Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[dr.d]

A complex society needs workers at all levels...to pick crops, clean toilets, teach children, pick up garbage, flip burgers, put out fires, run offices etc...
And even "retards" need to live...and not necessarily be ambitious to "move up"...
Doing a good job at whatever work someone is cut out for ...that we all depend on...should earn her/him enough to live ...however modestly.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Ok...

Can anyone point to people dying in the streets cause their paychecks are not enough to live on?

That's a really stupid question ...you damn well KNOW that sustenance for folks on starvation wages is supplemented by food stamps, Medicaid and other taxpayer funded benefits...
Otherwise they would be dying in the streets...just like they do in North Korea...Just so that a privileged bunch could accrue unthinkable wealth...be they dynastic families like KMart or Kim Jung Ill...
Interesting that the same idiots that bitch about funding food stamps are the ones who want to deny workers a living wage...
Сognative Dissonance annyone?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[kaz]

Disgusting is them getting extremely poor wages in return.

Actually, we know they pay good wages because they have so many employees. Each one of those employees decided that the Walmart wage was better than any other job opportunity they had. No one took Walmart when they had a better offer. For an employer to be able to hire and retain that many employees is proof they are paying good wages and fair wages.

You mean walmart and the government are paying them.

Right, as opposed to your plan to have Walmart shit can them. Again, how does that help taxpayers who then get the full freight or them who then have no job which to increase their skills and thus employability?

You have a lose-lose solution, socialists always do...

 

[kaz]

What makes you think the current employees wouldn't earn the higher wage? Now they would have more incentive to do a good job. Now they might get my business.

You've obviously never managed anyone in your life, it doesn't work that way. No one works harder because they are paid more and no one who has ever managed anyone would say that.

You can hire a lot more reliable employee in the $10-$12 range than minimum wage. And you can hire a lot better employee than that when you get to $15 an hour. So obviously Walmart paying more will hire better employees and the ones now are going to be on the street.

So again, how did this help you exactly? Now you're paying the full freight.

Contradicted himself.

No Comrade. Again, i realize you think workers are like socket wrenches, each equal to the other. But what I am saying is that people who are worth more earn more. Not that paying them more makes them worth more. If you pay more, you get better applicants. You still have to interview them and try them out, but if you pay less, you won't get them applying. Jesus, liberals cannot grasp anything. No matter how dumbed down things are for you, it's still over your head.

 

[kaz]

I disagree. Now they have a better job worth holding onto. I have manages people, not sure what you have managed.

I've spent my career in management, management consulting and then as a business owner, and what makes sense to you is irrelevant. That doesn't happen in real life. In real life, people are paid what they decide to be worth, they never, ever rise to the level of what you pay them. As I said, you've obviously never managed anyone.

Efficiency Wage Theory | Economics Help

That proves nothing. And it also doesn't contradict anything I said. Liberals are so black and white, you're worse than Christians. I did not say there is no correlation between performance and pay. I am saying you do not make workers better by just paying them more.

How you accomplish this effectively is you raise the bar and let people know that if they perform better, and define better clearly and as quantitatively as possible you will increase their wages. Then if they do, you follow up.

The flip side is that you have to not give the ones who don't step up raises, or you even have to fire them. If everyone gets the reward, it's not an incentive anymore. Then you need to have a control phase. That means you need processes to ensure they maintain their stepped up performance.

Also, this is a way to get incremental improvement, it's not going to be a light switch that makes bad employees good. And it's going to do nothing for the ones like RW who show up for work every day not giving a crap about their job or employer and do the least possible amount of work before they can go home to watch TV and complain about greedy rich people and corporations.

 

[kaz]

Are you really trying to say that to be American is to coddle lazy ass loosers?

That's exactly what he's saying. Those of us who work hard are the freaks to be scorned, there's something wrong with us. People who are like him, do the least every day they can get away with are the normal ones.

You mean to say those of us that are footing the bill to pay his dumbass are the freaks? Really? Guess his parents never taught him NOT to bite the hand that feeds you. That concept must be alien.

They've been biting our hands as long as I can remember. It's how they justify what they do to us, that we're the problem, not them.

 

[kaz]

Disgusting is them getting extremely poor wages in return.

The "work" they do is not worth any more than they get

Really? The Waltons wouldn't be making billions without them.

Yeah, they would. They would hire better workers and have different processes where fewer people make smarter decisions. Obviously the Waltons picked the optimal solution, so they might have a billion or two less, but no way not hiring the least qualified people would have stopped them.

On the other hand, the low end workers they hire would have no jobs at all. Who did whom the "favor?" And I still don't get why you people don't like the word Marxist since you not only advocate the solutions but use the exact same rhetoric.

