Walmart workers staying home black friday

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by stevew

Anyone watch that Rockefeller/Frick/Carnegie/Edison/JP Morgan/Westinghouse thing yesterday on History?

Pretty sure big business was always cunts, but it's a lot harder to murder people these days(hello Pinkertons)

The Men Who Built America. I watched it and the history in it, especially in the dramatic scenes, is really inaccurate. Not that those people were saints or anything, but the real history is far more interesting than that mostly fictional miniseries showed (much like with everything else The History Channel makes)

[stevew]

Yeah, I'm sure it was heavily flared for the dramatic.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Now why did that community lose those businesses? Surely it had nothing to do with a Walmart going up, did it?

Nope, the paper mill shut down (wife's hometown). The transition from a manufacturing/farming community to a service one has been very hard for shasta county. The success of walmart brought in a giant shopping center with over a 1000 jobs. These jobs are not great, but what they offer is an opportunity out of the meth culture.

On the other hand the movie theater at the shopping center closed down, so i guess we can blame netflix and on demand for killing ma and pa businesses

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Nope, the paper mill shut down (wife's hometown). The transition from a manufacturing/farming community to a service one has been very hard for shasta county. The success of walmart brought in a giant shopping center with over a 1000 jobs. These jobs are not great, but what they offer is an opportunity out of the meth culture.

On the other hand the movie theater at the shopping center closed down, so i guess we can blame netflix and on demand for killing ma and pa businesses

There's always an exception to the rule. Your example is far from the norm.

[molson]

Our downtown department store back in the day sucked a hell of a lot more than Walmart. I'm sure there were some great city department stores too, but I think history has exaggerated how amazing they were generally. There's a reason people abandoned them as soon as they could.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Our downtown department store back in the day sucked a hell of a lot more than Walmart. I'm sure there were some great city department stores too, but I think history has exaggerated how amazing they were generally. There's a reason people abandoned them as soon as they could.

Testify.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Chubby

There's always an exception to the rule. Your example is far from the norm.

No really, as technology and preferences change, so do businesses.

Tell me, what's the first name of your travel agent? Your favorite bookstore for readings? Your butcher? Favorite record store? The name of that family who owns that pager store? That great place to get film developed?

The device you used to reply to me has killed more jobs than Walmart.
The fact that your device has also created jobs, is, I'm guessing, far from the norm.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

No really, as technology and preferences change, so do businesses.

Tell me, what's the first name of your travel agent? Your favorite bookstore for readings? Your butcher? Favorite record store? The name of that family who owns that pager store? That great place to get film developed?

The device you used to reply to me has killed more jobs than Walmart.
The fact that your device has also created jobs, is, I'm guessing, far from the norm.

Very nice examples. This is fun, how back shall we go? To the proverbial buggy whip? I personally know several owners of mom and pop stores in my local downtown (where I have worked for over 20 years). Thing is, they do not sell sundries, groceries or hardware. They instead are selling coffee, frozen yogurt, pb&j and an independent phone store.

[cuervo72]

Alcohol, man. Alcohol is where it's at. That and like Bucc says, frozen yogurt.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

They instead are selling coffee, frozen yogurt, pb&j and an independent phone store.

You have a peanut butter & jelly store?

[cuervo72]

Heh. I wondered that too. But, if some of it is "home-made" or specialty, I guess I could see it. Not too different from our local orchard store which sells all sorts of jams, ciders, fruit butters, etc. Maybe combine that with fresh-baked bread, who knows.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You have a peanut butter & jelly store?

Yes and you wouldn't believe the speciality flavors they have. PB & Jellies Downtown Colorado Springs

To my list above, I also need to add a long time specialty ice cream store, a spice shop and a new one that sells flavored oils and vinegars (I think, haven't been in that one yet).

The point is that all of these are catering to the new demographics and except for the ice cream shop, all stores that wouldn't have existed 20 years ago. Walmart will become archaic, just like JCP and the malls have. But I just read that Walmart are now opening up boutique grocery stores, probably competing with the awesome Whole Foods.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Chubby

There's always an exception to the rule. Your example is far from the norm.

