Could you please point me to the post where anyone argued that the free market is a “paradise”? I seem to have missed it. Thanks in advance for clearing up that apparent strawman.
Then I’ll explain:
Emphasis mine.
The implication from my debating opponent was that the labor market would correct any imbalance of the employer/employee relationship via the normal method of market correction: Employees flee from employers that do not meet their needs. This is a utopian embodiment of the labor market where the free market works perfectly and without constraint, hence my characterization as a “free market paradise.” In better economic times when there is more balance to the labor market, this process works closer to that utopian version of the free market and can work to great benefit of both the employee and employees that participate: Bad employers are punished by employee flight and good employers are rewarded by lowered cost of employment – less turnover means less training, less time spent reviewing applications, more engaged workforce, etc etc.
Unfortunately, the problem with this assertion is that the markets are quite out of balance in favor of the low-wage/semiskilled/unskilled employers, right now. This isn’t within the rubric of the OP’s for or against WalMart, I simply disagree with XT’s statement of the ease at which transitioning jobs or not working at all is on this particular point of his overall argument.
I’m glad I could help clear up your misunderstanding.
Sorry, just a drive by:
[QUOTE=Farin]
Unfortunately, the problem with this assertion is that the markets are quite out of balance in favor of the low-wage/semiskilled/unskilled employers, right now. This isn’t within the rubric of the OP’s for or against WalMart, I simply disagree with XT’s statement of the ease at which transitioning jobs or not working at all is on this particular point of his overall argument.
[/QUOTE]
Briefly, I never said anything about it being easy or not easy…I said there was choice involved. You have, at least IMHO, not proven otherwise.
I do think that markets will eventually self correct, but I made no mention of this in my own earlier statements. All I said was that employees have a choice. They aren’t slaves bound to their companies. Whether it’s difficult or easy for them to make a choice is irrelevant, IMHO, at least to the argument I was originally responding to, which was the ridiculous assertion that working for Walmart is a form of slavery (‘in principal’) and the further statement that Walmart is paying workers below the value of their labor. Anything more you are reading into all of this YOU are reading into it…it’s not coming from me, at least not in what I’ve stated thus far.
So, you are building a strawman argument then tearing it down, IOW.
Yet, my own statements were simply about choice (as opposed to ACTUAL slavery, where there is no choice…which, again, was the original point I was addressing) and whether or not Walmart pays below the value of the labor they are purchasing…which, clearly they can’t be, as both parties OF THEIR OWN CHOICE have agreed upon.
Anyway, I’m off…hopefully I can get some time tomorrow to return to this thread as it’s interesting.
And my assertion, as I have said repeatedly, is that they don’t have a real choice. To pay rent and get groceries, people must work. And leaving for another job isn’t just “Hey, I’m over here, now!” like it was seven or eight years ago. People, especially poor people, have to keep working at their employment until they can manage to get lucky at another job because they need that income for necessities. I have also said that welfare isn’t enough to live on exclusively for when you do give your employer the finger and leave.
What I said was an exaggerated characterization to illustrate a statement. I wasn’t making an argument off of that characterization.
People making under $30k/year don’t, though. They don’t have savings. They live paycheck to paycheck. If they can’t jump from one job to another, they can’t pay their rent, they can’t buy food, and they can’t buy gas (or bus tickets). Unless you have some sort of backup (help from your parents, etc) it will pretty much destroy your life.
As for the labor cost, it is an employer’s labor market. The glut of labor has driven the cost to the absolute minimum and some employers have additionally dropped hours to avoid other incidental costs of employing people. I would also say that the market rate of something doesn’t always reflect it’s actual value, no matter what the economists say.
So, while I will concede you technically always have a choice of fiscal suicide, it’s not right to expect people to take that option just because the employee-side of the labor market blows goats right now and their employer is abusing them for it.
Beyond that, I don’t think we’ll come closer together on our opinions since we’ve stated it against each other at least three different ways apiece, now.
I know a lot of people are making the argument that shitty workers deserve a shitty wage. And I’m sympathetic to that. When I do go to walmart, the first thing that pops into my head is definitely NOT, “wow these people work so hard and are so friendly, I hope they are getting paid well.”