My business wouldn't lose a blip if we lost one of our lowest end workers, and they are all above minimum wage. Without me, it would be catastrophic. Why are a dozen dime a dozen guys worth more than one leader who keeps the ship afloat? Marxism is just stupid and it's geared towards political elites manipulating the ignorant masses.

 

[kaz]

Well they are making the Waltons billions so they must be pretty valuable. If they were making enough they wouldn't be on welfare. They have to be healthy enough to work which means they need to be able to afford housing and food. Since they are on welfare it's clear they aren't making enough.

Still whining I see. Those workers are quite free to look elsewhere. What is it you people keep missing about this? And why do you advocate government intrusion into legal contracts made by the employer/employee at the time of hiring?

Because the Waltons are making billions and collecting corporate welfare. Why do you love big government so much? As long as this continues the debt will continue to grow. But all you care is that the Waltons make billions. Who cares how bad it is for our country.

LOL what "corporate welfare" does walmart get?

 

[rightwinger]

Still whining I see. Those workers are quite free to look elsewhere. What is it you people keep missing about this? And why do you advocate government intrusion into legal contracts made by the employer/employee at the time of hiring?

Because the Waltons are making billions and collecting corporate welfare. Why do you love big government so much? As long as this continues the debt will continue to grow. But all you care is that the Waltons make billions. Who cares how bad it is for our country.

LOL what "corporate welfare" does walmart get?

They get the taxpayers to pay for food, shelter and healthcare for their workforce so that they can continue to pay low wages. They even tell their workers how to apply

 

[Skull Pilot]

That is all a slave needed

Where talking about what a person needs not wants.

You don't need to make 15 an hour to live.

Again, your description describes all a slave needed to survive. It is obvious that is where you set the bar
Why should a person have to work their lives just to live under those conditions.

Our workers used to strive for the American dream....now you say they should be satisfied with sustinance wages

I never said that they should be satisfied

But if a person does nothing to be worth more than what the bottom rung of the ladder pays then they have to be satisfied with the results of their choice

 

[rightwinger]

Where talking about what a person needs not wants.

You don't need to make 15 an hour to live.

Again, your description describes all a slave needed to survive. It is obvious that is where you set the bar
Why should a person have to work their lives just to live under those conditions.

Our workers used to strive for the American dream....now you say they should be satisfied with sustinance wages

I never said that they should be satisfied

But if a person does nothing to be worth more than what the bottom rung of the ladder pays then they have to be satisfied with the results of their choice

The problem is not the bottom rung of the ladder, but the limited number of rungs you can access once you try to climb

Even kids with a college degree are having problems getting jobs they can support themselves on.

Time to start fixing that ladder

 

[Skull Pilot]

Again, your description describes all a slave needed to survive. It is obvious that is where you set the bar
Why should a person have to work their lives just to live under those conditions.

Our workers used to strive for the American dream....now you say they should be satisfied with sustinance wages

I never said that they should be satisfied

But if a person does nothing to be worth more than what the bottom rung of the ladder pays then they have to be satisfied with the results of their choice

The problem is not the bottom rung of the ladder, but the limited number of rungs you can access once you try to climb

Even kids with a college degree are having problems getting jobs they can support themselves on.

Time to start fixing that ladder

The ladder is the same ladder it's always been.

It's the people that are different.

 

[Listening]

You think that because you thing the wage should be determined by what the employees work is worth to you, in business income and profits. I say that's a false premise. I say what is needed to live on is the criteria for unskilled work, regardless of the income the work brings in.

You're wrong of course.

I could tell you that all you "need" to live is 10K a year and you can share an apartment with 30 other people. You only "need" one pair of shoes, you only "need" to eat 1500 calories a day, you really don't "need" to buy underwear you certainly don't "need" to smoke or drink alcohol......

Need I go on?

That is all a slave needed

Once again, you reveal your lack of connecting capability.

Somehow you think to sell the idea these people are slaves. Guess What ? Some slaves lived a much better life than our working class poor.

Do you think they'd have given up some of their goodies to be free ?

Or are you so tied to the notion that your poverty somehow enslaves you that you need the government (a.k.a. the taker of rights) to "free" you from something.

Slaves did not have liberty.

The Working Class Poor do (or did until Bush and Obama showed up).

Which would you rather have. You'd sell your liberty for some more goodies ? Go ahead. There are plenty of countries that will gladly make that exchange.

 

[kaz]

Because the Waltons are making billions and collecting corporate welfare. Why do you love big government so much? As long as this continues the debt will continue to grow. But all you care is that the Waltons make billions. Who cares how bad it is for our country.

LOL what "corporate welfare" does walmart get?

They get the taxpayers to pay for food, shelter and healthcare for their workforce so that they can continue to pay low wages. They even tell their workers how to apply

I didn't ask how they subsidize government by paying people partially to live who can't support themselves, I asked how government subsidizes them...

