@James: If WalMart pays wages that are so low their employees need food stamps, how can you describe that as "generous"?

Poverty pay is not "generous", it's exploitation.

If they're pay is so low, then they should get a new job, and market economics would force WalMart to raise wages. Unless, of course, they don't have the skill for any other job, in which case they should be grateful that Walmart is even providing them with a job.

@ leon: Discussion point: Do you think that by providing food stamps to people in work, the government is actually allowing Wal-Mart to keep their wages artificially low?

Wal-mart business model for years counted on government support to pay its workers so it could pay low wages. Until ObamaCare, its workers' medical insurance plan was to have them use the state's for poverty wage level workers.

Companies use a relatively high unemployment rate and recessions to keep workers at jobs with low salaries. It's not the lack of skills, but the lack of available jobs for some areas. That's why you can see 200 people applying for a starting level job at McDonalds.

It's not just at the bottom of the job skill levels that it happens. Back in 1975, Greyhound Corporation took advantage of state tax incentives to move the corporate headquarters and research and development from Illinois to Arizona. Employees were moved months ahead of new building completion where there was no place for them to work so they wouldn't find new jobs during a recession. Some employees turned down a free company paid move so their families could stay in Illinois and they might find a new job that would allow them to move back and rejoin their families. Best company perk was a business trip back to Illinois that could be used for job interviews while they were their on company business.

Jamiet, I think $7.25/hour is more than enough to buy food. I am against all forms of government welfare, including food stamps.

@leon1122 - It depends where you live. Some parts of California, it means you can buy food, but not be able to rent. Even white collar workers making well above minimum wage complain about apartment costs in Silicon Valley.

@Leon, so you'd rather see people who work minimum wage jobs starve?

I mean i agree that the government is subsidising walmart (in that example) to exploit their workers. But i presume that the alternative government intervention (ie a higher minimum wage) would also be something you object to...

For the minor: churchhill's comments were for the royal navy, that broken down poor excuse for a military force. The US Navy did away with both the last and rum. Furthermore you seem to both favor and deplore male to male attraction in your commentary; that shows confusion and contradiction in your mind which throws the rest of you statements in to doubt.

It might be more accurate Leon if you said you thought $US 7.25 per hour is enough for OTHER people to buy food, I wonder if you would you work for that wage yourself ?
The other question I have relates to your statement that you are against all forms of welfare, so that would, I presume, include taxpayer funded assistance to business, or is corporate welfare an entirely different thing in your view ?
You might have a different view about welfare if you suffered some tragic accident, had no insurance cover, and were permanently disabled. No community support for you ? No public health services for you ? No support of any kind from any government or your community ?
One of the pragmatic reasons I pay my taxes and support a taxpayer funded welfare system is that it is a form of crime prevention. Do I need to be woken up by the fire breathing MemSahib firing a warning volley at 4 am at some desperadoes trying to steal her jewellery on a regular basis ? Let me assure you I do not need that. If crime is the only way people can survive then that is what they will do. And just quietly, it costs taxpayers a lot less to pay the less fortunate members of our community welfare payments than it costs to keep them in prison..a lesson that seems to have eluded most people in the USA with it's disgracefully enormous prison populations. You do understand the concept of opportunity costs, or the simple truth that money and resources you spend in one area eg an enormous bloated prison system, means you cannot spend it in other ways, more productive ways.
I think it's always illuminating to ask this question, out of the total spending on law enforcement and prison systems in a nation what proportion is spent on crime prevention and rehabilitation programs for prisoners.
There's this thing called recidivism, do very little effective rehabilitation and recidivism rates skyrocket, and there's a huge cost to that society.
Invest, that's the correct word not spend, but invest in good effective rehabilitation, recidivism rates drop, and the society that does this saves taxoayers money over the long term.
So is investing in effective rehabilitation programs is that a form of welfare ?
If it is, it's for the welfare of the property owning classes as much as the direct recipients.
What's better ? Doing nothing with first time offenders as an example, so they learn in prison how to be more skilled criminals, and spend a sad life engaged in crime, with all the costs to society and victims of crimes, or investing, and getting a fair proportion of first time offenders back on track to become useful citizens who work hard, pay taxes, raise families ?
Pretty flipping obvious.
Except the cult of selfishness that pervades our society gets in the way.