But then I also think that maybe that shitty wage is what CAUSES them to be shitty employees. I know I wouldn’t be very happy or motivated to do a good job if I was getting paid shit. And I know that my employer that I do have, who pays me well, gives bonuses, annual raises, etc, causes me to think “wow I have a great job and need to work extra hard to keep it and be a good employee.”
So, yeah, if Walmart increases someone’s wage and they continue to be a shitty employee, then that’s no good because the caliber of employee they have really doesn’t deserve to be paid any more than they are. But if increasing pay caused the employees to be nicer, friendlier, happier, and work more proficiently, then maybe it’d be “worth it” in some sense to the employer.
That being said, Walmart, while it is the gigantic elephant in the room is NOT a monopoly, so I feel like they can pay whatever they want for whatever calibur of employee they want. Walmart obviously doesn’t care about getting shitty employees, so they can continue to pay shitty wages as far as I’m concerned. And I’ll continue shopping somewhere else.
If Walmart were Buy n’ Large, then you’d hear me singing a completely different tune, demanding that people be paid more and treated better if they worked there. But there’s also Kroger and Safeway and any number of other department/grocery stores for me to shop.
The thread title has had the unfortunate effect of allowing the WalMart defense that other retailers also provide substandard wages.
Those implying that Greed is God, Dog-Eat-Dog Free Markets will lead to a wage level optimal (or even adequate) for workers, especially in a time of under-employment, not only know nothing of economics, but lack common sense.
In the U.S., per capita GDP (inflation-adjusted) has more then doubled since 1967, yet minimum wages have fallen. A graph showing median-to-minimum wage ratios in developed countries tells a similar story.
What is true is that the rising value of production capital (e.g. robots), and per capita value of scarce resources dictates downward pressure on lower-class wages. This would be fine economics if lower-class humans were a subhuman caste raised as slaves or foodstuff in some dystopic society. To listen to right-wing Dopers, one wonders if that’s how they envision the post-modern American “utopia.”
Again, if you want to lobby for a higher MW, do so. But Claiming that anyone who pays their employees MW is somehow paying them “substandard wages” is simply an attempt to make an end-run around that.
But if you’re going to lobby for a Living Wage, you’re going to have to explain why every job in the country must be such that it can support whatever family unit you are arguing it is supposed to support.
Of course, the other alternative is to boycott such establishments. Nothing wrong with that-- it has a time honored tradition.
ETA: One more thing on the whole excommunication angle. If anyone really wants to go there, be prepared for the top three Americans on the list to be: Joe Biden, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi.
I do not try to frame minimum wage etc. as a “moral” issue. “Substandard” is arguably an ambiguous term but surely clear enough in context.
An alternative to government-mandated wages is united labor action, e.g. picket lines. Is no other Doper distressed at the recent arrests of anti-WalMart demonstrators?
(I’m not a “news junkie” and get most of my news from SDMB or the Google headlines. It seems a shame that info on the mass arrests of anti-WalMart demonstrators showed up first for me at RT.com .)
First I’ve heard of it. Link?
You know, someone can argue both simultaneously. One cay believe that the MW should be increased and also call a company out for paying its workforce the bare minimum when all evidence shows they can afford to be more generous.
Following the law is not sufficient for being free from criticism. A good citizen–whether they be an individual or a corporation–is not someone who tries their best to skirt as close to the edge of the law as possible. That’s what Walmart does.
If Walmart wasn’t such a dominating force in the economy, it would be easy to turn a blind eye to their practices. But where a Walmart opens up, other stores cannot compete with all that low-lowness and they shut down. Which means that Walmart employees can’t stay competitive either. There are few to no other shops in towns where they can work and get higher wages. Which means you see a whole lot people standing in line for SNAP and WIC right before their shifts begin at Walmart. I don’t know why I, as a person who never shops at Walmart, has to subsidize the companies’ profits by providing benefits to their employees. That’s not fair to me or to society, so hell yeah I’m going to call them out for doing this since they can well afford not to. Mom and Pop Independent may pay minimum wage too, but they aren’t bringing in billions of dollars every year, and they only employee a handful of people. Not the whole town of Bumfuck, Egypt.
And in addition to bitching about Walmart, I’m going to "lobby’ in support of a higher MW. I can juggle both of these rantfests fairly easily.
