Do you believe Americans who work full time should earn a living wage?

[Fogdog]

I'm in a very similar situation as the second guy that Padawan quotes, even pursued the same career field as him and work in a field that has nothing to do with my two degrees. I also have a large student loan debt that seemed to be insurmountable.

I attained a job with a large company through a temp agency working in the mail room, stuffing envelopes on the night crew, ten hours a day making $10 an hour. I worked hard, volunteered myself for work outside my job description and applied myself to moving up in this company by learning skills that apply to this field. By doing so I made myself more valuable to the company than a guy who just stuffs envelopes. In six years I've attained two promotions and doubled my hourly pay.

Should I have been rewarded with a higher pay if I was content with stuffing envelopes and made no effort to make myself more valuable to the company?

I don't want to be critical. I'm glad you worked your way to a better position. That's one way to succeed. There are a number of other ways. There is another way to succeed but is shameful -- to tear down others around you. That bit that you copied off a towel with morality stitched onto it regarding work ethic...That's a personal way to motivate yourself. Preaching it to others is making yourself out to be better than others. Let others find their motivation and be glad that you are who you are. Other workers are your brothers and sisters. You depend on them every day. CEO's not so much.

Maybe you are a kiss ass, maybe not.

 

[bearkat42]

So if you had to choose between your daughter starving to death or being sold into slavery you would sit and watch her die?

As opposed to watching her endure a lifetime of slavery? Yep

Sent from my XT1254 using Rollitup mobile app

 

[Fogdog]

Wrong. This thread is a perfect example of what it takes to be an official RIU retard based on false premises by one such OP.

FAIL

So, UNCLE,

If trends continue, nearly all the wealth of the wealthiest nation in the history of the world will be concentrated in the hands of a few families. Poverty is up, the purchasing power of the middle classes is down. The wealthy classes are doing great but the economy hasn't expanded, the ruling class has just sucked more away from everybody else. Yet you and others bash the poor. I don't think you are stupid. I don't understand your position. Can you explain why the status quo is the best path?

 

[Fogdog]

Maybe it's because 90% of minimum wage workers fail on 100% of those standards. .

care to cite your source for those numbers? I think you pulled them out of your ass. Why should anybody care what your ass thinks?

 

[Red1966]

Low enough prices they can easily absorb the negligible increases in prices by paying their employees a living wage (if it was up to me those negligible increases would, by law, be absorbed by Doug McMillon, and the Walton aires)

So you want to charge poor people for your "largess" "Negligible"? Every dollar that goes to the employees ultimately comes from those same poor people.

 

[Padawanbater2]

So you want to charge poor people for your "largess" "Negligible"? Every dollar that goes to the employees ultimately comes from those same poor people.

I want the CEO and top officers to take the grotesque profits they give themselves, their shareholders and politicians and give it to who rightfully owns it; the workers

 

[sheskunk]

As opposed to watching her endure a lifetime of slavery? Yep

Sent from my XT1254 using Rollitup mobile app

So I guess it's safe to assume you regret being here.

 

[sheskunk]

I want the CEO and top officers to take the grotesque profits they give themselves, their shareholders and politicians and give it to who rightfully owns it; the workers

And I want a pony!!

 

[Red1966]

I stand corrected

I would like to clarify my stance on this issue, just so it's known in the thread. $155K (the average CEO income sub the 350 top corporations) is completely acceptable. I'd go as far as saying the 1965 rate is still pretty acceptable (~25 x's average workers income), when I'm criticizing the kinds of business practices I've brought up in this thread, those people are not included in said criticisms. I think small businesses that can't afford to increase their employees wages to a living wage should be subsidized by the government so they can. And this is also why I use Walmart as an example, because currently, they're being subsidized for their workers ($7.8 billion a year), then they're "double dipping" when their employees utilize government assistance programs ($13.5 billion a year) and spend it at Walmart because they don't make enough money to pay their bills. We're talking on the order of over $20 billion annually.. Give that to the 5.6 million small businesses to make up the difference in cost of their employees earning a living wage.

Make Walmart pay their fair share, ensure small businesses don't get harmed and ensure all workers in America can pay their bills if they work full time, 40 hours a week

Sounds wonderful. How do we do that? I love how you just said we should do away with all government assistance programs and give it to the businesses of your choosing. Kinda sucks for Medicaid patients, but, hey, them sickos think they gotta live forever? Tell you the truth, I never knew Walmart got $7.8 billion a year in subsidies. I'd be interested in seeing a citation for that.

 

[bearkat42]

C

So I guess it's safe to assume you regret being here.

If you say so.

 

[Red1966]

I want the CEO and top officers to take the grotesque profits they give themselves, their shareholders and politicians and give it to who rightfully owns it; the workers

Except the workers don't own it, rightfully or otherwise.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Sounds wonderful. How do we do that? I love how you just said we should do away with all government assistance programs and give it to the businesses of your choosing. Kinda sucks for Medicaid patients, but, hey, them sickos think they gotta live forever? Tell you the truth, I never knew Walmart got $7.8 billion a year in subsidies. I'd be interested in seeing a citation for that.

