Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[Brain357]

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.

Given how ok you are with all this corporate welfare you might be a Marxist.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Let's get things straight

30 million people work and still do not make a wage that they can support themselves or their families. Taxpayers need to step in and pay the difference. Who should be responsible for those families....the taxpayer or the people who employ them?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Given how ok you are with all this corporate welfare you might be a Marxist.

WTF are you talking about? What corporatate effing welfare is is that you think I'm ok with? What are you some mental case?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Let's get things straight

30 million people work and still do not make a wage that they can support themselves or their families. Taxpayers need to step in and pay the difference. Who should be responsible for those families....the taxpayer or the people who employ them?

YOU DON'T HAVE THE EFFING RIGHT TO FORCE TAX PAYERS TO DO A GD THING. Taxpayers don't need to do shit. You want to better yourself, then get up off your ass and do it. Stop making excuses. People are responsible for their own families. I don't want your effing marxist help, get you effing hands out of my back pocket you mooch.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Given how ok you are with all this corporate welfare you might be a Marxist.

WTF are you talking about? What corporatate effing welfare is is that you think I'm ok with? What are you some mental case?

Well all the corporate welfare companies like Walmart collect obviously. The government is taking care of their workers be these companies pay so little. Meanwhile walmart makes billions. Now if they paid workers more the government wouldn't have to take care of them and we'd have less government. That's what I'm for. You seem to not be, so I'm guessing your a Marxist.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Let's get things straight

30 million people work and still do not make a wage that they can support themselves or their families. Taxpayers need to step in and pay the difference. Who should be responsible for those families....the taxpayer or the people who employ them?

YOU DON'T HAVE THE EFFING RIGHT TO FORCE TAX PAYERS TO DO A GD THING. Taxpayers don't need to do shit. You want to better yourself, then get up off your ass and do it. Stop making excuses. People are responsible for their own families. I don't want your effing marxist help, get you effing hands out of my back pocket you mooch.

Sure get a job at the largest company in the world maybe. Oh wait they pay so little that you'd still be on welfare.

 

[kaz]

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.

If I had that many couches I could open a Rooms To Go. I agreed with what it actually says, but I said you have to do it right and it won't work for all of them. There is no contradiction in the statements.

That does not at all support your contention that just raising salaries will make better employees. You have to make very clear what you are doing, how you are doing, follow up, not reward those who don't improve and then make sure their improvement sustains. Did you not read my post? I already told you this.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Sure they would. I always use the self check out at Walmart because I am faster than their cashiers.

 

[kaz]

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.

Given how ok you are with all this corporate welfare you might be a Marxist.

I asked what corporate welfare they get and haven't gotten an answer, when you have one get back to me. What money does government give to Walmart? You're full of shit, they harm them, they don't help them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

No they're not.

The people you are talking about won't even get a second job instead of going on the dole.

Used to be people would be ashamed to be a charity case not so much now.

 

[kaz]

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.

Let's get things straight

30 million people work and still do not make a wage that they can support themselves or their families. Taxpayers need to step in and pay the difference. Who should be responsible for those families....the taxpayer or the people who employ them?

Do you notice you don't even include as an option that people are responsible for themselves? That didn't even occur to you, did it?

And again with simple logic. Fine, so we don't let people work for less than $15 an hour. Walmart fires all their asses, how are they better off? How does that let your taxpayer off the hook?

Another thing that didn't occur to you is that I"m an employer, you're not, and I'm a taxpayer, you're not. In the end, you're sticking me with it anyway...

 

[kaz]

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.

Given how ok you are with all this corporate welfare you might be a Marxist.

If you're not a Marxist, you might just be a Marxist! I should send this in to Jeff Foxworthy. If you're not a redneck, you just might be a redneck! Hmm...on second thought I won't send him that one.

 

[Brain357]

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.

If I had that many couches I could open a Rooms To Go. I agreed with what it actually says, but I said you have to do it right and it won't work for all of them. There is no contradiction in the statements.

That does not at all support your contention that just raising salaries will make better employees. You have to make very clear what you are doing, how you are doing, follow up, not reward those who don't improve and then make sure their improvement sustains. Did you not read my post? I already told you this.

Here is an earlier quote from you:
"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."

And again:
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.

Sounds like you are wrong to me.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Given how ok you are with all this corporate welfare you might be a Marxist.

If you're not a Marxist, you might just be a Marxist! I should send this in to Jeff Foxworthy. If you're not a redneck, you just might be a redneck! Hmm...on second thought I won't send him that one.

