Study: Higher retail wages would lift Americans out of poverty

[UpperDecker]

I figured you guys would get a kick out of this progressive piece:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/21/study-higher-retail-wages-would-lift-americans-out-of-poverty-boost-economy/

[newbitech]

i'll bite


“Families living in or near poverty spend close to 100 percent of their income just to meet their basic needs, so when they receive an extra dollar in pay, they spend it on goods or services that were out of reach before. This ongoing unmet need makes low-income households more likely to spend new earnings immediately – channeling any addition to their income right back into the economy the company they work for that was forced to raise prices to make their business viable after being forced to raise wages by people who believe this study is more than a crock of shit, creating growth and jobs a larger tax income for government and others who like to redistribute wealth,” the report said.

[CaptUSA]

Lol... They simply have no understanding of economics or wealth creation. Money is not wealth.

[BAllen]

That's right, they don't. They are the ones in power. Give them what they want. Push for unions in retail. What's the old Greek slogan? Whom the gods would destroy they give him everything he wants.

[UpperDecker]

Lol... They simply have no understanding of economics or wealth creation. Money is not wealth.

I think they left out the simple facts of increased product pricing and job cuts. I mean, would a company want to pay all of their employees $25k a year to man the cash register or stock shelves? I highly doubt that.

[Dr.3D]

Yup, higher retail wages would just make fewer people work harder.

[Confederate]

Higher wages would drive more people into poverty because of higher prices.

[Lucille]

Lol... They simply have no understanding of economics or wealth creation. Money is not wealth.

"...but of how wealth accrues he was unteachable. It grew as on a tree, he conceived; to get it, you must kill your gardener, and lay an ax to the root of the golden bough."
--Paterson, Isabel. The Singing Season (Romance of Old)

[PaulConventionWV]

No shit, Sherlock. More money means more money? Who would've guessed.

Of course, nobody seems to realize that businesses even have budgets. Why is this such a hard concept for liberals?

[Acala]

Study says: Giving everyone a million dollars would make everyone a millionaire.

[Henry Rogue]

Yeah, lets force higher wages. Oh wait, that means prices will rise. They better fix prices so they don't rise. Oh wait, that means there will be nothing to buy. Hmm, I wonder if that Sound Money thing could make things affordable.

[ClydeCoulter]

The comments on the article are absolutely mind-numbing....................

[S.Shorland]

Lord Jesus,please come soon.

[Sola_Fide]

Study says: Giving everyone a million dollars would make everyone a millionaire.

Yeah! Free money!

[CaptainAmerica]

raising minimum wage every time results in worse economy,but its getting worse at the same time from other things.

[Sola_Fide]

The comments on the article are absolutely mind-numbing....................

Like this one?


WAC•2 hours ago

While this sounds good on the surface, it would have to be accompanied by other economic reforms to work. Raising the wage alone, would only embolden corporations to increase prices on basic necessities. Within a year, workers would be in the same position they are in now.

So, we also need price controls!

[VIDEODROME]

Honestly, if retail workers made more and as a consequence executives made less to offset it, that would probably be a good thing for the economy and everyone. Not that I think it's the government's business to set a higher wage, but I think the people can threaten to Unionize if they want to.

However, I've come to think inflation contributes to the upward shift of wealth. What if we give these retail workers a wage boost but then further devalue the money? They'll eventually be back where they were before if not worse off.

[thoughtomator]

Higher retail wages are good and do not translate 1:1 into higher prices, as labor is not the totality of input costs that go into the end price of products and services. It is certainly more desirable than lower wages at the bottom creating more wealth at the top.

This is not an argument to force anybody to do anything, of course. Without govt violence in the economy retail wages would already be much higher in real terms than they presently are.

[VIDEODROME]

This is not an argument to force anybody to do anything, of course. Without govt violence in the economy retail wages would already be much higher in real terms than they presently are.

Sometimes I wonder if it's government along with other factors like insurance. I mean it gets to be a pile of paperwork just to hire anybody. I think it all leads to a Human Resources department that becomes much bigger than it really should be.

I mean what if all the paperwork baloney could be cut out of staffing would that money shift to the actual retail employee?

[CaptUSA]

Overly simplistic wealth creation model:

If I value my labor at $9/hr and you pay me $10/hr, I gain $1 each hour.
If you value my labor at $11/hr and you pay me $10/hr, you gain $1 each hour.
We've created $2 of wealth due to this transaction!


If I value my labor at $9/hr and you pay me $12/hr, I gain $3 each hour.
If you value my labor at $11/hr and you pay me $12/hr, you lose $1 each hour.
Does that mean we still created $2?

NO! Because you wouldn't pay me that! You'd be losing wealth!
The only way a transaction happens is when both parties create wealth.
If you force one party to lose wealth, they will either leave, stop doing business, or go out of business.

The only answer here is that if you want to make more wealth, make sure your employer values your work more. That means work harder!

[John F Kennedy III]

Lol. Progressives are bad at math.