Anyway I've drunk my coffee, so it's back to that terribly noisy nightclub to see if Princess Estelle is happy

Tempus fugit Capt Brad so I'll have to respond later, but I won't wait for some Navy run by disobedient colonists to rule the world's oceans for well over a century, because it just won't happen.
Re affection between men..briefly, if it's a bond between "brothers", not sexual, but virtuous then I approve.
If it's sexual, then that is more complex..Certainly not my choice, but I don't have any right to impose my morals on others. Tolerant but perhaps not an enthusiastic supporter might describe my attitude.

The reality is that there isn't a shred of actual evidence that it either boosts economic activity or provides any benefit to anyone other than the wealthy and a host of economic data to show the opposite, in fact.

So "trickle down" and austerity are extremely effective at transferring wealth to the wealthy and stifling middle class prosperity, as intended, but not at anything else much

@Ogion

"The reality is that there isn't a shred of actual evidence that it either boosts economic activity"

it does increase money in the upper class, which NECESSITATES GDP goes up. This is a retard statement. If you say "doesn't have a profound effect" that's another story"

"or provides any benefit to anyone other than the wealthy"

it does have some limited benefits to lower income quartiles. once again, it's not much, I don't even support the damn policy, but there IS some effect. Stop lying.

"and a host of economic data to show the opposite, in fact."

Ogion has reached god level, where by simply SAYING something, he can make it be true.

"So "trickle down" and austerity are extremely effective at transferring wealth to the wealthy and stifling middle class prosperity, as intended, but not at anything else much"

That's not true, that's not the intention, and I'm starting to see why you never get +1s

@JamietUK

"@James: If WalMart pays wages that are so low their employees need food stamps, how can you describe that as "generous"?

Poverty pay is not "generous", it's exploitation."

"What does Wal-Mart pay per hour?
Early in 2016 Wal-Mart raised wages for 1.2 million employees as part of the second phase of what the company described as a two-year, $2.7 billion investment in workers. The raises, which went into effect Feb. 20 raised the minimum hourly rate for all associates (Wal-Mart's term for employee) hired before Jan. 1, 2016, to at least $10 an hour. New entry-level employees will continue to start at $9 an hour and move to at least $10 after successfully completing the company's new retail skills and training program, called Pathways.

In addition employees who already made more than $10 an hour received their annual raise in February rather than having to wait until their anniversary date. All non-entry level jobs will also now start at at least $10 an hour. The company reported that once these changes went into effect, its average full-time hourly wage will be $13.38, though that number includes non-salaried supervisors and managers. Its average part-time hourly wage will be $10.58."

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/13/what-do-wal-mart-and-target-pay-their-workers.aspx

Just to stay true to our bases, it's 9$ an hour entry level, 10$ after skills competition (I worked at Reasors which is another company in Oklahoma and they have WAY more training to do, and it took very little time) and full time wage: 13.38$ Part time wage 10.38$


Federal Minimum wage is 7.25$ and hour, so if you REALLY have a problem with Wal-Mart, at least try to consider all the facts. There are MANY worse companies than them.

High Federal Minimum wage INSURES that small businesses CANNOT succeed outside of big cities, where the costs of living are low.

if you want a higher minimum wage, let the federal government REQUIRE a VOTE in state counties. Let the COMMUNITIES DECIDE what they want. Don't say "15$ an hour would work here, so why can't it work everywhere?"

I know that's not everyone on this forum, but it's a SHIT TON of people in the USA right now.

James, take this from me - businesses can pay more.

My small business (myself, my partner, and 6 part time employees) makes me just about nothing and I can easily afford more than $7.25/hour on the very little I make. It's not hard to pay them $9.25, which is more than the minimum in Illinois. I pay my employees that because a) they deserve it, b) the better they do their job, the more I can sell, which makes me more money, and if they are getting paid at least somewhat fairly, they have told me that that helps them be motivated to do better, and c) they have bills to pay and deserve to go out to eat every once in awhile or take a nice vacation without the words "Motel 6" coming up. Even paying them $9.25/hour, that still equates to less than $20,000 per year full time, and I don't pay any of them full time because we don't work 40 hours a week.

To make clear what $20,000 a year does, my older sister eats seaweed and rice for her meals, doesn't go out to eat or drink at a bar with her friends, lives in a small apartment in a college town where rent is about as cheap as it gets, and drives a car with 45 MPG and her yearly expenses are, according to my dad (who helps her pay them), about $18,500. That's before taxes, going out to a nice dinner, or buying anything new at all. She is literally the most minimalist person I know that actually lives within civilization and, without kids, she spends that much on herself.

