PDA

View Full Version : Can Walmart and McDonald’s Afford a $15 Minimum Wage?




aGameOfThrones
12-05-2013, 12:40 PM
The holiday season seems as good a time as any to question whether Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) can afford to pay its workforce, some of whom make as little as $8 an hour, a higher wage -- as much as $15 per hour. The pressure has mounted ceaselessly for months. The city of Washington may raise the minimum wage to $11. On a national basis, Congress has considered a national minimum wage as high as $10.10.

Walmart is the primary target of unions and groups that claim that low-paid workers at the retail company do not make enough to live above the poverty level. The fast-food target is also the largest in its field -- McDonald's Corp. (MCD). The argument is not as simple as what workers should make. The interests of shareholders have a place in the debate. So does the longer term damage a higher wage could do to both companies.

There are two fundamental arguments about why the two giants should lift hourly wages to $15. The first is that they can afford to. Walmart's worldwide revenue is $425 billion, and about two-thirds of that in the United States. McDonald's is much smaller, with worldwide revenue of $28 billion. However, McDonald's has returned billions of dollars to shareholders in recent years via higher dividends and share buybacks, which make it particularly vulnerable to charges that it has surplus cash.

The math of exactly how much a move up to a $15 an hour minimum wage would total is not simple. McDonald's and its franchises likely employ 300,000 people in the United States. McDonald's does not provide an exact number, or separate its own workers from those of its franchises. The Walmart number is easier to calculate. The company puts its U.S. workforce at 1.2 million. The other challenge to setting a calculation of expenses for the two companies to raise the minimum wage is that neither breaks out its pay bracket levels in groups. How many people at McDonald's or Walmart actually make $8 an hour? Only the companies know.


Here is some simple but not entirely accurate math about what each company would pay if its hourly minimum wage rose to $15. If 75% of the workers at both companies make $8 and the number rose to $15, Walmart's expense increase would be $18 billion a year. McDonald's would be $4.5 billion. In the case of McDonald's, profits would be cut in half. Walmart's profit would be cut by 80%.

The defense of the current wage structure that Walmart and McDonald's make is that their shareholders would be badly damaged if increased wages decimated profits. Even if the minimum wage rose slowly, perhaps over three years, the harm might be devastating. Economists and labor advocates argue that if the increase was spread over several years, each company would have the chance to increase prices to consumers as a means to offset that expense. That assumes consumers will pay higher prices, which may not be the case at all.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/walmart-mcdonald-afford-15-minimum-111559234.html


Comment from site:

Richard 2 hours ago 1 41
Something that none of these types of articles seem to deal with is these jobs in retail and fast food and low skill/unskilled entry level jobs. So if these workers get $15 an hour, what does that do to the workers that now make $15 an hour doing skilled work that is not an entry level job, like carpenters, electricians etc? They will want a raise above what is a low skill entry level job rate. And then the workers that are in that wage level that the skilled low wage workers moved up to will want a raise too. And it keeps going up the ladder

erowe1
12-05-2013, 12:42 PM
I don't know if they can. But all their employees who will be out of a job if that happened sure can't.

Schifference
12-05-2013, 12:55 PM
Sure they can but the question is can we? This is a good tactic toward achieving wage equality. Do you think if minimum wage goes to $15 a skilled person making $15 or $20 will get a $7 cost of living increase? Highly doubtful. Why work skilled labor with responsibility if you can work minimum wage with none?

angelatc
12-05-2013, 01:06 PM
Wow - here's some simple but not entirely accurate math...that's what he said.

So that's the excuse for ignoring the effective increase in payroll taxes, I suppose. What's another 6% among socialists, right?

tod evans
12-05-2013, 01:28 PM
Can Walmart and McDonald’s Afford a $15 Minimum Wage?

Of course they can.

I seriously hope they choose not to though.

I'd like to see 'em both voluntarily shut down for 90 days, just shut the doors and send everyone home. Call it a "paid training seminar" and give every employee $10.00 a week to log in to the company website for training...That way they'd not be liable to foot unemployment during the 90 days.

Contumacious
12-05-2013, 01:44 PM
Can Walmart and McDonald’s Afford a $15 Minimum Wage?

Of course they can.

The question is can WE THE PEOPLE afford to pay $50 for hamburgers and for another Neiman Marcus-like department store ?

.

Philhelm
12-05-2013, 01:47 PM
If they can afford $15.00/hour, then I would quit my job and work for Chick-fil-A.

Brian4Liberty
12-05-2013, 01:52 PM
Can Walmart and McDonald’s Afford a $15 Minimum Wage?