One last reply. I know the place you live and would agree that in cities of eroding tax base and older demographics, it is comparatively tough to gain an entrepreneur startup across a wide spectrum of markets. What there are would be fragile and impacted by a chain coming in. In newer markets where there are population and tax revenue growths, as well as a younger demographics, chains like Walmart (and the like) only add (not necessarily replace) to a relative abundance, creating more consumers for all levels and types of products.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by stevew

Maybe we still do kill people

Alleged shoplifter dies after being subdued by Walmart workers | www.ajc.com

Speaking of which...what are y'alls experience with dealing with the asset protection teams(if you've worked retail). I found them to be pretty thuggish on occasion...unsurprising they killed someone. Gotta get those shoplifter apprehensions or you'll get fired.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Yes and you wouldn't believe the speciality flavors they have. PB & Jellies Downtown Colorado Springs

Well I'll be damned.

That might be one of the strangest things (retail division) I've ever come across. It makes a little more sense after seeing they've got a few other deli type items & sandwiches on the menu, but still.

[stevew]

There's a PB&J section on campus, but it's part of a larger quick snack stand. I should probably try it at some point. I'm kind of surprised it survives as a stand alone type place. I'm sure it's probably good as hell.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Of course the people depend on Walmart. Once they move in, cause locally owned business to shut down, kill more jobs than they bring in and depress wages people don't really have much of choice but to shop there.

Okay...did small businesses really pay more than Wal-Mart does?

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

On top of that I'd like to see more protection for people in employment in terms of notice periods before sacking and an improved minimum wage.

Minimum wage just pushes the prices of things up, and get a dog chasing his tail situation, and can even eliminate jobs.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

a spice shop and a new one that sells flavored oils and vinegars (I think, haven't been in that one yet).

This must be the "hot" thing these days-especially the olive oil store-because I see them all popping up like weeds around my region.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well I'll be damned.

That might be one of the strangest things (retail division) I've ever come across. It makes a little more sense after seeing they've got a few other deli type items & sandwiches on the menu, but still.

It's not the South, Jon.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Okay...did small businesses really pay more than Wal-Mart does?

In many cases when I was younger - yes they would pay more than chain stores, this was largely down to (1) individual ethics from owners, (2) lack of information regarding what the 'going rate was', (3) a personal connection from the person controlling wages to the employee's.

Minimum wage just pushes the prices of things up, and get a dog chasing his tail situation, and can even eliminate jobs.

Thats an interesting perspective ... I can understand that it can "price out" some manufacturing jobs because it would make it more expensive than importing similar items from abroad, but it also gives workers increased spending power which in turn generate jobs.

Unfortunately in these 'global' times economics is more a religion than a science with most practitioners taking their 'stance' and no one truly knowing the cause and effects involved beyond the obvious effects on individual workers of removing/reducing their rights/pay which is what I'm arguing on.

(personally my stance is that 'trickle down' economics is obvious 'bunk' as the companies/people at the top are more than happy to pool money rather than reinvest it (case in point the $bn which apple has on hand) whereas workers will generally spend whatever they earn (within reason) and therefore paying people better is a bigger stimulant of the economy than tax breaks for the rich).

[JPhillips]

From a review of minimum wage studies:

A significant body of academic research has found that raising the minimum wage does not result in job losses even during hard economic times. There are at least five different academic studies focusing on increases to the minimum wage—including increases ranging from 7 percent to 12.3 percent made during periods of high unemployment—that find an increase in the minimum wage has no significant effect on employment levels. The results are likely because the boost in demand and reduction in turnover provided by a minimum wage counteracts the higher wage costs.

Similarly, a simple analysis of increases to the minimum wage on the state level, even during periods of state unemployment rates above 8 percent, shows that the minimum wage does not kill jobs. Indeed the states in our simple analysis had job growth slightly above the national average. [...]

All the studies came to the same conclusion—that raising the minimum wage had no effect on employment.

[Marc Vaughan]

One other thing its worth mentioning is that in many countries minimum wage jobs are actually costing tax payers money .... I can't give details for the US because I'm not 'versed' in things here.