[ClydeCoulter]

Honestly, if retail workers made more and as a consequence executives made less to offset it, that would probably be a good thing for the economy and everyone. Not that I think it's the government's business to set a higher wage, but I think the people can threaten to Unionize if they want to.

However, I've come to think inflation contributes to the upward shift of wealth. What if we give these retail workers a wage boost but then further devalue the money? They'll eventually be back where they were before if not worse off.

So, how much money is spent on executives (wages/execs) and how much would cutting their salaries contribute to the income of the hourly workers?

Example $1,000,000.00 split among 100,000 employees would be $10 each. Any "REAL" figures to work with?

[VIDEODROME]

The real way to wealth is often to work smarter, not harder. I do think often people work hard and put in time. They see no real gains or meaningful raises and are like what the fuck.

If people, in particular Retail workers, see a pattern of this it's discouraging and demotivating. The rewards for hard work don't seem real to many people. Unless maybe you are really socking away money into your employer's stock at a discount.

Anyway, I'm not sure I can see a human being as just the some of their job description. Not to say a job is a charity, but if a company has a prosperous year give a bonus to the employees instead of chucking that money into the stock dividends. I think good wages can be like an investment in your workforce. Hopefully it foster good work morale and you are positioned to hire better people.

I also think the argument about the value of work contribution could be discussed at the executive level as well and really question if those execs really are worth their extravagant salaries. We should ask if money is being lost at the top level not just with people on the retail floor.

[torchbearer]

Lord Jesus,please come soon.


He's not coming back because too many people are wearing crosses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17lNs9EFOYI

[VIDEODROME]

So, how much money is spent on executives (wages/execs) and how much would cutting their salaries contribute to the income of the hourly workers?

Example $1,000,000.00 split among 100,000 employees would be $10 each. Any "REAL" figures to work with?

I wasn't sure if I should look at a single company and number crunch it because all companies have their unique circumstances. If I crunched numbers for Walmart then I'd be countered with Target or Meijer or Costco.

I think the premise is reasonable that lower incomes being raised would be helpful. No, I don't think a government solution is appropriate at all. I want to be clear on that.

I also just suggested lower executive wages as just one way to offset it.

Maybe I'm just a little sympathetic because I used to be a Walmart employee a long time ago. I can't imagine how anyone could afford even a modest studio apartment on those wages.

[AFPVet]

Um no. Instead, how about using a laissez fare approach to the free market? I just saw an ad in my small town for a police officer. Do you know what the starting wage was? $39,000! Now tell me how they can pay an entry level (non degree) grunt 39k when a lot of private companies around here don't like to offer that kind of salary to an entry level grad WITH a bachelors?

Even my small town is doing well apparently. Government takes from the hard workers who can't earn a decent wage and gives it to the hut hut squads and public managers.

Oh, and I will NEVER consider that position!

[thoughtomator]

Overly simplistic wealth creation model:

If I value my labor at $9/hr and you pay me $10/hr, I gain $1 each hour.
If you value my labor at $11/hr and you pay me $10/hr, you gain $1 each hour.
We've created $2 of wealth due to this transaction!


If I value my labor at $9/hr and you pay me $12/hr, I gain $3 each hour.
If you value my labor at $11/hr and you pay me $12/hr, you lose $1 each hour.
Does that mean we still created $2?

NO! Because you wouldn't pay me that! You'd be losing wealth!
The only way a transaction happens is when both parties create wealth.
If you force one party to lose wealth, they will either leave, stop doing business, or go out of business.

The only answer here is that if you want to make more wealth, make sure your employer values your work more. That means work harder!

The real problem is that there are encumbrances on both sides imposed by government that saps so much of the wealth creation that many transactions that normally would happen become economically infeasible for one or both sides of the transaction. It's not the $1 here or there that is the issue, it's the $5+ that the government takes that is the barrier to getting work done.

[VIDEODROME]

While I think higher wages are a good thing, you're right we have to accept the reality of market forces.

Forcefully doing things like price controls or even raising wages through government and and force of law is a mistake. You can't strong arm the market into behaving a certain way. I think that approach is futile.


I do think the way staff is compensated should have more considerations then just the value of their labor. For example, how about this Black Friday? Suppose on the ground level in big box stores there is a great deal of commerce. Where should that money go? Couldn't some of those retail employees see a bonus in a profitable year? Or do the execs spread the profit amongst themselves and the stock holders and give the retail employees some cheap pizza party? I think that kind of thing is a lousy part of capitalism or at least either lousy leadership or an strange ingrained part of big business.

Again to emphasize I Do Not Call For Government Intervention. Just stating my honest observations as a former Walmart employee.

[puppetmaster]

of course the income amount to qualify for the "poverty" level would increase as the cost of goods would rise dramatically.

like a dog chasing its tail......

[CaptUSA]

Overly simplistic wealth creation model:

If I value my labor at $9/hr and you pay me $10/hr, I gain $1 each hour.
If you value my labor at $11/hr and you pay me $10/hr, you gain $1 each hour.
We've created $2 of wealth due to this transaction!