Or more relevant, can that wage compete with welfare and SSDI? Obama recently talked about expanding those programs, and maybe giving them a raise too.

Lucille
12-05-2013, 01:53 PM
They can be replaced...with no one.

As Fast Food Workers Go On Strike In 100 Cities, Applebees Unveils The "Waiter Terminator"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-05/fast-food-workers-go-strike-100-cities-applebees-unveils-waiter-terminator




Community leaders took turns giving speeches for about 15 minutes until the police arrived and ordered protesters out of the store. The crowd continued to demonstrate outside for about 45 more minutes while a handful of customers remained inside. A McDonald's manager declined to be interviewed and asked that customers not be bothered.

Tyeisha Batts, a 27-year-old employee at Burger King, was among those taking part in the demonstrations planned throughout the day in New York City. She said she has been working at the location for about seven months and earns $7.25 an hour.

"My boss took me off the schedule because she knows I'm participating," Batts said.

Considering there are a few hundred thousand applicants for your position , Ms. Batts, we find that perfectly explainable. Then again, if you are unhappy with your position, you are welcome to quit and find a better paying job. Especially since in the very near future you may not even have the option of choosing, as it will be done for you. Earlier this week, restaurant chain Applebees unveiled what may soon be the "Waiter Terminator."

From the company's press release: "Applebee’s steps into the future to redefine and enhance the guest experience through the installation of 100,000 E la Carte Presto tablets, powered by Intel, on every table and multiple bar positions at more than 1,800 Applebee’s restaurants in the United States by the end of next year."

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/12/DineEquity%20tablet.jpg
[...]
Also, much more time to work on their resume. In other words, Applebees is already taking steps at outsourcing its minimum wage waiters with tablets. Which incidentally is a brilliant idea, especially in a cost-cutting environment. So brilliant in fact that others are already joining in..


DineEquity said it might consider introducing the tablets at its IHOP restaurant chain as well. The company joins many others in the industry that have begun incorporating technology into the customer experience, installing ordering kiosks, equipping servers with mobile devices and more.

In other words, a funny thing happened as fast food workers were striking across the land - they were all just made obsolete courtesy of iPads.

The Biggest Threat To Minimum Wage Restaurant Workers Everywhere?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-12/biggest-threat-minimum-wage-restaurant-workers-everywhere


Over the past year, unionized restaurant workers across numerous fast-food chains but mostly at McDonalds, expressed their dissatisfaction with compensation levels by striking at increasingly more frequent intervals - a sentiment that has been facilitated by the president himself and his ever more frequent appeals for a raise in the minimum wage. Unfortunately, as we have pointed out previously, in the context of corporations that have given up on growing the top line (as virtually all free cash goes into stock buybacks and dividends and none into growth capex), and in pursuit of a rising bottom line, employee wages are the one variable cost that corporations will touch last of all. But what's worse, these same unionized employees have zero negotiating leverage.

Perhaps nowhere is this more visible than in the recent strategy of smoothie retailer Jamba Juice, which in order to battle a 4% drop in Q3 same store sales has decided to radically transform its entire retailing strategy by getting rid of labor, cheap, part-time or otherwise, altogether. Presenting the biggest threat to minimum-wage restaurant workers everywhere: the JambaGo self-serve machine that just made the vast majority of Jamba's employees obsolete. Coming soon to a fast-food retailer near you.

Why did Jamba just make its retail sales force obsolete? Part of the problem is heightened competition: McDonald’s has entered the smoothie market, and others like Dairy Queen and Panera spent the summer promoting their rival drinks. Which means even less top-line growth potential. It also means that in order to push more of the top line straight to earnings, and bypass variable costs, a problem that will be faced by increasingly more corporations, Jamba's corner office had no choice but to unleash JambaGo...

Brian4Liberty
12-05-2013, 01:53 PM
Of course they can.

The question is can WE THE PEOPLE afford to pay $50 for hamburgers and other Neiman Marcus-like department store ?

.

You will have to sign up for food stamps.

69360
12-05-2013, 01:55 PM
$15 no.

Slight raise in prices, small reduction in profit and give them $10 or 11 might be workable.

alucard13mm
12-05-2013, 02:00 PM
How about telling workers they will get a raise only if...

1/2 of them get fired. 1/2 that is still around has to work twice-three times as hard to make up for it.

But don't complain if you get fired.

parocks
12-05-2013, 05:08 PM
$15 no.

Slight raise in prices, small reduction in profit and give them $10 or 11 might be workable.

That's how I see it. I mean, we've had a minimum wage since 1938. Just keep pace with inflation.