But in the UK minimum wage jobs cost the tax payer money because the government ends up subsidizing the individuals undertaking them in various ways - ie. housing subsidy, social security payments etc. to ensure that they can survive on that salary.

In the US I'm sure the same is true - whether this is through health costs when uninsured minimum salary workers go to hospital or through food stamps and suchlike.

As such allowing corporations to exploit their staff in this manner is actually a subsidy by society to the corporation (and wholly anti-capitalist if you subscribe to that viewpoint).

Please note that I'm not 'kicking' companies for doing this, they're maximizing their profits which is to be expected - I am however saying that it shouldn't be allowed because its not good for society as a whole, its the fault of the law/politicians who have allowed it to happen.

PS - In a similar manner many people here will probably revolt at the idea of the removal of mortgage tax deductions seeing them as a benefit to themselves when in reality they're a subsidy for banks who can because of them charge higher rates of interest to consumers .... subsidised by tax breaks from the government ...
The problem with any such changes obviously is the 'short-term' effect of people who have already committed to them under the existing terms, I would hope that any changes implemented would be 'forward looking' - ie. not applicable for mortgages which are already in effect, but time will tell.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

One other thing its worth mentioning is that in many countries minimum wage jobs are actually costing tax payers money .... I can't give details for the US because I'm not 'versed' in things here.

But in the UK minimum wage jobs cost the tax payer money because the government ends up subsidizing the individuals undertaking them in various ways - ie. housing subsidy, social security payments etc. to ensure that they can survive on that salary.

In the US I'm sure the same is true - whether this is through health costs when uninsured minimum salary workers go to hospital or through food stamps and suchlike.

As such allowing corporations to exploit their staff in this manner is actually a subsidy by society to the corporation (and wholly anti-capitalist if you subscribe to that viewpoint).

Please note that I'm not 'kicking' companies for doing this, they're maximizing their profits which is to be expected - I am however saying that it shouldn't be allowed because its not good for society as a whole, its the fault of the law/politicians who have allowed it to happen.

PS - In a similar manner many people here will probably revolt at the idea of the removal of mortgage tax deductions seeing them as a benefit to themselves when in reality they're a subsidy for banks who can because of them charge higher rates of interest to consumers .... subsidised by tax breaks from the government ...
The problem with any such changes obviously is the 'short-term' effect of people who have already committed to them under the existing terms, I would hope that any changes implemented would be 'forward looking' - ie. not applicable for mortgages which are already in effect, but time will tell.

We don't have many guaranteed benefits as the UK does, so people are happy these kinds of roles are out there, which is why neoliberal tax policy screams things like "if a man wants to work 80 hours a week, why shouldn't he be able to?" Without asking the fundamental question "who the fuck wants to work 80 hours a week?" Some strong libertarians are anti-minimum wage and will argue it as though it's common sense.

It's easy when there's no cap on what you might earn, but if the likely end result is him earning in 80 what he'd have earned in 40 without the costs of what he'll pay for -- nevermind the social and societal implications of his working this many hours -- not going down, then it's hard to really get on the whole "train to economic prosperity" when it's clearly a top-down, hand-to-mouth existence that negates people with whom we effectively think are lesser thans with no gumption or desire.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From a review of minimum wage studies:

"There are at least five different academic studies focusing on increases to the minimum wage—including increases ranging from 7 percent to 12.3 percent made during periods of high unemployment"

In order for the law to compel what Walmart workers are demanding, we'd have to raise the minimum wage 93%.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

In order for the law to compel what Walmart workers are demanding, we'd have to raise the minimum wage 93%.

I don't think many people here are saying that what the Walmart workers are demanding is realistic, but that being said - have you looked at the "minimum wage" recently? The minimum wage in most places is pathetic - it certainly hasn't kept up with inflation.

Particularly given the lack of stable hours in minimum wage type jobs that can often prohibit you from getting a second job, combined with the likelehood that you won't be a full-time minimum wage worker, it's almost functionally impossible to live on a minimum wage income in many parts of the country.

So is it really "minimum wage" then?