If I value my labor at $9/hr and you pay me $12/hr, I gain $3 each hour.
If you value my labor at $11/hr and you pay me $12/hr, you lose $1 each hour.
Does that mean we still created $2?

NO! Because you wouldn't pay me that! You'd be losing wealth!
The only way a transaction happens is when both parties create wealth.
If you force one party to lose wealth, they will either leave, stop doing business, or go out of business.

The only answer here is that if you want to make more wealth, make sure your employer values your work more. That means work harder!Ok, now that you've had some time to chew on this, let's flip it, shall we?!

If I value my labor at $9/hr and someone would only pay me $8/hr, I would find another place to work! If market conditions dictated my labor wasn't worth $9/hr, then I outpriced my labor. But what if I was forced by some government to continue to lose this value? Would that make sense to anyone?!

[VIDEODROME]

of course the income amount to qualify for the "poverty" level would increase as the cost of goods would rise dramatically.

like a dog chasing its tail......

If increasing income leads to rising prices, does this apply to the upper income earners as well?

I figure higher prices could either mean the rank & file wages are to high or I'm paying for some executives new beach front home.



Aside from all that, I'm inclined to think a company should have incentive bonuses much more than raised wages which can become a burdensome legacy cost.

[JK/SEA]

why do NIKE tennis shoes cost so much?...overhead?...shipping?...what?

[Henry Rogue]

why do NIKE tennis shoes cost so much?...overhead?...shipping?...what?
Brand Jingoism creates a distorted demand.

[awake]

Love this thread. It's great to see so many people here simply cut this BS to pieces in a sentence. Gives me hope.

[JK/SEA]

Brand Jingoism creates a distorted demand.

science fiction in retail?...get outta here...lol

[Demigod]

why do NIKE tennis shoes cost so much?...overhead?...shipping?...what?

The brand is what makes up most of the cost,believe it or not brand names are even more expensive in third world countries than in the USA,which does not make any sense when the population has a lover purchasing power.Nevertheless the total cost of producing a piece of clothing and transporting it is most of the times 10-20% of its selling price.That is why you can see 20/30 even 50% discounts.Even with a 50% discount there is still a profit.

Not to mention that some brands like Nike are making more and more inferior products every year.

.
.

[parocks]

I personally wouldn't mind seeing an increase in the minimum wage. There is a minimum wage. It's not anything new. Country Club Republicans want to push Libertarians forward to argue against raising the minimum wage. Yeah, there would be a range of economic results from it. Some good, some bad. To me, it looks like putting money in the hands of workers, although some would likely lose their jobs. However, with Obamacare and the Papa John's scenario, you'd have people getting their hours cut because employers don't want to give health insurance. So, raise the minimum wage, cut the hours, no new health insurance. Obamacare is increasing the likelyhood of people working more jobs, fewer hours at each job.

[JK/SEA]

The brand is what makes up most of the cost,believe it or not brand names are even more expensive in third world countries than in the USA,which does not make any sense when the population has a lover purchasing power.Nevertheless the total cost of producing a piece of clothing and transporting it is most of the times 10-20% of its selling price.That is why you can see 20/30 even 50% discounts.Even with a 50% discount there is still a profit.

Not to mention that some brands like Nike are making more and more inferior products every year.


.
.

inferior products from non-union sweat shops?...no way!

[Demigod]

inferior products from non-union sweat shops?...no way!

Some brands use the same sweat shops and still have decent prices and very good quality.From my experience so far Reebok still maintains a very high quality unlike Nike.

I don't see why a company has have to have a union in order to produce quality products.

[Henry Rogue]

science fiction in retail?...get outta here...lol
How about Brand Worship creates distorted demand? As far as Brand Jingoism, ever been to a race and watched two a$$holes fight over which is better Ford or Chevy? Whats so science fiction about Jingoism?

[BAllen]

I hope the union wins and gets into wal-mart first. I can't think of a more deserving corp. for a union.

[JK/SEA]

How about Brand Worship creates distorted demand? As far as Brand Jingoism, ever been to a race and watched two a$$holes fight over which is better Ford or Chevy? Whats so science fiction about Jingoism?

here's the deal. No one has a monopoly on solving labor problems be it union or non-union. One size does not fit all. For every argument placed, a counter argument can be put forth. Choose to believe what you want, but there is no magic bullet solution to this issue.

[Czolgosz]

Print and give $3m per individual over 18 who makes under the magical $250k/yr rich guy threshold. Shirley (yes, I know), this would fix errthing.

[angelatc]

Sometimes I wonder if it's government along with other factors like insurance. I mean it gets to be a pile of paperwork just to hire anybody. I think it all leads to a Human Resources department that becomes much bigger than it really should be.

I mean what if all the paperwork baloney could be cut out of staffing would that money shift to the actual retail employee?