Bastiat's The Law
12-05-2013, 05:30 PM
Something like 94% of people already make more than minimum wage.

DamianTV
12-05-2013, 05:41 PM
No worries here.

As soon as Minimum Wage hits $20 per hour (eventually), the price of EVERYTHING will go up by at least that same ammt, thus nullifying any good that an increase in Minimum Wage achieves. People keep demanding more Quantity instead of wanting the Value of what they get to be retained.

---


Something like 94% of people already make more than minimum wage.

And according to the 1%, that makes us ALL a part of the 1%.

belian78
12-05-2013, 09:51 PM
Wow - here's some simple but not entirely accurate math...that's what he said.

So that's the excuse for ignoring the effective increase in payroll taxes, I suppose. What's another 6% among socialists, right?
I got the impression that it was more of a 'this isn't quite right, but you still get the idea' kind of estimate. Kinda like, if the true numbers were told, it'd be worse. But I'm a bit into my cups this evening, so I may have read it wrong. heh..

DamianTV
12-06-2013, 06:53 AM
They cant afford to pay their workers $15 / hour, but YOU can.

See, the trick here is that they dont pay their employees jack shit. Then those employees have to apply for Welfare, Food Stamps, and any other form of monetary assistance they can qualify for. And THAT cost is passed directly on to you by way of your Govt printing up more money, which as we all well know is Inflation.

This racket costs the Taxpayers (I hate using that term) literally Billions.

CaptLouAlbano
12-06-2013, 07:26 AM
Why should they? An employer needs to keep his costs as low as possible, including labor costs. Fast food jobs are for those who have little to no skills, and therefore pay poorly. Those jobs are not intended to be careers, they are entry level jobs for teenagers and/or part time jobs for those looking to make extra money (housewives, college students, retirees, etc). If someone is of adult age, and the best job they can attain is flipping burgers, I have zero sympathy for them - they made choices in their life that relegated them to only being able to obtain this low paying job. If they cannot support themselves on this job, they have no one to blame but themselves.

CaptLouAlbano
12-06-2013, 07:46 AM
They cant afford to pay their workers $15 / hour, but YOU can.

See, the trick here is that they dont pay their employees jack shit. Then those employees have to apply for Welfare, Food Stamps, and any other form of monetary assistance they can qualify for. And THAT cost is passed directly on to you by way of your Govt printing up more money, which as we all well know is Inflation.

This racket costs the Taxpayers (I hate using that term) literally Billions.

You have to put some blame on the employers for hiring adults for jobs that are supposed to be for teens. I used to hire a lot of minimum and low wage employees for my businesses. If someone of adult age old applied for a job scooping ice cream for minimum wage, that would be a HUGE red flag.

AlexAmore
12-06-2013, 07:55 AM
Recently, I saw a liberal citing all sorts of studies that on one hand accurately argued that the mechanization process creates more jobs, but then argued that forcing a wage increase will propel us there quicker. It's a perfect bullshit argument because it's full of half truths. Of course, forcing the wage increase will just give Big Business a huge competitive advantage over small business...effectively wiping the small guy out. So any study that claims there are no job losses with a wage increase, what they're probably seeing is a job migration from small business to a more monopolized big business.

Origanalist
12-06-2013, 07:56 AM
You have to put some blame on the employers for hiring adults for jobs that are supposed to be for teens. I used to hire a lot of minimum and low wage employees for my businesses. If someone of adult age old applied for a job scooping ice cream for minimum wage, that would be a HUGE red flag.

It's getting a lot harder to hire teens. Entitlement mentality gone wild.

HOLLYWOOD
12-06-2013, 08:05 AM
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/080/cache/automat-new-york-roberts_8004_990x742.jpg

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/03/22/ap061017040470_custom-021540d1991110e8ff93a31e30d6203d66f27b08-s6-c30.jpg

http://www.nypl.org/sites/default/files/images/horn1006.inline%20vertical.jpg

CaptLouAlbano
12-06-2013, 08:12 AM
It's getting a lot harder to hire teens. Entitlement mentality gone wild.

Maybe so, but it is still a huge mistake to hire a 30 year old guy to work full time for minimum wage. If someone is that age, and hasn't obtained the skills in life to rise above the minimum wage job, I wouldn't want him as an employee. I'd much rather have a high school or college kid with some intelligence and drive working for me.

Origanalist
12-06-2013, 08:16 AM
Maybe so, but it is still a huge mistake to hire a 30 year old guy to work full time for minimum wage. If someone is that age, and hasn't obtained the skills in life to rise above the minimum wage job, I wouldn't want him as an employee. I'd much rather have a high school or college kid with some intelligence and drive working for me.