And yes, everyone can cherry pick states with decent minimum wage laws, or low costs of living to say that it is possible. But that ignores the reality - that you have minimum wage jobs everywhere. So sure...you can live on minimum wage in rural Alabama or Indiana. But what about the janitor making minimum wage cleaning office buildings in Philadelphia or New York City? Obviously they make it work somehow (thankfully I've never had to experience it, and haven't given it as much thought as I should have to be honest), but you know they're not putting away any money for retirement, or for their kids education or anything. So they're effectively socioeconomically trapped. Which is shitty. That's not what the "American Dream" is about.

I've been there. I've worked for minimum wage (when I was in HS). I worked retail (Starbucks) for 9 years, as both a frontline employee, and later as salaried management.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't think many people here are saying that what the Walmart workers are demanding is realistic

I'm not so sure of that. The descriptions of the Walmart employee experience here is pretty much only described in exaggeration - with talk of "slavery", "cattle", "dickensian times." in reality, Walmart employees make more than minimum wage. How much more people think they should make, I actually have no idea. I don't think the world would end if minimum wage was raised 15%, even 20%. I think you could make the argument that would convince me that that was totally appropriate. But I don't even think that would impact the hourly rates of almost all Walmart workers. And I don't think it would make life all that much easier for the janitors in NYC and Philadelphia (though it might help some, I don't know how many of them make minimum wage now). So I get the sense that what people are calling for is a much greater increase than that, they just do it terms of symbolism rather than numbers.

If we're just debating a 12% increase in minimum wage (that was the high end of the study that said minimum wage doesn't hurt employment), I won't argue very hard against that. But that wouldn't change anything Walmart does, it wouldn't end the "slavery" there, it wouldn't shut down all the stores on Thanksgiving, it wouldn't stop the Waltons from having billions of dollars. So, I think what people are really in favor of is something MUCH more dramatic, it's just not often expressed specifically. I get that a small minimum wage increase is just a small step rather than the idea, but let's think big, what would you REALLY want if the legislature was filled of people like you ("you", meaning anyone)? (I'm interested in stuff like that because my own answer to that is pretty boring. I'd make some aggressive tweaks in some targeted areas, but on the whole, I think our economic system is a very good one and I definitely don't want to tear it down or anything.)

[SteveMax58]

Raising the minimum wage, like any tax break or subsidy, will simply change where the cost is borne for such wage but it will mean businesses will move more & more of their "work" to their non-hourly employees (otherwise known as "managers").

It may not be the case with a Walmart type of company (who is subject to much closer public scrutiny), but it certainly is the case for companies that are less publicly visible. Or, in many other cases, a large company (like a Walmart sized but perhaps not retail) will simply outsource more of their entry level type of work to smaller companies that will bear the risk of calling (as an example) every technician, representative, etc. a "manager" and simply give them unrealistic jobs for 40 hours. So they will forgo hiring 2-3 min wage workers in exchange for the "managers" that will put in 50-60 hours at only a marginal % above the min wage hourly when calculated @ 40 hours.

It all comes back at some point, but the higher you make a minimum wage, the more you are propping on less people in the short term. Like anything, it will eventually balance itself out in the market but will cause some pain in the short term as companies resize, re-evaluate the impact(s), etc.

[DanGarion]

I laugh at anyone that thinks raising the minimum wage would solve any problems. When you raise payroll, that money has to come from somewhere, 99% of the time it's coming out of the customer by charging higher prices. Oh shit that means people need more money to buy stuff, well let's raise the minimum wage again. Face it minimum wage isn't meant to give someone a livable wage.

[JPhillips]

So if raising the minimum wage won't benefit the workers lowering it shouldn't hurt them. Why not have a one cent minimum wage. Think of how low prices will be then!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I laugh at anyone that thinks raising the minimum wage would solve any problems. When you raise payroll, that money has to come from somewhere, 99% of the time it's coming out of the customer by charging higher prices. Oh shit that means people need more money to buy stuff, well let's raise the minimum wage again. Face it minimum wage isn't meant to give someone a livable wage.