I didn't say get rid of all social safety net programs. That's something you just made up out of thin air. I said the pressure put on those programs would be reduced if instead of subsidizing Walmart, we subsidized small businesses (Walmart is the largest private employer in America - 2.2 million employees) so they don't go bankrupt ensuring full time workers earn what they're actually owed

 

[Padawanbater2]

Except the workers don't own it, rightfully or otherwise.

Workers own the surplus labor they create throughout the workday, they sell their necessary labor for a wage

If employees didn't work, there would be no NL or SL for the employer to make a profit, therefore the workers own it in the same way they own their NL before they sell it to the employer for a wage

 

[Red1966]

I didn't say get rid of all social safety net programs. That's something you just made up out of thin air. I said the pressure put on those programs would be reduced if instead of subsidizing Walmart, we subsidized small businesses (Walmart is the largest private employer in America - 2.2 million employees) so they don't go bankrupt ensuring full time workers earn what they're actually owed

So, subsidize the businesses you choose only. Walmart not being one. Got it. You're not opposed to subsidies, you just want to be the one to choose

 

[Red1966]

Workers own the surplus labor they create throughout the workday, they sell their necessary labor for a wage

If employees didn't work, there would be no NL or SL for the employer to make a profit, therefore the workers own it in the same way they own their NL before they sell it to the employer for a wage

"the surplus labor they create throughout the workday" What are you talking about? You mean the labor they willingly sold to their employer? Or the labor THEY DIDN'T DO? If employees didn't work, they wouldn't get paid, either. You're try to claim they own their labor AFTER they sold it.

I didn't say get rid of all social safety net programs. That's something you just made up out of thin air. I said the pressure put on those programs would be reduced if instead of subsidizing Walmart, we subsidized small businesses (Walmart is the largest private employer in America - 2.2 million employees) so they don't go bankrupt ensuring full time workers earn what they're actually owed

What subsidies is Walmart getting?

 

[Padawanbater2]

You mean the labor they willingly sold to their employer?

That's called necessary labor

Or the labor THEY DIDN'T DO? If employees didn't work, they wouldn't get paid, either. You're try to claim they own their labor AFTER they sold it.

In order for capitalism to function, surplus labor must exist - the labor the employer takes from the worker to give a bigger portion to himself, his executives, his shareholders and politicians, to pay taxes, to grow the business, and to pay managers and clerks who don't actually produce anything themselves

If surplus labor didn't exist capitalism wouldn't work. If a worker produces $20 worth of labor, there would be no logical reason for the employer to pay the worker $20, then he obviously wouldn't make a profit. The surplus labor is the labor the worker produced that the employer didn't pay for. If the worker produces $20 worth of labor, the wage the employer would need to give him in order for capitalism to function correctly is less than what his labor actually produced.

What subsidies is Walmart getting?

Walmart employees who require social safety net programs to pay bills and/or eat is a direct subsidy from the taxpayers to Walmart

 

[Harrekin]

That's called necessary labor

In order for capitalism to function, surplus labor must exist - the labor the employer takes from the worker to give a bigger portion to himself, his executives, his shareholders and politicians, to pay taxes, to grow the business, and to pay managers and clerks who don't actually produce anything themselves

If surplus labor didn't exist capitalism wouldn't work. If a worker produces $20 worth of labor, there would be no logical reason for the employer to pay the worker $20, then he obviously wouldn't make a profit. The surplus labor is the labor the worker produced that the employer didn't pay for. If the worker produces $20 worth of labor, the wage the employer would need to give him in order for capitalism to function correctly is less than what his labor actually produced.

Walmart employees who require social safety net programs to pay bills and/or eat is a direct subsidy from the taxpayers to Walmart

Ahh yes, Walmart is forcing people onto assistance by offering jobs to a labour market that are too useless/unqualified to have other choices.

Thats logically consistent.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Ahh yes, Walmart is forcing people onto assistance by offering jobs to a labour market that are too useless/unqualified to have other choices.

Thats logically consistent.

Are you denying the fact that Walmart employees spend $6.2 billion per year in public assistance because their wages are too low to pay their bills and/or eat?

It seems pretty logically inconsistent to believe it's perfectly acceptable to transfer that expense onto taxpayers instead of holding Walmart accountable, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on that

I mean, all this talk about theft and who's actually stealing from who, Walmart is stealing from hard working poor and middle class American taxpayers when the government hands them these subsidies

Maybe go read a little bit about it sometime

 

[TheHermit]

How does it affect me? I want a $7 hamburger basket with fries, not a $15 basket. Am I supposed to be financially miserable because you think The Man should pay someone more than what they're worth?

Someone needs to take an economics and business class and if they have the balls, motivation, and money, start up your own business and see what it's like.

Why do you feel entitled to a seven dollar hamburger basket? If you can't afford to eat out, eat at home. No one is forcing you to have other people make food for you.

I have taken a class or two.

 

[god1]

I want the CEO and top officers to take the grotesque profits they give themselves, their shareholders and politicians and give it to who rightfully owns it; the workers

Why should anybody give a "shit" what you want? You don't own the company.

Buy the fucking company and give all your profits to the "underpaid and under skilled". You could start your own and compete with whatever company you choose; show the competition how it's done. Talk is cheap.

Face it, you have no practical "concept" how to implement any of this crap you're yapping about or you would have done it already.

You're just a "blow hard" with nothing useful to say, going for a record length thread of uselessness.