Of course.

Lindsey
12-06-2013, 09:53 AM
No one seems to factor in that small and mid-size employers employ somewhere around 2/3 of employees. Can they afford $15/hr for their low-skill workers? Or can they do business with ~40% less of their low-skill workers, or will this force them to change their business model or even go out of business causing all of their employees to be unemployed?

Paulbot99
12-06-2013, 10:58 AM
Just have everyone make a hundred dollars an hour in every job. There is no way that won't go wrong! :p

ctiger2
12-06-2013, 12:33 PM
I think they can. What I'd do is replace as many workers with computers and/or robots. Just have the customers order/pay off a screen. Then you just eliminate 80% of the workforce and increase the pay on those who are left. Oh wait... http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/12/03/tablets_at_restaurants_applebee_s_chili_s_race_to_ eliminate_human_interaction.html

PaulConventionWV
12-06-2013, 12:37 PM
$15 no.

Slight raise in prices, small reduction in profit and give them $10 or 11 might be workable.

No, that's ridiculous. If they're going to get a raise, it should be 50 cents at best.

DamianTV
12-06-2013, 04:32 PM
No one seems to factor in that small and mid-size employers employ somewhere around 2/3 of employees. Can they afford $15/hr for their low-skill workers? Or can they do business with ~40% less of their low-skill workers, or will this force them to change their business model or even go out of business causing all of their employees to be unemployed?

No one wants to shoulder the Financial Burden of paying their employees more than they have to. Many times, they cant.

What does happen constantly is to Shift that Financial Burden to someone else. The small and mid size employers will have no choice but to raise their prices. A Financial Burden that is shifted to the shoulders of the Consumers. (I hate that word too). Alternatively, they could go under and close their business, cut back on either the total number of employees, or emplyee hours. Those alternatives shift the Financial Burden of the increase in cost to the Govt by way of Welfare, Food Stamps and other forms of Financial Assistance.

The trick here is that YOU and I are paying for these people to not be given a livable wage, either by paying more for products and services or by an Increase in Taxes. And Inflation is a Hidden Tax on the VALUE of everyones money.

Do they need more? Yes. Do we also need to retain what we have? Yes. For one of us to get what we need, one of us must lose. And thre in lies our dilema with the Minimum Wage cunundrum. If our Economy continues to decline at this pace, we will end up seeing Price Freezes AND an increase in the Minimum Wage, and that is not a good solution because it further perpetuates Govt dependancy (Inflation) and creates more incentive for new businesses to rise up anywhere BUT the United States.

anaconda
12-06-2013, 05:20 PM
Of course they can.


They probably can, but microeconomics 1A tells us they will only hire labor units until the worker's marginal revenue product equals the wage. So McDonald's will reduce both their staff and their burger output, and the price of their product will rise for consumers. In a nutshell, increased unemployment and higher prices.

RickyJ
12-06-2013, 05:30 PM
If 75% of the workers at both companies make $8 and the number rose to $15, Walmart's expense increase would be $18 billion a year. McDonald's would be $4.5 billion. In the case of McDonald's, profits would be cut in half. Walmart's profit would be cut by 80%.

This is interesting that McDonald's profits would only be cut in half by paying $15 an hour. By offering a $15 an hour starting salary I think they could get double the amount of work done from half the people so their profits would remain the same. This would mean that the slower workers would lose their job though.

RickyJ
12-06-2013, 05:37 PM
Of course they can.

I seriously hope they choose not to though.

I'd like to see 'em both voluntarily shut down for 90 days, just shut the doors and send everyone home. Call it a "paid training seminar" and give every employee $10.00 a week to log in to the company website for training...That way they'd not be liable to foot unemployment during the 90 days.

Why would a company making the profits McDonald's does on a daily basis shut down for even 1 day much less 90? They are making a good profit, they won't shut down just to "discipline" workers, that would be crazy!

RickyJ
12-06-2013, 05:42 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/walmart-mcdonald-afford-15-minimum-111559234.html


Comment from site:

Richard 2 hours ago 1 41
Something that none of these types of articles seem to deal with is these jobs in retail and fast food and low skill/unskilled entry level jobs. So if these workers get $15 an hour, what does that do to the workers that now make $15 an hour doing skilled work that is not an entry level job, like carpenters, electricians etc? They will want a raise above what is a low skill entry level job rate. And then the workers that are in that wage level that the skilled low wage workers moved up to will want a raise too. And it keeps going up the ladder

Yeah, it would move up the ladder all the way to the CEO which then must receive a hefty raise to keep his/her salary 3000 times over the average pay for employees of his/her company.