No. The average front-line retail employee adds very little value to the retailer. If the average front-line employee wants to earn more, then that person needs to advance to a position that allows him or her to add more value.

As long as you can be replaced by someone who can be trained in a day, you'll never make much money. Walmart clerk isn't supposed to be a permanant career choice!!!

[JK/SEA]

No. The average front-line retail employee adds very little value to the retailer. If the average front-line employee wants to earn more, then that person needs to advance to a position that allows him or her to add more value.

As long as you can be replaced by someone who can be trained in a day, you'll never make much money. Walmart clerk isn't supposed to be a permanant career choice!!!

not so much a career, but the stress and strain of repetitive work takes its toll. BUT, if you know you are getting a competitive wage with minimal benefits and guranteed full time, or near full time, a person can over look the stress of the job. Fact.

Anyone know the turn over rate for WalMart?...training someone takes time. If you can keep workers, you can actually save money by not having your management types busy all day and week training. Plus the drug test costs, the paperwork involved is costly...

[angelatc]

not so much a career, but the stress and strain of repetitive work takes its toll. BUT, if you know you are getting a competitive wage with minimal benefits and guranteed full time, or near full time, a person can over look the stress of the job. Fact.

Anyone know the turn over rate for WalMart?...training someone takes time. If you can keep workers, you can actually save money by not having your management types busy all day and week training. Plus the drug test costs, the paperwork involved is costly...

I literally laughed out loud.

You know who knows the turn-over rate for Walmart, and who has weighed the hiring/training costs vs the retention costs extensively? Walmart. They made their billions precisely by studying such minutiae.

[BAllen]

No. The average front-line retail employee adds very little value to the retailer. If the average front-line employee wants to earn more, then that person needs to advance to a position that allows him or her to add more value.

As long as you can be replaced by someone who can be trained in a day, you'll never make much money. Walmart clerk isn't supposed to be a permanant career choice!!!

The reason many of them are working at walmart is b/c they lost their better paying factory jobs due to bad trade deals, and the propped up markets like housing that hasn't been allowed to decrease.

[angelatc]

The reason many of them are working at walmart is b/c they lost their better paying factory jobs due to bad trade deals, and the propped up markets like housing that hasn't been allowed to decrease.

Then thank heavens for Walmart. Not only are they providing jobs, they're a market force that encourages other retailers to also keep prices low.

[JK/SEA]

I literally laughed out loud.

You know who knows the turn-over rate for Walmart, and who has weighed the hiring/training costs vs the retention costs extensively? Walmart. They made their billions precisely by studying such minutiae.

perhaps you're right. Could be they are satisfied in the turn over rate as you say. Seems to me they could make even more money, by going union. I'm sure you don't have that answer though. Only speculation on your part.

[BAllen]

Then thank heavens for Walmart. Not only are they providing jobs, they're a market force that encourages other retailers to also keep prices low.

And that would be fine IF the market would be free to drop housing prices and the like. Unfortunately, it is artificially propped up, so these people's housing costs are at the high rate, and continue to go up, thereby making unions a necessity.
Do you understand that?

[JK/SEA]

its my understanding that the current opinion in here is unions bad, corporations good...is that it?

i realize i'm simplifying things here, but i want to communicate on at least a rudimentary level on this issue with some of you.

[angelatc]

And that would be fine IF the market would be free to drop housing prices and the like. Unfortunately, it is artificially propped up, so these people's housing costs are at the high rate, and continue to go up, thereby making unions a necessity.
Do you understand that?

Houses have dropped quite a bit in Michigan, especially in Detroit and Flint, so much that you can literally buy them for less than $100. Yet the unions are very, very strong here.

I absolutely get it.

[Henry Rogue]

here's the deal. No one has a monopoly on solving labor problems be it union or non-union. One size does not fit all. For every argument placed, a counter argument can be put forth. Choose to believe what you want, but there is no magic bullet solution to this issue.
I made no comment on labor problems. I answered your question. Your making assumptions. Answer your own question.
why do NIKE tennis shoes cost so much?...overhead?...shipping?...what?

[BAllen]

Houses have dropped quite a bit in Michigan, especially in Detroit and Flint, so much that you can literally buy them for less than $100. Yet the unions are very, very strong here.

I absolutely get it.

LMAO!
Detoit? You've GOT to be kidding.
Here are their houses:
http://www.google.com/search?q=detroit+ruins&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=oHOtUNWcOYje8ASA4IC4AQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=596

And how about their city council?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrFvAiQDuEo&feature=related

[BAllen]

Detroit and Flint crime rate:
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/05/fbi_detroits_violent_crime_rat.html

[angelatc]

perhaps you're right. Could be they are satisfied in the turn over rate as you say. Seems to me they could make even more money, by going union. I'm sure you don't have that answer though. Only speculation on your part.

Are you freaking serious? I'm just speculating that Walmart has changed the face of the global retail market by their endless quest to be the most efficient retailer in the world? And you're doing it while musing poetic nonsense about higher wages leading to increased productivity. Wow. You really, honestly think nobody at Walmart ever thought of that, especially when benefits and employees are the biggest costs?