On a more philosophical level though - shouldn't that be exactly what it's meant for? (and putting aside for the moment the specifics of what we mean by "living")

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

it'll just turn into a race to automate and move labor offshore. the big box stores would all turn into giant vending machines stocked by robots

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

On a more philosophical level though - shouldn't that be exactly what it's meant for? (and putting aside for the moment the specifics of what we mean by "living")

Philosophically yes. But I don't think philosophy and money mix. In a perfect world everyone should be able to make enough to live, but I don't really think the type of free market we have in the US strives for that, it's meant to maximize the profits of the investors and those in charge of the company, while employing people at wages just high enough to get them to work there. It's not really the companies priority to worry if their employees are able to live at the wages they pay. The responsibility comes down to the employee.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Philosophically yes. But I don't think philosophy and money mix. In a perfect world everyone should be able to make enough to live, but I don't really think the type of free market we have in the US strives for that

Which IMO is disgusting, and we as a society ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Which IMO is disgusting, and we as a society ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

I don't disagree with you. But at the same time this is why we aren't Europe.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Which IMO is disgusting, and we as a society ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

Then you have no clue as to what it means to have freedoms and liberty. It means that anyone in or coming to this country can have "success" (however they term it) without regards to parentage, social class or governmental restrictions. Sure it's harder for some compared to others, that's human nature, but the opportunity is there (esp. in these modern times). Restricting a floor (like in price controls) means you have to restrict a ceiling and when you start doing that, then you're back to only those with privilege will be able to succeed. Give everyone the opportunity to succeed and the freedom to fail and you would be surprised at the diversity of ideas, products and dreams that can be acheived. Restricting failure would also mean restricting success and that we cannot allow in this country.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Then you have no clue as to what it means to have freedoms and liberty. It means that anyone in or coming to this country can have "success" (however they term it) without regards to parentage, social class or governmental restrictions. Sure it's harder for some compared to others, that's human nature, but the opportunity is there (esp. in these modern times). Restricting a floor (like in price controls) means you have to restrict a ceiling and when you start doing that, then you're back to only those with privilege will be able to succeed. Give everyone the opportunity to succeed and the freedom to fail and you would be surprised at the diversity of ideas, products and dreams that can be acheived. Restricting failure would also mean restricting success and that we cannot allow in this country.

Honestly, I'm not even going to bother.

[stevew]

From my experiences at some low wage job type fields.

Most minimum wage workers are basically worthless. They steal their paychecks and can't be counted on for anything. What you'd love to do is to be able to pay them about half of the minwage, and instead give an extra 3-4 dollars an hour to people that actually work hard/have skills that are important(though obviously not a high wage skill). Instead you have to pay the dredges 7/hour, and you can only really pay the "better" workers a few dollars more a hour for that. Those people eventually leave for a better job, and you're on a constant cycle of dealing with headaches and stress to replace your good workers.

For example-Shitty stoner dishwasher who you have to hover over in order to get any kind of production will make min wage. Your best grill cook might make minwage plus $2. Typically I'd make minwage plus $3 or so to get everyone to accomplish the tasks. You burn out quickly when you're doing a third of someone else's job.

Anyways, it all just sucks.

[sterlingice]

Isn't that the problem of not finding the right people, not how much crappy stoner guy is paid? You still have tasks enough for 2 people: one dishwasher and one cook. Paying the cook more doesn't mean the dishes get done any better

SI

[Drake]

Originally Posted by molson

Our downtown department store back in the day sucked a hell of a lot more than Walmart. I'm sure there were some great city department stores too, but I think history has exaggerated how amazing they were generally. There's a reason people abandoned them as soon as they could.

As a guy who grew up in a crappy little Midwest town, this was my experience. (Still is, in fact, where the two grocery stores in town are owned by the same guy.) When Walmart came in, most of the local mom-and-pops died...and no one complained. They'd been gouging the fuck out of us for years.

That doesn't seem like such a big deal now, but if you're a 65 y.o. on a fixed income who can't drive and the internet doesn't exist yet, WalMart meant maybe you *could* afford to eat and have your meds this month.