Carson
12-06-2013, 05:50 PM
I'm certain there is room to treat the people doing the work fairly.

I'm suffering under the basic premise (http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/basic%20premise) that the people putting up the money for a business and the people doing the labor should split the profits equal.

I'm not sure where we are at today but I'm thinking we are way out of balance. Some time I have to look at some books. I suppose I shouldn't really go by life styles, dress, or toy piles but what they hay; I'm not getting paid for this.


Beside I can't get over the root of the problem being, some can counterfeit what ever amount of money they want to get their way and stiff others with the bill and inflation it causes. I've seen the counterfeiting escalate and the problems created by the haves and the have-not's expand. We are at a breaking point.

We are going to have to regain control of our currency to address this problem and so many others that plague us.

It seems they are three steps ahead of us at every turn. With unlimited funds they have educated several generations with fallacies that pave the roads for their agenda. Well at least in my opinion at the moment.

This isn't just a local problem either. I've heard there are only three countries left free of the global network of central banks. Even they get the business big time.

anaconda
12-06-2013, 06:19 PM
I'm suffering under the basic premise (http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/basic%20premise) that the people putting up the money for a business and the people doing the labor should split the profits equal.


The wage in a free and competitive market is determined by supply and demand. If investors were required to split their profits with their workers, they would substitute their labor input with more capital and/or invest in more capital intensive projects. Many workers would be unemployed who would otherwise work for the market wage, without any profit sharing, let alone 50%. Even without shifting toward capital vs. labor, producers would realize that the profit sharing would increase the wage and therefore reduce the amount of labor units hired to achieve profit maximization. The result is unemployment at the margins, lower output, higher prices, social deadweight loss, and a poorer society.

Seraphim
12-06-2013, 06:26 PM
They can once their raise all of their prices.

parocks
12-06-2013, 08:10 PM
We've had a minimum wage since 1938. Every so often it goes up. It doesn't effect the economy too much when it goes up. It really isn't something to worry about.

Carson
12-06-2013, 09:00 PM
The wage in a free and competitive market is determined by supply and demand. If investors were required to split their profits with their workers, they would substitute their labor input with more capital and/or invest in more capital intensive projects. Many workers would be unemployed who would otherwise work for the market wage, without any profit sharing, let alone 50%. Even without shifting toward capital vs. labor, producers would realize that the profit sharing would increase the wage and therefore reduce the amount of labor units hired to achieve profit maximization. The result is unemployment at the margins, lower output, higher prices, social deadweight loss, and a poorer society.

I think people are going to start looking for greener pastures regardless of any noble gesture of taking one for the team to create a gravy train for the elite.

Perhaps people are being ripped off with in so many ways that the free market is a load of bull. The criminals in the government are over looking the immigration laws globally to bring in cheap labor. Then they the honest people trying to make a living pay for much of their social services. That's not a free labor market. I remember when if businesses really needed someone they brought people in legally. We all worked for the same wages side by side.

Even that aside we have hit points when working for a living didn't pay the worker or the business enough to keep up with these hidden cost. I'm thinking only defaulting on loans and bankruptcy stripped enough money out of the system that it once again became a tiny bit profitable enough to call people back to work and workers the ability to answer the call.

Take a look at this chart of the housing bubble burst and the following bubble of people being lain off after they fired up the counterfeiting for bailouts and crashed us again.

http://www.barchart.com/chart.php?sym=%24DOWI&style=technical&template=&p=MO&d=X&sd=05%2F03%2F1970&ed=05%2F03%2F2013&size=L&log=0&t=CANDLE&v=0&g=1&evnt=1&late=1&o1=&o2=&o3=&sh=100&indicators=&addindicator=&submitted=1&fpage=&txtDate=#jump

Looking at the chart now I see the crash around 2001 around 9-11. We lost a huge portion of our business and in turn, work force where I was working then. It seemed mighty contrived.


Like you seem to imply though, maybe we are at some sort of freaky equilibrium with supply and demand.

Perhaps those that keep firing up the fake money presses for wars are going to have to go off and fight them themselves.

We really need to regain control of the fake money presses. That is the one overriding factor that has driven us into the dirt over the years.

A new world order of things doesn't appear to be cheap. It seems really sad to me that so many of the truly important things in life can be destroyed by a inequitable currency system.

Carson
12-06-2013, 09:52 PM
Saw this on Fark.