You know, you need to run down to Bentonville and let them know about this. Even better, open a store and go head to head with them. But before you go, please, let us know how they could make more money by increasing the cost of their amazingly unskilled labor. I can hardly wait.

[angelatc]

LMAO!
Detoit? You've GOT to be kidding.
Here are their houses:
http://www.google.com/search?q=detroit+ruins&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=oHOtUNWcOYje8ASA4IC4AQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=596

And how about their city council?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrFvAiQDuEo&feature=related

I'm not sure why you're showing me pictures of the train station, but...

Hey, you said, "And that would be fine IF the market would be free to drop housing prices and the like. Unfortunately, it is artificially propped up, so these people's housing costs are at the high rate, and continue to go up, thereby making unions a necessity.
Do you understand that?"

I was just showing you the difference between theory and reality. Maybe you're getting it, because this is the largest union stronghold in the country. But you want more unions?

Here's a current list of HUD foreclosures in Detroit: https://www.hudhomestore.com/Listing/PropertySearchResult.aspx?zipCode=&city=Detroit&county=&street=&sState=MI&fromPrice=0&toPrice=0&fcaseNumber=&bed=0&bath=0&buyerType=0&Status=0&sLanguage=ENGLISH

Here's a current list of FNMA foreclosures in Flint: http://www.homepath.com/listing/search?loc=FLINT, MI&pg=1&o=p&ob=asc&ps=25

With housing costs so low, combined with the fact that Michigan has the most available skilled labor in the country would seemingly make it a majorly appealing market for new business. But no business in its right mind would willingly allow those parasites to attach, because this is what they leave behind.

[angelatc]

its my understanding that the current opinion in here is unions bad, corporations good...is that it?

i realize i'm simplifying things here, but i want to communicate on at least a rudimentary level on this issue with some of you.

My current opinion is that high prices = bad. Anything that drives prices higher = bad. And I'm pretty sure you can go ahead and use big words. There's seriously not much need for you to simplify anything.

[ctiger2]

I run a small biz and If I was forced to raise wages I'd fire enough people get get my profits back in line with my costs. Simple as that.

[belian78]

I hope the union wins and gets into wal-mart first. I can't think of a more deserving corp. for a union.
Hey UW.. have a good Thanksgiving, alright? :)

[BAllen]

Well, angel, it's what we have to deal with in the current administration. Like it or not, that's the way it is. So, maybe the whole country needs to turn into detroit before anyone is willing to get rid of socialist/marxist ideals.

[angelatc]

Well, angel, it's what we have to deal with in the current administration. Like it or not, that's the way it is. So, maybe the whole country needs to turn into detroit before anyone is willing to get rid of socialist/marxist ideals.

You don't think unions represent Marxist ideals?

[BAllen]

You don't think unions represent Marxist ideals?

Of course they do. But socialism always fails. We have to let the system collapse. Too many people are brain dead sheep who accept whatever the idiot box tells them. They have control now. There's no way in hell they're going to let us vote our way out of it.

[JK/SEA]

You don't think unions represent Marxist ideals?

as expected. No answers. Thanks for the civil discourse.

[Tpoints]

Lol... They simply have no understanding of economics or wealth creation. Money is not wealth.

so having no money doesn't mean not wealthy?

[VIDEODROME]

its my understanding that the current opinion in here is unions bad, corporations good...is that it?

i realize i'm simplifying things here, but i want to communicate on at least a rudimentary level on this issue with some of you.


Seriously, I don't think it's that cut and dry. In fact while much is said around here about the Free Market, I kind of consider Labor Unions a market force all its own.

Sure, Labor Unions might seem like they are greedy negotiators, but so is management. Of course sometimes both sides are to greedy plundering the company and we see a disaster unfold. When this happens it tends to be a big news story, but I think the bad managers and corrupt unions are in fact a minority.

For example, I would consider the Trade Unions for skilled Journeymen like Electricians or Plumbers. I don't think we hear many big scandals about the Unions breaking those industries with costs. I think many Companies and Unions shrewdly negotiate with each other over the contract but it works out.

I would much rather have the Union process then direct government intervention. The government's only role would be as enforcing contracts to be sure they're binding to both parties that sign it.


Yes I'm from Michigan to and while the UAW and Auto-bailouts leave many people frustrated, I'm not going to just tarnish all Unions just because a few industries are a total mess.

[Dr.3D]

so having no money doesn't mean not wealthy?
Well, if a person had a lot of gold and no "money", would he not be wealthy?

[Tpoints]

Well, if a person had a lot of gold and no "money", would he not be wealthy?

Fair enough, although his house or gold are only wealth as long as he sell it or trade it for something else. And he acquired them most likely by money or labor.