 

[kaz]

The problem is not the bottom rung of the ladder, but the limited number of rungs you can access once you try to climb

We have the greatest, most open to all ladder in the history of human kind. The problem is that you belong to the one demographic that has limited rungs, people who won't reach and work for the next rung. I'll grant you there is no way to get ahead by schlepping your lazy, useless doesn't give a damn ass into work every day where you punch a clock and wait to go home. But that's on you, not business owners and managers. We give you limitless opportunity. But it's up to you, we cannot make you care about your job.

 

[Listening]

I never said that they should be satisfied

But if a person does nothing to be worth more than what the bottom rung of the ladder pays then they have to be satisfied with the results of their choice

The problem is not the bottom rung of the ladder, but the limited number of rungs you can access once you try to climb

Even kids with a college degree are having problems getting jobs they can support themselves on.

Time to start fixing that ladder

The ladder is the same ladder it's always been.

It's the people that are different.

They've been fixing the ladder for 100 years. But, now "it's time" ? They don't realize that their fixes are what has it broken to begin with.

 

[Brain357]

They do pay them enough for what their job is worth.

Well they are making the Waltons billions so they must be pretty valuable. If they were making enough they wouldn't be on welfare. They have to be healthy enough to work which means they need to be able to afford housing and food. Since they are on welfare it's clear they aren't making enough.

The cashier is not making them millions.

It's the people who buy the merchandise and handle all the logistics of getting it all to the stores and you can bet those people do not make minimum wage.

So maybe the people who settle for the low paying jobs ought to aspire to more because obviously better paying jobs are out there.

Without the people in the stores collecting the money from the customers they have no sales.

 

[Brain357]

Still whining I see. Those workers are quite free to look elsewhere. What is it you people keep missing about this? And why do you advocate government intrusion into legal contracts made by the employer/employee at the time of hiring?

Because the Waltons are making billions and collecting corporate welfare. Why do you love big government so much? As long as this continues the debt will continue to grow. But all you care is that the Waltons make billions. Who cares how bad it is for our country.

Proof?

What part you want proof of? It's all very well documented. You live under a rock?

 

[Brain357]

I've spent my career in management, management consulting and then as a business owner, and what makes sense to you is irrelevant. That doesn't happen in real life. In real life, people are paid what they decide to be worth, they never, ever rise to the level of what you pay them. As I said, you've obviously never managed anyone.

Efficiency Wage Theory | Economics Help

That proves nothing. And it also doesn't contradict anything I said. Liberals are so black and white, you're worse than Christians. I did not say there is no correlation between performance and pay. I am saying you do not make workers better by just paying them more.

How you accomplish this effectively is you raise the bar and let people know that if they perform better, and define better clearly and as quantitatively as possible you will increase their wages. Then if they do, you follow up.

The flip side is that you have to not give the ones who don't step up raises, or you even have to fire them. If everyone gets the reward, it's not an incentive anymore. Then you need to have a control phase. That means you need processes to ensure they maintain their stepped up performance.

Also, this is a way to get incremental improvement, it's not going to be a light switch that makes bad employees good. And it's going to do nothing for the ones like RW who show up for work every day not giving a crap about their job or employer and do the least possible amount of work before they can go home to watch TV and complain about greedy rich people and corporations.

From the link:
The argument is that paying workers a higher wage may lead to increased productivity from the worker. If a worker gets a relatively higher wage, he may feel more loyal and devoted to the company. With a higher wage, he may also fear being made unemployed and so will work harder to make sure he keeps his job.

 

[RKMBrown]

Because the Waltons are making billions and collecting corporate welfare. Why do you love big government so much? As long as this continues the debt will continue to grow. But all you care is that the Waltons make billions. Who cares how bad it is for our country.

LOL what "corporate welfare" does walmart get?

They get the taxpayers to pay for food, shelter and healthcare for their workforce so that they can continue to pay low wages. They even tell their workers how to apply

Let me get this straight... RW demands welfare be provided in the form of indefinite hand-outs, then when it is provided, RW blames the evil rich for forcing him to demand welfare be provided in the form of indefinite hand-outs. ROFL The only difference between forcing the evil rich to provide hand-outs in the form of welfare checks and forcing the evil rich to over pay their employees, is which people are getting handouts. RW wants everyone to be on hand-outs. RW is a marxist.

 

[rightwinger]

I never said that they should be satisfied

But if a person does nothing to be worth more than what the bottom rung of the ladder pays then they have to be satisfied with the results of their choice

The problem is not the bottom rung of the ladder, but the limited number of rungs you can access once you try to climb

Even kids with a college degree are having problems getting jobs they can support themselves on.

Time to start fixing that ladder

The ladder is the same ladder it's always been.

It's the people that are different.

The ladder available to my kids is nowhere near the ladder I had available to me

People are as hard working as they have ever been. Just the rules have changed