Yes, Sure Bank of Montreal DID make a record 4th quarter profit of $4.2 billion, but that doesn't mean they didn't have to lay off those thousand workers too, after all, they had been gone sooner it might have been a $4.21 Billion profit (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bmo-job-cuts-have-little-to-do-with-sky-high-profits-1.2450825)

Fark comments;

http://www.fark.com/comments/8048922/Yes-Sure-Bank-of-Montreal-DID-make-a-record-4th-quarter-profit-of-$42-billion-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-didnt-have-to-lay-off-those-thousand-workers-too-after-all-they-had-been-gone-sooner-it-might-have-been-a-$421-Billion-profit

susano
12-06-2013, 10:09 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/walmart-mcdonald-afford-15-minimum-111559234.html


Comment from site:

Richard 2 hours ago 1 41
Something that none of these types of articles seem to deal with is these jobs in retail and fast food and low skill/unskilled entry level jobs. So if these workers get $15 an hour, what does that do to the workers that now make $15 an hour doing skilled work that is not an entry level job, like carpenters, electricians etc? They will want a raise above what is a low skill entry level job rate. And then the workers that are in that wage level that the skilled low wage workers moved up to will want a raise too. And it keeps going up the ladder

Before I formulate a response about the wages, I don't think that figure (Walmart's profit would be cut by 80%) is accurate. Regarding the comment, electricians and carpenters (in the US) don't work for 15 bucks an hour! Whoever wrote that comment must be living in a 1970s parallel universe.

susano
12-06-2013, 10:16 PM
Of course they can.

I seriously hope they choose not to though.

I'd like to see 'em both voluntarily shut down for 90 days, just shut the doors and send everyone home. Call it a "paid training seminar" and give every employee $10.00 a week to log in to the company website for training...That way they'd not be liable to foot unemployment during the 90 days.

Just curious as to why you would like that.

Still thinking about this, and I'm sure as hell not a statist nor socialist, but I fucking HATE Wally World and do not shop there. I remember their "Made in the USA" TV ads when most of the shit in their stores was shipped in from China. I would LOVE to Wally World disappear.

susano
12-06-2013, 11:38 PM
Of course they can.

The question is can WE THE PEOPLE afford to pay $50 for hamburgers and for another Neiman Marcus-like department store ?

.

Um, that's absurd to think the burgers would become so expensive. I know you're exaggerating but still. It would probably be more like a quarter and profits would still be healthy.


They cant afford to pay their workers $15 / hour, but YOU can.

See, the trick here is that they dont pay their employees jack shit. Then those employees have to apply for Welfare, Food Stamps, and any other form of monetary assistance they can qualify for. And THAT cost is passed directly on to you by way of your Govt printing up more money, which as we all well know is Inflation.

This racket costs the Taxpayers (I hate using that term) literally Billions.

^^^THIS, THIS, THIS

That's one of the reasons I detest Wally World. Like Costco, they can easily afford better wages (and they would get better employees, as a result) but nooooooo, why do that when you can have the welfare state pick up the costs of doing business! I guess this means the "taxpayer" is sort of subsidizing the products Wally World sells.


Why should they? An employer needs to keep his costs as low as possible, including labor costs. Fast food jobs are for those who have little to no skills, and therefore pay poorly. Those jobs are not intended to be careers, they are entry level jobs for teenagers and/or part time jobs for those looking to make extra money (housewives, college students, retirees, etc). If someone is of adult age, and the best job they can attain is flipping burgers, I have zero sympathy for them - they made choices in their life that relegated them to only being able to obtain this low paying job. If they cannot support themselves on this job, they have no one to blame but themselves.

You must have missed the memo about globalization and the race to the bottom. Low wage jobs are not just for kids anymore!


I don't believe in government interference in the economy. I DO think that people should make enough to live on if they work. For me, this is an ethical question, not a political/policy question. The guy that owns Costco took the ethical route. Their employees make about 30K per year (I thinks that's about 15 bucks per hour). Of course, to make a choice like that means that people will suffer. The CEO can't make 100 million a year and owners will be multi millionaires instead of billionaires. It's a sacrifice, I know.

Wally World thrived because precisely because of government interference via trade agreements and the importation of cheap shit made in China. With government help, they were able to bulldoze small communities, destroy mom and pop businesses, and when communities didn't want their monster stores, all of their massive profits allowed them to hire armies of lawyers to fight the communities. In town after town, they won. When they couldn't win, they bribed (which is how they built a Wally World right next to Teotihuacán where when you climb the pyramid of the sun you can look right on Wally World!). Now that this huge shift of wealth has been accomplished because of government interference, it should come as no surprise that we see a push for more government interference to shift some of that wealth back in the other direction. It's kind of peculiar that libertarians and conservatives never take that into consideration. Worse yet, they get all indignant that workers might think they are worth more and want enough to live modestly on. Why is it that shareholders, CEOs, etc, are so valued but the people without whom the stores could not operate are not? Oh, I know, supply and demand (and people like cheap shit) but the same is true for CEOs. I guarantee you that CEOs making 100 million a year could easily be replaced by bright and ambitions Indians who would work for WAY less and do just as a good a job. See how that works? Race to the bottom.