[parocks]

its my understanding that the current opinion in here is unions bad, corporations good...is that it?

i realize i'm simplifying things here, but i want to communicate on at least a rudimentary level on this issue with some of you.

unions bad. monsanto's a corporation, and you'll have trouble finding defenders of them

[angelatc]

Yes I'm from Michigan to and while the UAW and Auto-bailouts leave many people frustrated, I'm not going to just tarnish all Unions just because a few industries are a total mess.

Which unionized industries aren't a total mess?

[angelatc]

as expected. No answers. Thanks for the civil discourse.

I have plenty of answers. Unions are not one of them.

[BAllen]

Seriously, I don't think it's that cut and dry. In fact while much is said around here about the Free Market, I kind of consider Labor Unions a market force all its own.

Sure, Labor Unions might seem like they are greedy negotiators, but so is management. Of course sometimes both sides are to greedy plundering the company and we see a disaster unfold. When this happens it tends to be a big news story, but I think the bad managers and corrupt unions are in fact a minority.

For example, I would consider the Trade Unions for skilled Journeymen like Electricians or Plumbers. I don't think we hear many big scandals about the Unions breaking those industries with costs. I think many Companies and Unions shrewdly negotiate with each other over the contract but it works out.

I would much rather have the Union process then direct government intervention. The government's only role would be as enforcing contracts to be sure they're binding to both parties that sign it.


Yes I'm from Michigan to and while the UAW and Auto-bailouts leave many people frustrated, I'm not going to just tarnish all Unions just because a few industries are a total mess.

There's some truth here, too. Ford has the same union as GM and Chrysler, but they didn't need a bailout, b/c they make the best cars and trucks for the best prices. GM made stupid decisions, and were bailed out, instead of being put up for auction. So, essentially, they were rewarded for incompetence, while Ford was punished for success for having to compete with a failed company like GM.

[Henry Rogue]

Unions aren't any more evil than corporations. In a Free Market unions discourage bad working conditions and reject the practice of company money and company stores. Unions have a place in a Free Market, unfortunately the market we have isn't Free. In a Free Market unions and corporations would succeed or fail on their own merit, but what we have is unions and corporations soliciting government intervention to protect their special interest at the expence of everyone else. It's one big government-corporation-union circle jerk. There is a continuous cycle of dependents between Big Government, Big Business (corporations) and Big Unions. One can not survive without the next. Big Corporations need Big Government to survive. Big Gov. provides bailouts, regulations that stifle competition and (in the case of construction at least) huge sometimes unnecessary infrastructure contracts to keep a steady flow of work for oversized and unsustainable corporations that would not survive in a free market system. Big Gov. needs Big Unions to survive. Big Unions provide a constant voting block of union members for pro Big Gov. politicians, powerful lobbyist to promote government expansion and propaganda in all media types. Believe it or not. Big Unions need Big Corporations to survive. Big corporations simply provide the union member wages. Without Big Corp. there would not be much money for Big Union to exist. It's not gov-corp-union that is evil. IT is the BIG part that is evil. So if you want all government, all coropration, all union all the time. Have at it. Personally I would like to see a return to Sound Money, thats my answer. Sound Money, So people can retain their wealth into retirement. Sound Money, so people have a reason to save again. Sound Money, so we can put an end to these ridiculously severe Business Cycles. Sound Money, to restrain the size and scope of government.

[VIDEODROME]

Which unionized industries aren't a total mess?

My Dad was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union and worked as a lineman for Detroit Edison. I don't remember hearing about major bankruptcies arising as a result of IBEW's involvement. And yes, people who climb poles and mess with power lines should be able to negotiate for good pay.

Also, IBEW in addition to representing workers will help run apprenticeship programs which I think is great.

[John F Kennedy III]

Are you freaking serious? I'm just speculating that Walmart has changed the face of the global retail market by their endless quest to be the most efficient retailer in the world? And you're doing it while musing poetic nonsense about higher wages leading to increased productivity. Wow. You really, honestly think nobody at Walmart ever thought of that, especially when benefits and employees are the biggest costs?

You know, you need to run down to Bentonville and let them know about this. Even better, open a store and go head to head with them. But before you go, please, let us know how they could make more money by increasing the cost of their amazingly unskilled labor. I can hardly wait.

As a former cart pusher at Walmart I can tell you, it doesn't take any skill or thought. Neither does working the fryer at Taco Bell.

Pushing carts is good exercise though. I lost 30 pounds in 89 days.

[JK/SEA]

so, in Angels world of the future we would have no Unions. Prices would come down on everything. Business owners would have new cash flow and would be able to expand by keeping labor overhead low. Medical care costs would now be affordable. Going to the Doctor would be easy and cheap. College tuition for Medical School...cheap. Law School, cheap. Fuel costs and food, cheap. A loaf of bread 10 cents. The years go by, and business owners on a large scale decide to increase productivity by hiring hard ass bosses that walk around and thump heads and beatings begin if production goals aren't met....etc.