The debate going on in my town right now is to let Walmart expand into a full-sized store (we still only have one of the hometown varieties) that has groceries. The dickhole who owns the grocery stores has been doing everything he could for years to block it because he says it would drive him out of business.

I say that when I can stop at the store in the university town where I work and buy the same shit 40% cheaper than you claim to be able to sell it, then you don't deserve to keep your business. You're gouging us. We all know it. You're living off the old folks and those who don't have a reason to drive 30 miles to get groceries.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I laugh at anyone that thinks raising the minimum wage would solve any problems. When you raise payroll, that money has to come from somewhere, 99% of the time it's coming out of the customer by charging higher prices. Oh shit that means people need more money to buy stuff, well let's raise the minimum wage again. Face it minimum wage isn't meant to give someone a livable wage.

The other thing to remember is also the added expenses that come up increasing minimum wages such as payroll and unemployment taxes.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So if raising the minimum wage won't benefit the workers lowering it shouldn't hurt them. Why not have a one cent minimum wage. Think of how low prices will be then!

Hyperbole a bit, don't you think?

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

it'll just turn into a race to automate and move labor offshore. the big box stores would all turn into giant vending machines stocked by robots

It will just accelerate the movement to online shopping and the declining role of big box stores.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Which IMO is disgusting, and we as a society ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

I guess it depends on everyone having a living wage. How does that work? Pricing is relative to demand and supply and purchasing power, so is there really such a thing as a "livable" wage if everyone had one?

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Isn't that the problem of not finding the right people, not how much crappy stoner guy is paid? You still have tasks enough for 2 people: one dishwasher and one cook. Paying the cook more doesn't mean the dishes get done any better

SI

I would argue that the skill level required of a cook is a bit higher than a dishwasher.

[Buccaneer]

Wouldn't expect any less because history proves it. There are many millions of examples of success by all kinds of people that wouldn't have occurred anywhere else. The system works.

But you, I and anyone else here can make a difference in people's lives this season by donating time, money and resources to others...instead of waiting for a system to do it for you.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Hyperbole a bit, don't you think?

But if every raise of the minimum wage hurts the economy why not lower it to the extreme? If you believe that raising it hurts the economy why wouldn't lowering it to one cent be beneficial?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Then you have no clue as to what it means to have freedoms and liberty. It means that anyone in or coming to this country can have "success" (however they term it) without regards to parentage, social class or governmental restrictions. Sure it's harder for some compared to others, that's human nature, but the opportunity is there (esp. in these modern times). Restricting a floor (like in price controls) means you have to restrict a ceiling and when you start doing that, then you're back to only those with privilege will be able to succeed. Give everyone the opportunity to succeed and the freedom to fail and you would be surprised at the diversity of ideas, products and dreams that can be acheived. Restricting failure would also mean restricting success and that we cannot allow in this country.

How do you explain social mobility being greater in most of Europe and Canada than in the U.S?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Wouldn't expect any less because history proves it. There are many millions of examples of success by all kinds of people that wouldn't have occurred anywhere else. The system works.

But you, I and anyone else here can make a difference in people's lives this season by donating time, money and resources to others...instead of waiting for a system to do it for you.

Disagree with your first point, as JPhillips noted. Our relative social mobility is pretty shitty compared to Europe, and even Canada.

Agree fully with your second.

The sad fact though, is that Americans are mostly lazy. They won't get off their asses and make a difference themselves in most all cases - they'd rather write a check and have someone else do it for them. Which is why developing a system to help is not some "big evil" that you like to paint it as.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I guess it depends on everyone having a living wage. How does that work? Pricing is relative to demand and supply and purchasing power, so is there really such a thing as a "livable" wage if everyone had one?

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Then you have no clue as to what it means to have freedoms and liberty. It means that anyone in or coming to this country can have "success" (however they term it) without regards to parentage, social class or governmental restrictions. Sure it's harder for some compared to others, that's human nature, but the opportunity is there (esp. in these modern times). Restricting a floor (like in price controls) means you have to restrict a ceiling and when you start doing that, then you're back to only those with privilege will be able to succeed. Give everyone the opportunity to succeed and the freedom to fail and you would be surprised at the diversity of ideas, products and dreams that can be acheived. Restricting failure would also mean restricting success and that we cannot allow in this country.