We are fast becoming like a banana republic. The only way to reverse that is to get rid of government managed trade and interference in the economy. Normal human compassion and common sense should indicate that companies making hundreds of billions per year and employees needing welfare to survive is a symptom that something is WRONG.

I read some article about a wealthy German businessman. He was addressing Germany's welfare state (whatever that may be, I don't know). His response was that he didn't want to be a rich man in a poor country. While I do not support a welfare state, I totally got what he was saying. We are becoming a poor country of consumers who fight over cheap shit on black Friday. I find that sick. I don't like what we have become and it's getting worse. If we don't get rid government interference on behalf of rich people, we are going to have to get used government interference on behalf of poor people. Or, we can work hard and hope to be part of the .001% in a poor country.



Yeah, it would move up the ladder all the way to the CEO which then must receive a hefty raise to keep his/her salary 3000 times over the average pay for employees of his/her company.

+ 1

bolil
12-07-2013, 12:29 AM
Individual owners cannot, isn't that the point?

Carson
12-07-2013, 11:09 AM
I guess this boils down too...

Years ago we fought for a living wage that would allow for individuals to care for themselves. Now it seems people think they can cut wages down below this level and allow socialism to pick up where the wages leave off.

I suspect this concept will go about as well as we are witnessing!

This has more to do with a socialist takeover than supply and demand. Accept for maybe the counterfeiters have an unlimited supply of currency and the hard earned dollar no longer has any voice. We have to deliver what ever they demand!

susano
12-07-2013, 04:27 PM
Individual owners cannot, isn't that the point?

Are you talking about McDonalds franchise owners or individual small businesses that aren't part of global corporations?

tod evans
12-07-2013, 04:53 PM
Just curious as to why you would like that.


If Wally-World and McD's both shut down for 90 days paying their employees $10.00wk for "training" several things would happen;

The employees would either find other work or be grateful for a job when they reopened.

The consumers would realize that they don't need these businesses.

The businesses would realize that it takes employees and consumers to show a profit.

It'd do the whole lot of 'em good to go to their respective corners for a bit.

DamianTV
12-07-2013, 05:05 PM
Slightly off topic:

I think Wal Marx executives have started another Propoganda campaign as I saw the same Wal Marx commercial that promoted "Wal Marx is a great place to worx"! I guess that even in the ranks of Wal Marx and McSocialism, they have their own sub-groups of One Percenters. Lookie, Im Full Time, get paid $8.25 and hour AND have Health Insurace! Yay me, Im in their top 1%!

I'll post the propoganda commercial as soon as I find it.

susano
12-07-2013, 05:11 PM
I guess this boils down too...

Years ago we fought for a living wage that would allow for individuals to care for themselves. Now it seems people think they can cut wages down below this level and allow socialism to pick up where the wages leave off.

I suspect this concept will go about as well as we are witnessing!

This has more to do with a socialist takeover than supply and demand. Accept for maybe the counterfeiters have an unlimited supply of currency and the hard earned dollar no longer has any voice. We have to deliver what ever they demand!

This is how the global plantation is created. The left/right paradigm works beautifully together to accomplish it. Of course, the globalists know exactly how this works and the unwitting tools at the bottom of the pyramid react in the predictable fashion to carry out the elite slave masters' plans. It's why rich banksters backed the Bolsheviks. You've got Republicans/conservatives on one side who see workers as nothing but units to be exploited for the bottom line (and fat CEO and upper level salaries, bonuses, perks, and benefits), and you've got Democrats/liberals who assist with their support of the nanny/welfare state which enables the Wally World's to keep paying unlivable wages and bolstering their profits. What's ethical and economically sound never enters into this equation. (Rank and file) Republicans seem to always line up behind the plantation masters and Democrats always line up behind the slaves, making it all just a matter of how the plantation will be run. The right wants to see the slaves worked like inhuman units and the left wants to see government enforce better slave conditions. This reminds me Stefan Malyneux and his video, The Story of Your Enslavement. What appalls me is that so many libertarians/freedom types haven't yet grasped how this works and carry on exactly like Republicans without any ethics. As Malyneux explains, you have to see farm (plantation) to leave it. Too many people on this forum and in the freedom movement can't see the farm and how their ideas contribute to creating it. Talking about supply and demand with labor in an honest God free market is just ludicrous when we live in a world where government and corporations have fascist arrangement and everything is controlled by complex trade agreements! Context is everything and I'm afraid a lot of well intentioned freedom peeps have lost the plot. It isn't wages being too high or minimum wage that's making us a banana republic, it's the fucking trade agreements and globalization. This is the British East India Company 2.0 and we are doomed if people can't figure this game out.