I stated that I’m not a “news junkie.” I’m not a good Googler either, but typing the exact phrase I used (“arrests of anti-WalMart demonstrators”) into the Google News prompt gets hits. If you don’t consider “54 Demonstrators Arrested at Wal-Mart Protest in Chinatown” to be “mass arrests” fine. I’ll concede defeat. Do let’s derail this thread into whether septimus is hyperbolic, so we can divert attention from America’s Greed is God culture.
Emphasis added.
I assume you meant “don’t”, but the best way to not derail the thread into whether or not you’re being hyperbolic is to not be hyperbolic.
To say America worships greed is not hyperbolic. One need only read threads at the supposedly liberal SDMB to understand that. Straightforward remedies for foreclosure boom? Oh no, that would be unfair to stockholders of banks. Increase the minimum wage? Screw people too lazy or worthless to earn their keep.
When Canadians or Frenchmen are interviewed about their healthcare systems, they regard it as natural and moral that the well-off subsidize healthcare for the less well-off. In dozens and dozens of SDMB threads on U.S. healthcare, we read many complaints about one’s own insurance and very few suggesting eagerness to pay higher taxes or premiums to benefit the less advantaged.
I stand by my claim that America worships greed.
(There is more to it than that. When asked why a French or Canadian system wouldn’t work in America, we hear that America suffers from “greater ethnic diversity.” :smack: )
Fie!
Replying also to Mr. Mace, apparently unaware of U.S.A’s bias toward corporations and against people. From a minor newspaper:
Because in a very large number of cases, the “less advantaged” are there because of choices they made that put them in that situation. If you are an adult and not in a coma, there’s no reason you should be working for minimum wage anywhere. These “less advantaged” people are in that situation for doing some or all of the following, all of their own volition:
Dropping out of high school, getting pregnant while not able to afford children, not showing up for work and getting fired, stealing from work, being lazy at work, committing crimes making them basically unemployable, not acting in a professional manner while at work, being addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, spending money on big screen TVs and video game systems instead of necessities, etc. I could go on and on listing all of the horrible decisions I’ve seen people make that makes them functionally unemployable for anything other than a minimum wage, unskilled job.
Why should I pay for those whose own poor decisions put them in the situation they are in, while I’ve sacrificed, worked hard, and made smart decisions to get where I am?
I’d say America worships working hard.
Please provide evidence that there are sufficient “above minimum wage” job openings available to employ every single “coma-free” adult who is currently unemployed or making minimum wage.
I’m not right-wing, but I do have a problem with a minimum wage. My vision of a utopia future would be the state supplies stipends to cover livable homes, food, healthcare and education for everyone.
The primary complaint about low-wage jobs is that they don’t provide enough to live on. Well, some jobs aren’t worth that much. Instead of distorting the job market, let’s fix the underlying problems.
I’m not sure Walmart can afford to be more generous. Based on runner pat’s numbers, Sam’s Club has a profit margin of 1.9/53.8 = 3.5% (Costco has 2.9%). That’s very thin.
But I pointed out earlier that if Walmart paid one dollar more, they would still make 12 billion profit down from 15 billion.
And Costco manages to pay far better and still almost match Sam’s Club margin.
Plus Costco offers far better benefits.
I agree that a stipend to everyone (say $6000/yr for definiteness) might be better than raising minimum wage. One very-confused Doper (I won’t name him since this isn’t the Pit) objected that it would be impossible to find enough budget cuts to cover that. :smack: :smack: (Apparently the notion of raising taxes even to cover the huge subsidy you envision is so horrendously anti-American, that it couldn’t even occur to said unnamed Doper.) $6000 times America’s population would be $1.9 trillion (much less, in effect, since many would have taxes rise by just about enough to cover the subsidy.) One right-wing Doper, on the topic of raising $1.8 trillion by taxing the rich answered that that would be pointless – $1.8 trillion is “chump change” … “a rounding error.” Why am I certain that this $1.9 trillion would get a different characterization from him? 
I agree that the focus should be on fixing the system, not forcing WalMart to be more charitable. Nevertheless, you might want to recheck your calculations. WalMart could give all its low-wage workers a 15% pay hike and still be quite profitable.