYC on their multi million dollar jet. My wife loves her job its a job she loves doing but she is looking for new work because they don't pay enough...the head chef is also looking...they already lost one last month and now this one is getting tired of their shit wages/hours as well.

And yet skill-level doesn't necessarily change simply because of your financial situation. If I'm getting paid $5/hour as a 17 year old dependent minor on Monday, my job and my skill-set do not change overnight when I become an 18 year old independent adult on Tuesday. My skills are still the same, and the job is still the same, therefore there's no reason I should be getting paid more on Tuesday than I was on Monday.

As to whether you enjoy getting welfare, I couldn't say. I would, however, say that you do seem to have a victim mentality whereby you take no responsibility for your situation and simply want to blame alleged greedy fat-cats for all of your troubles.

As an employer, I can tell you that almost anyone who's honest, clean, reliable and does their job will zoom past minimum wage very quickly. If they can't do that, why is it their employer's fault?

 

[Contumacious]

Walmart Strike Black Friday: Why Libertarians Should Support This Movement

Yep...I agree 100% seems I am with the majority on this and not in the minority.Wal Mart is crony capitalism not TRUE capitalism.

An employer has the right to hire an employee if they both consent.

How much the employer pays the employee or how much fringe benefits an employee gets is not mine or the government's concern.

It is not the government nor the taxpayers' responsibility to financially support the employee.

I fail to see why this a Libertarian issue.

.

Its not your concern that they have to get welfare benefits because they don't get paid enough?
.

It is not WalMart responsibility to pay his employees "enough"?

If your employer doesn't pay you enough go work elsewhere.

It is not the taxpayers responsibility to pay the workers the difference.

.

 

[NightFox]

Well stated. And to add to that, let's say they do increase the compensation to pay the worker more than the value created by the job. The low skilled worker took the job because they didn't have a better offer. When Wal-Mart increased wages, they would have started to get better applicants who didn't want to work for what they offered below. Wal-Mart, not being idiots, will hire the more skilled workers who are now applying and the low skilled workers who were good enough for what Wal-Mart wanted them to do lose their jobs completely.

Good points, it seems to me the win-win situation with respect to increasing compensation for workers at Wal-Mart (or any other enterprise of scale employing unskilled workers) is for the business to engage in human capital development (internal training, college subsidy, etc..,) so that value produced by each employee is increased. Government *could* participate in this in lieu of direct subsidies (welfare payments) which makes more sense since society is actually investing in increasing the value of the worker instead of just providing subsistence level subsidies and society actually benefits from that.

This puts the onus on the workers themselves as well as providing them the opportunity to permanently increase the wages they are capable of commanding in the market place. Of course there seems to be push back from certain quarters whenever anybody is asked to take primary responsibility for their own lot in life but it certainly makes a lot more sense to me than just creating subsistence level dependency ad infinitum (like we tend to do now).