So, we come full circle. Someone like Norma Rae agitates for union protection from abusive biz owners...etc. Read the history of WHY labor unions got started, and if in your world of no unions were to come to pass you don't think this would happen again, then you are either in denial, or just trolling and don't really believe what you advocate in here.

btw...we're not talking about mom and pop business's here either.

[JK/SEA]

watching a STOSSEL Show repeat. Asking what your first job was. I wasn't even 12 when i mowed lawns for the neighbors, and baby sat. Got an allowance from my parents by washing dishes, taking garbage out, mowed, trimmed hedges, washed the car etc. My first REAL job was at Albertson's Grocery, Retail Clerks Union 1105. 3 years of bagging grocery's, checker duties with the old style cash registers unloading the semi truck, stocking the shelves after truck was unloaded, and many many other duties for $1.60 hour, all while i was still in High School. Sadly, i never qualified for pension or medical only working 3 years. Gas was 35 cents then too. What happened?...4 buck gas caused by union labor costs?...lol

[newbitech]

here is a little more from this same report.


The report pointed out that such a pay increase would amount to $20.8 billion — or just 1 percent of the $2.17 trillion in total sales large retailers see every year. “Using profits to pay for the wage increase would be a more productive use than the current trend towards stock repurchases.” Demos also said that the pay increase would be passed on to consumers in just pennies more per dollar.“It has become conventional wisdom that retail workers must be paid low wages. Yet our study, adding to a growing body of research, demonstrates that retailers could provide the nation a needed economic boost by paying higher wages, while remaining profitable and continuing to offer low prices,” the report said.

First off, if you take the two figures cited, 700,000 coming out of poverty and 700,000 "move up near poverty" (lol wut?), that is 1.4 million people in poverty that benefits from this wealth redistribution. Now take the number claimed to come out of total sales the 20.8 billion and divide the 1.4 million in to that. You end up with $14 ,857 "bonus" to those people in poverty.
At a full time rate 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, the raise is $7.14 an hour. Whoaa, wait, that is darn close to the minimum wage we already have! These people would have to be making less than a dollar an hour on a full time basis for this to make ANY sense at all!

Ok, so maybe my numbers are off, lets use the over 5 million people that is also in the report. OK, so 20.8 billion divided by 5 million. Hmm, that is $4,160 a year per person of which according to the report, just of 25% are actually poverty stricken. But anyways, $4,160 on a full time basis is ahh, there we go $2 an hour. So now, lets take another look. They want the wage at walmart to be 12.25 an hour. So that means the poverty level for a walmart worker is somewhere between minimum wage and $10.25 using the logic from this report.

Full time $10.25 an hour is 23,320. Divide by 12 months and the magic number is.. 1,776 a month. Not too shabby for a living wage. Of course this doesn't take in to account tax deduction, but what can someone do with $1776 a month? The could rent a 2 bedroom apartment for $750 a month. And have $1000 left over. The could pay $150 power bill, $80 water bill, $150 internet,cable, phone bill, and $150 a month car insurance. That would leave them with $470 a month to eat on. Which is about $110 a week or $15 a day to eat on.

So ANY wage increase the company gives to these people doesn't really take them out of poverty. It just allows them to continue the way they are living AND pay taxes. Cause $2 an hour is about 20% raise which just about covers taxes.

So lets not only tax these "rich" companies more, lets make a hidden tax for them in the form of wage increase. Lets also not forget that $2 raise also means a raise in the payroll in SS tax that the company has to pay. So that 1% of sales number is bogus. Also, lets not forget that once an employee is full time, they will typically qualify for the group insurance plan, which the company has to pay the other side.

Also, and this is the last part I think is outrageous and shows a lack of any business acumen from this report. Stock repurchases do a couple of things. Primarily, it is a way to distribute wealth to the owners of the company. Common stock holders share value increases in a buyback. This included 401ks and mutual funds that hold the stocks. So you aren't just robbing the rich people, you are robbing fixed income retired people, middle career people trying to build a retirement and everyone else in between.

Another thing that stock buybacks do is make a company more attractive financially. It increases equity in the company that in the sense of retail is used to lever the financing needed to keep the company afloat during the year until the holidays arrive and the company can finally turn a profit.

Hence, black friday.

Rob those companies of even 1% of their sales and you multiply the amount of debt needed to finance the operation to keep the company in business. Retail already runs on thin margins, due to the nature of the huge capital outlays needed to put a risky product on the shelves given the fickle nature of the near broke consumers.

A company's success is measure by profit. Cut in to that profit artificially or forcefully and you are literally redefining success for that company. The consequences are something like TWINKIES!

[Pericles]

If I were a liberal, I would pass a law to end poverty by requiring everyone to be a millionaire.

[torchbearer]

If I were a liberal, I would pass a law to end poverty by requiring everyone to be a millionaire.


If I had the ability to get a prop on the ballot, that would be it.
along with one for free medical care for everyone and a chicken in every pot.. for "free".

[matt0611]

The problem with unions is that the government got involved in them with the Wagner act and other laws that protect them.