Well you clearly love big government and spending. That's a good start.

 

[kaz]

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.

If I had that many couches I could open a Rooms To Go. I agreed with what it actually says, but I said you have to do it right and it won't work for all of them. There is no contradiction in the statements.

That does not at all support your contention that just raising salaries will make better employees. You have to make very clear what you are doing, how you are doing, follow up, not reward those who don't improve and then make sure their improvement sustains. Did you not read my post? I already told you this.

Here is an earlier quote from you:
"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."

And again:
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.

Sounds like you are wrong to me.

I explained what that means, I can do it again if you like.

Simply raising wages will not improve productivity. If you take your workers and give them across the board wage increases, nothing will improve. However, if you have a program in place which raising wages is part of an accountable process where people see the link between productivity and pay and that not improving productivity and pay will lead to a lack of pay, then you can in some workers achieve a marginal increase in productivity. But even then it's a challenge to sustain it.

I'll explain again since you wont' get that one either. What I said in the first sentence is that raising wages ALONE will do nothing, you have to do more. And then even if you do it the right way it will only work on some of your employees.

Any connection at all yet?

 

[Brain357]

If I had that many couches I could open a Rooms To Go. I agreed with what it actually says, but I said you have to do it right and it won't work for all of them. There is no contradiction in the statements.

That does not at all support your contention that just raising salaries will make better employees. You have to make very clear what you are doing, how you are doing, follow up, not reward those who don't improve and then make sure their improvement sustains. Did you not read my post? I already told you this.

Here is an earlier quote from you:
"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."

And again:
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.

Sounds like you are wrong to me.

I explained what that means, I can do it again if you like.

Simply raising wages will not improve productivity. If you take your workers and give them across the board wage increases, nothing will improve. However, if you have a program in place which raising wages is part of an accountable process where people see the link between productivity and pay and that not improving productivity and pay will lead to a lack of pay, then you can in some workers achieve a marginal increase in productivity. But even then it's a challenge to sustain it.

I'll explain again since you wont' get that one either. What I said in the first sentence is that raising wages ALONE will do nothing, you have to do more. And then even if you do it the right way it will only work on some of your employees.

Any connection at all yet?

Link?

 

[kaz]

Given how ok you are with all this corporate welfare you might be a Marxist.

If you're not a Marxist, you might just be a Marxist! I should send this in to Jeff Foxworthy. If you're not a redneck, you just might be a redneck! Hmm...on second thought I won't send him that one.

Well you clearly love big government and spending. That's a good start.

If I don't overpay my wages for your political ends then I love big government and spending. Got it. That's some powerful shit, I'll certainly look carefully before crossing swords with you again. Wow. I don't overpay my employees, so I'm a big government loving Marxist. That's just pure intellect. Amazing.

 

[kaz]

Here is an earlier quote from you:
"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."

And again:
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.

Sounds like you are wrong to me.

I explained what that means, I can do it again if you like.

Simply raising wages will not improve productivity. If you take your workers and give them across the board wage increases, nothing will improve. However, if you have a program in place which raising wages is part of an accountable process where people see the link between productivity and pay and that not improving productivity and pay will lead to a lack of pay, then you can in some workers achieve a marginal increase in productivity. But even then it's a challenge to sustain it.

I'll explain again since you wont' get that one either. What I said in the first sentence is that raising wages ALONE will do nothing, you have to do more. And then even if you do it the right way it will only work on some of your employees.

Any connection at all yet?

Link?

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.

 

[Listening]

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

No they're not.

The people you are talking about won't even get a second job instead of going on the dole.

Used to be people would be ashamed to be a charity case not so much now.

What's worse are the expectations.

Instead of nationalizing health care, why don't they nationalize cell phones.

A cell phone is a right (because it is a necessity) according some of my liberal associates.

As is a $25,000 car.

 

[Brain357]

If you're not a Marxist, you might just be a Marxist! I should send this in to Jeff Foxworthy. If you're not a redneck, you just might be a redneck! Hmm...on second thought I won't send him that one.

Well you clearly love big government and spending. That's a good start.

If I don't overpay my wages for your political ends then I love big government and spending. Got it. That's some powerful shit, I'll certainly look carefully before crossing swords with you again. Wow. I don't overpay my employees, so I'm a big government loving Marxist. That's just pure intellect. Amazing.

Well if your paying so little that employees are on welfare then yes you are. That's growing our government. And you seem to support it.