Anti Federalist
12-07-2013, 05:18 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to susano again.


This is how the global plantation is created. The left/right paradigm works beautifully together to accomplish it. Of course, the globalists know exactly how this works and the unwitting tools at the bottom of the pyramid react in the predictable fashion to carry out the elite slave masters' plans. It's why rich banksters backed the Bolsheviks. You've got Republicans/conservatives on one side who see workers as nothing but units to be exploited for the bottom line (and fat CEO and upper level salaries, bonuses, perks, and benefits), and you've got Democrats/liberals who assist with their support of the nanny/welfare state which enables the Wally World's to keep paying unlivable wages and bolstering their profits. What's ethical and economically sound never enters into this equation. (Rank and file) Republicans seem to always line up behind the plantation masters and Democrats always line up behind the slaves, making it all just a matter of how the plantation will be run. The right wants to see the slaves worked like inhuman units and the left wants to see government enforce better slave conditions. This reminds me Stefan Malyneux and his video, The Story of Your Enslavement. What appalls me is that so many libertarians/freedom types haven't yet grasped how this works and carry on exactly like Republicans without any ethics. As Malyneux explains, you have to see farm (plantation) to leave it. Too many people on this forum and in the freedom movement can't see the farm and how their ideas contribute to creating it. Talking about supply and demand with labor in an honest God free market is just ludicrous when we live in a world where government and corporations have fascist arrangement and everything is controlled by complex trade agreements! Context is everything and I'm afraid a lot of well intentioned freedom peeps have lost the plot. It isn't wages being too high or minimum wage that's making us a banana republic, it's the fucking trade agreements and globalization. This is the British East India Company 2.0 and we are doomed if people can't figure this game out.

susano
12-07-2013, 05:31 PM
double post

susano
12-07-2013, 05:35 PM
Slightly off topic:

I think Wal Marx executives have started another Propoganda campaign as I saw the same Wal Marx commercial that promoted "Wal Marx is a great place to worx"! I guess that even in the ranks of Wal Marx and McSocialism, they have their own sub-groups of One Percenters. Lookie, Im Full Time, get paid $8.25 and hour AND have Health Insurace! Yay me, Im in their top 1%!

I'll post the propoganda commercial as soon as I find it.

Malyneux addresses the slave hierarchy in The Story of Your Enslavement. He really is a genius. Love that guy.

DamianTV
12-07-2013, 05:45 PM
Since it came up...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

Good vid if you havent seen it.

susano
12-07-2013, 05:56 PM
Zhang Changhua and Chen Suqin, a married couple. Years ago, they left their home in the Szechuan province to take low-paying jobs in a textile factory in Guangzhou, which is the huge industrial city on the mainland next to Hong Kong. Here, in row after row, they work bent over sewing machines, assembling perhaps the jeans I'm wearing right now. They live in dormitories — married adults, with next to no privacy.

They save every yuan they can to send home. They left their children behind to be raised by a grandmother. Their dream is that by 15 years of this toil, they will pay for the children to finish school and live better lives. For that dream, they have sacrificed the life of parenthood, and are like strangers at home to children who know them as voices on the telephone, seen on the annual visit.

This is a reality Dickens could hardly have imagined. The fruit of their toil has contributed to China's emergence as a global economic power. But their lives are a grim contrast to the glittering Beijing of the Olympics, the towers of Shanghai, the affluent new business class. And here is the part you may sense coming: Are their children grateful for what amounts to the sacrifice of two lifetimes?

[...]

We read about the suicides in Apple's plants in China. Seeing this film, you suspect there are many suicides among workers in factories whose brands are less famous than Apple. Chinese peasants no longer live without television and a vision of another world. They no longer live in a country without consumer luxuries. “Last Train Home” suggests that the times they are a-changin'. The rulers of China may someday regret that they distributed the works of Marx so generously.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/last-train-home-2010

Full film online: http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/last_train_home


I cried when I watched this. Don't think for a minute that the global elite don't want this all over the world.