How do you save money making $7.25 an hour? How do you live a decent life making $7.25 an hour? How do you pay for a kid at $7.25 an hour? How do you go on vacation? Okay, maybe you don't do any of these things. Even so, how do you replace your car battery if it dies? How do you pay for the doctor when you break your arm? How do you pay to fix your heater before the winter?

The real question, though, is how do you position yourself to advance in the world and break the cycle of poverty and hopelessness? At $7.25/hour, you don't save money, you don't invest money, you don't put money in a 401K, you don't start a college fund for your kid, and if you didn't graduate and are stuck, you don't have enough money to pay for college yourself so that you can get out. It's a giant trap.

If inflation is 2% (I have no idea what it actually is) and the last increase was in 2009, then $7.25 is worth 14% less than it was then. Next year, it will be 16%. By 2020, it will be above 20%. We have a minimum wage for better or for worse, we have inflation for better or for worse. If the goal of minimum wage is to provide a baseline that someone - ONE PERSON, without a family or kids or whatever - can *live* on, then it needs to rise accordingly with inflation.

Nice anecdote Bo

But your job sounds shit. I wouldn't work there, I'd go to a job that pays more. Walmart has 13.38 for average full time employment. Die inferior business, die! #justmarkethings

Id you want to be successful, hire part time employees at lower cost, invest everything you got back into your own company. Work day and night tirelessly (make sure your business has potential or else wtf are you doing) and grow

Otherwise sit there and stay the same size, whining to the govt that success isn't easy. Be a worker, or be an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs don't bitch nearly as much as you

And if there's little demand for the product your selling, then you can wither and die... Or change. #justmarketthings

Yeah, James, it does sound like shit. It appeals quite nicely to college kids who can't work full time and only have weekends. That's who we hire.

Considering I made $50,000 about 10 minutes ago, though, I suggest you keep your ego to yourself.

I sell ease of the burden of a death in the family and a bunch of kids who can a) sell, and b) remove all the crap they left so you can sell their expensive house. I meet a lot of shitheads.

@bo

If you're making good profits and if you higher wages help you maintain your labor force, then good on you. Demanding ALL businesses pay a giant wage: please, gently, tenderly, go fuck yourself. For all of us here

Also I don't think I fully understand your job, you buy and sell stuff that families have after someone has died, and make a profit through that? Just clarifying it was weirdly phrased

I just demonstrated that a $10/hour wage, which is the minimum wage in California and the highest in the entire country, is not enough to pay for a basic life for a human being, and here you are telling me that my company is shit, my employees are shit, and that I should "wither and die" if I don't make enough to get by. You have a lot of nerve doing that instead of responding to what I actually said. Fuck off.

I run estate sales and clean out houses. It wasn't exactly a resounding promotion of my business. We stage houses and host sales where people come in and buy things for themselves or to sell on eBay or whatever they want. We take 40%, the family takes 60%. We then get rid of what didn't sell and give the family a final opportunity to take anything they would like to keep. Within a week of us going on the property, the house that their relative left them is ready to go on the market. That's what I do.

I'm saying those are shit wages. I'm saying that businesses that offer that little generally don't have good full time employment. I'm saying that demanding to have a higher minimum wage acrid ALLY states is ridiculous.

Minimum wages necessitattes that there is a set minimum utility that all jobs provide. This is intrinsically false

I agree with you inflation adjustments need to be made. That one I think is fine given our current predicament

Of course $9.25 is a shit wage. I said that myself. The entire dilemma with what I'm saying is that I am being *nice* as an employer to pay $9.25 instead of $8.25, which is the minimum in Illinois, and that still doesn't cover the costs of a basic life. The minimum wage needs to be higher so that I'm not being nice by paying them less than they would need to pay rent and buy themselves a cheesburger instead of eating ramen for three meals a day.

I agree with you that minimum wage does that, but we have minimum wage and it's not going away.

Of the various things written above that I don't quite follow, one stands out above the others. Drives a 45 mpg car? What's the significance of this? What mpg do Yank cars usually get?

@bo there's a distinction I between being "nice" and keeping the labor force satisfied. You lower the wage, productivity drops. You have it higher, then for now they're fine. Raising they're wages with zero self-benefit is being nice

Ok...
No your job doesn't sound great. I can find better jobs that is rather partake in with more security and better wages for entry level ow-skill requirements.

I also don't want to force all businesses to provided wages they can't afford. Your business may be able to, but not all can. Yes inflation should move it up (and we're a few years behind on that)

I do not support large federal minimum wage increases. They are wildly harmful to low-cost areas with many small businesses