I expect these point to be skipped over, but they seemed worth highlighting. Propping everyone up to a "livable wage" causes higher demand for products, and inflation. This inflation will exist until enough people fall off the bottom end and become poor again. The only way to combat that is to limit how much can be earned so that rich people can't afford to pay more and allow the inflation to happen. As much as it sucks to say that some people will have to be poor in any functioning economy, it really is true.

[DaddyTorgo]

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf

The report finds the U.S. ranking well below Denmark, Australia, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain in terms of how freely citizens move up or down the social ladder. Only in Italy and Great Britain is the intensity of the relationship between individual and parental earnings even greater.

For instance, according to the OECD, 47 percent of the economic advantage that high-earning fathers in the United States have over low-earning fathers is transmitted to their sons, compare to, say, 17 percent in Australia and 19 percent in Canada.

According to the OECD report, the main cause of social immobility is educational opportunity. It turns out that America's public school system, rather than lifting children up, is instead holding them down.
Another big factor in social mobility is inequality, the report finds. The greater a nation's inequality, the harder it is for its children to improve their lot.

That confirms findings by other researchers. "The way I usually put this is that when the rungs of the ladder are far apart, it becomes more difficult to climb the ladder," Brookings Institution economist Isabel Sawhill tells HuffPost. "Given that we have more inequality in the U.S. right now than at any time since the 1920s, we should be concerned that this may become a vicious cycle. Inequality in one generation may mean less opportunity for the next generation to get ahead and thus still more inequality in the future."

There are things governments can do to reduce inequality, the OECD points out. Progressive tax systems and social programs help reduce income inequalities between parents "so that their descendants' income would converge more quickly."

Perhaps more realistically for this country, given the current political climate, higher short-term unemployment benefits can reduce the effect of socioeconomic background on student achievement, the reports says.

All in all, the OECD report is an ugly reality check for a country that has historically seen itself as uniquely rewarding of talent; as a place free of the sorts of rigid social structures that led so many generations of immigrants to leave Old Europe.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The other thing to remember is also the added expenses that come up increasing minimum wages such as payroll and unemployment taxes.

versus gov't subsidies for the working poor.

i'm enjoying this thread but... we have growing population and a shrinking economy and it isn't walmart's fault

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

According to the OECD report, the main cause of social immobility is educational opportunity. It turns out that America's public school system, rather than lifting children up, is instead holding them down.

I think this much should be obvious. The super local concept of education ends to really screw over kids in poor areas, as their property tax per pupil isn't nearly enough to educate kids as well as in rich areas. Yes, money doesn't cure everything in education, but it does damn well help a lot.

Another big factor in social mobility is inequality, the report finds. The greater a nation's inequality, the harder it is for its children to improve their lot.

Also seems a bit obvious. When the ladder is so large to climb, it gets quite a bit harder to do it.

[Buccaneer]

There was a milestone in my last post. Did it at Starbucks on my iPhone. You can teach an old dog new tricks!

My overall point is that there will always be the poor (however society defines them), no matter what kind of system you create. History constantly shows that either we have half rich/half poor or few rich/most poor. We have personal responsibilities to others but one can look around and celebrate the success of those in our communities, like the PB&J and other mom/pop shops mentioned earlier - some are even run by immigrants or first-generation Americans, and yes, even the giants like Walt Disney and Steve Jobs.

[ISiddiqui]

The issue is when the rich and poor are seperated by such chasms. The income inequality of the US was FAR lower in the 1950s, 1960s than it is now - and that is causing significant issues.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The issue is when the rich and poor are seperated by such chasms. The income inequality of the US was FAR lower in the 1950s, 1960s than it is now - and that is causing significant issues.

If we define this as a problem that needs to be fixed, we really only have two options.
1) Raise taxes and expand social programs.
2) Break up large companies and force more competition for customers and employees.

I'd love to see us focus more on #2.