If there were just free associations of people negotiating together with an employer I have no problem with that, its the government that has meddled with the system that got things messed up.

[JK/SEA]

''going off the rails on a crazy train''....

[angelatc]

As a former cart pusher at Walmart I can tell you, it doesn't take any skill or thought. Neither does working the fryer at Taco Bell.

Pushing carts is good exercise though. I lost 30 pounds in 89 days.

Exactly. There's not any economically legitimate reason to pay very much for these positions. If the employer pays a wage that literally doesn't allow an employee to pay rent and eat, that employee will not show up.

If the employer raises wages above the minimum required to fill the position, the employee has no motivation to improve his/her skillset.

[angelatc]

My Dad was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union and worked as a lineman for Detroit Edison. I don't remember hearing about major bankruptcies arising as a result of IBEW's involvement. And yes, people who climb poles and mess with power lines should be able to negotiate for good pay.

Also, IBEW in addition to representing workers will help run apprenticeship programs which I think is great.

Did you hear stories of people dying because they couldn't afford their electric bill, and therefore had no heat?

Unions in a monopoly make more sense than most, but you're willfully delusional if you don't think they're co-conspirators in excessive energy costs. I have no use for unions. They do not exist for the good of humanity, although their PR machine insists otherwise. They exist only to serve themselves, to drive wages over a natural rate.

[BAllen]

Did you hear stories of people dying because they couldn't afford their electric bill, and therefore had no heat?

Unions in a monopoly make more sense than most, but you're willfully delusional if you don't think they're co-conspirators in excessive energy costs. I have no use for unions. They do not exist for the good of humanity, although their PR machine insists otherwise. They exist only to serve themselves, to drive wages over a natural rate.

What do you consider a natural rate?
With no unions, but massive immigration, a large labor pool would suppress wages through supply and demand. It's all relative.
But, the fact remains that the socialists are in power, and they favor unions. Doesn't matter whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way it is.

[newbitech]

What do you consider a natural rate?
With no unions, but massive immigration, a large labor pool would suppress wages through supply and demand. It's all relative.
But, the fact remains that the socialists are in power, and they favor unions. Doesn't matter whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way it is.

Such stunning revelations.

[angelatc]

What do you consider a natural rate?
With no unions, but massive immigration, a large labor pool would suppress wages through supply and demand. It's all relative.
But, the fact remains that the socialists are in power, and they favor unions. Doesn't matter whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way it is...dp

[angelatc]

What do you consider a natural rate?<br>
With no unions, but massive immigration, a large labor pool would suppress wages through supply and demand. It's all relative.<br>
But, the fact remains that the socialists are in power, and they favor unions. Doesn't matter whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way it is.
But like it or not, only about 12% of the workforce is currently unionized. &nbsp;And if the government moves to expand that number, more companies will fold up and move offshore. &nbsp;Doesn't matter whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way it is.

And of course it's all relative. Back in the early days of the country, more than half of the immigrants who came here went back home because they couldn't earn enough to live. People left the cities and went back to farming for the same reasons.

Markets are fluid.

[BAllen]

But like it or not, only about 12% of the workforce is currently unionized. *And if the government moves to expand that number, more companies will fold up and move offshore. *Doesn't matter whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way it is.

And of course it's all relative. Back in the early days of the country, more than half of the immigrants who came here went back home because they couldn't earn enough to live. People left the cities and went back to farming for the same reasons.

Markets are fluid.

So? Because of bad trade deals, companies are folding up and moving offshore anyway. Can't move retail offshore. That's why Walmart is a prime target of unions.

[PaulConventionWV]

The real way to wealth is often to work smarter, not harder. I do think often people work hard and put in time. They see no real gains or meaningful raises and are like what the fuck.

If people, in particular Retail workers, see a pattern of this it's discouraging and demotivating. The rewards for hard work don't seem real to many people. Unless maybe you are really socking away money into your employer's stock at a discount.

Anyway, I'm not sure I can see a human being as just the some of their job description. Not to say a job is a charity, but if a company has a prosperous year give a bonus to the employees instead of chucking that money into the stock dividends. I think good wages can be like an investment in your workforce. Hopefully it foster good work morale and you are positioned to hire better people.

I also think the argument about the value of work contribution could be discussed at the executive level as well and really question if those execs really are worth their extravagant salaries. We should ask if money is being lost at the top level not just with people on the retail floor.

What's the incentive to build your business if having a prosperous year yields no net profit increase for you? Business executives give bonuses as an investment because they think it will help THEM make money in the future. That's the way business works, and it will never work any other way. People don't design their business models to create bigger profits just so they can give it all away. Sometimes they'll do it so that they can share the wealth, but it's never purely just for their employees.

[smhbbag]

This world would be a lot better off with more Costco's and less Wal-Mart's. Costco proves that excuses to hold a working man's wage down are just that - excuses. Executives all over the place suffer from a narcissism and moral blindness that take away their creativity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y1vKrAIl2U&feature=g-all-u