The Looters' war against wealth [Archive]

Trapper John

11-24-2012, 10:34

The saddest part of the Curley effect is there is not any way to reverse this trend. Once people are dependent on government handouts they will forever vote the hand that feeds them. The scales have tipped and one would have to be blind not to see our demise on the horizon.

I agree that we have passed a "tipping point" and that for the foreseeable future the trend will not be reversed. However, this experiment has been tried many times before and the outcome is predictable - economic failure. When that happens, and it will, society will look to us for rescue. We need to be prepared.

In another thread, the question was asked, Who is John Galt? Answer: We are all John Galt. The operative question is, Where is Galt's Gulch? Answer: It is being built here.

We do not need to surrender to the inevitable outcome of egalitarian experimentation. We can keep our values and principles alive and pass them on to the next generation by our words and our deeds. That is our duty, our responsibility, our mission.

As you said, one would have to be blind not to see our demise on the horizon. This is true I am afraid and it saddens me to my core. However, that does not need to be the end of the American story. A rebirth can follow and will follow and it will be led by us and those like us. We are following in the footsteps of giants like Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin and all our comrades in arms (literal and figurative) that followed them.

Keep the faith Cobwebs, we are in for a rough ride no doubt, but we have been there before. We are outnumbered and facing superior firepower. We have been there before too. But, we are a motivated minority and, if our history is any indicator at all, we will prevail.

Cobwebs

11-24-2012, 13:48

Thanks for picking me up Trapper. Since the election I've been in somewhat of a rut. As I say in my profile I'm keeping the faith. People like you give me hope. :cool:I agree that we have passed a "tipping point" and that for the foreseeable future the trend will not be reversed. However, this experiment has been tried many times before and the outcome is predictable - economic failure. When that happens, and it will, society will look to us for rescue. We need to be prepared.

In another thread, the question was asked, Who is John Galt? Answer: We are all John Galt. The operative question is, Where is Galt's Gulch? Answer: It is being built here.

We do not need to surrender to the inevitable outcome of egalitarian experimentation. We can keep our values and principles alive and pass them on to the next generation by our words and our deeds. That is our duty, our responsibility, our mission.

As you said, one would have to be blind not to see our demise on the horizon. This is true I am afraid and it saddens me to my core. However, that does not need to be the end of the American story. A rebirth can follow and will follow and it will be led by us and those like us. We are following in the footsteps of giants like Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin and all our comrades in arms (literal and figurative) that followed them.

Keep the faith Cobwebs, we are in for a rough ride no doubt, but we have been there before. We are outnumbered and facing superior firepower. We have been there before too. But, we are a motivated minority and, if our history is any indicator at all, we will prevail.

Trapper John

11-24-2012, 15:16

Cobwebs, I understand! The reality that was thrust upon me from the election results still depresses me too. I am just trying to assess the changes in the AO and formulate a new Order of Battle ;)

Let's keep in touch. Kindred spirits I am sure {Salute}

Buffalobob

11-24-2012, 17:50

I agree that we have passed a "tipping point" and that for the foreseeable future the trend will not be reversed. However, this experiment has been tried many times before and the outcome is predictable - economic failure. When that happens, and it will, society will look to us for rescue. We need to be prepared.

Who is "us"? Your statement is ambiguous and unclear.

Radar Rider

11-24-2012, 19:11

I can see the brass ring, it is so close but I have to wonder if I will get there, I was planning on retiring in 37 months now I am hoping to retire in 37 months.

I will suggest that you not place your hopes on getting a civil service job. We are facing serious cuts; a 10% reduction is coming, and I work in a high responsibility field. I'll not be surprised if my position gets eliminated.

cbtengr

11-24-2012, 19:54

I will suggest that you not place your hopes on getting a civil service job. We are facing serious cuts; a 10% reduction is coming, and I work in a high responsibility field. I'll not be surprised if my position gets eliminated.

I am way past the civil service stage, I want to get completely out of the work force and make room for someone else who needs a job. I wish you and everyone else who's jobs may be on the bubble the best, it's not going to be pretty but a day of reckoning is out there, God help us all.

Trapper John

11-24-2012, 19:56

Who is "us"? Your statement is ambiguous and unclear.

"Us" is all of the John Galts that are on this site.

ZonieDiver

11-24-2012, 21:19

"Us" is all of the John Galts that are on this site.

Y'all can be John Galt. I'm ... Spartacus!:D

The Reaper

11-24-2012, 21:31

Y'all can be John Galt. I'm ... Spartacus!:D

An escaped slave turned gladiator and then leader of a slave revolt?

Yeah, I can dig it. :D

TR

Peregrino

11-24-2012, 21:43

Y'all can be John Galt. I'm ... Spartacus!:D

Galt survived his revolt and set the stage for enduring change. Can't say the same for Spartacus. Personally, I'm not particularly enamoured of crucifixion.

Kai

11-25-2012, 05:16

Buffalobob

11-25-2012, 07:16

all of the John Galts that are on this site.

You do realize that there is a difference between fiction and reality?

MR2

11-25-2012, 07:46

You do realize that there is a difference between fiction and reality?

How about Rich and Rich, Fair and Fair, Progressive and progress, Racist and et al,...

Speaking of fiction - how's all that hope and change working for everybody?

Trapper John

11-25-2012, 07:49

You do realize that there is a difference between fiction and reality?

Of course :) However, the fictional character, John Galt, is Rand's literary embodiment of all of us that hold the right of self-determination to be inalienable. That simple belief has been the single most important driver of this great nation. The reality is that exceptionalism is slipping away in the entitlement society that we are becoming. We (the John Galts of this world and there are many of us gathered here) are a minority. We are a motivated and courageous minority and, like the John Galts that have gone before us, we have a duty to make sure that exceptionalism does not die. That is the reality. Don't you agree?

Trapper John

11-25-2012, 08:08

How about Rich and Rich, Fair and Fair, Progressive and progress, Racist and et al,...

Speaking of fiction - how's all that hope and change working for everybody?

Saw news piece yesterday.. some Dem Congresswoman from Texas (Holgren??) accusing John McCain of racism and sexism in calling out UN Ambassador Rice :confused: This is so patently ridiculous! Let the class/race warfare begin. Damn, the divide and conquer tactic is working :mad: Spartacus- you may just get your chance :D

Buffalobob

11-25-2012, 15:52

The reality is that exceptionalism is slipping away in the entitlement society that we are becoming. We (the John Galts of this world and there are many of us gathered here) are a minority. We are a motivated and courageous minority and, like the John Galts that have gone before us, we have a duty to make sure that exceptionalism does not die. That is the reality.

Thank you for answering my question.

Trapper John

11-25-2012, 15:55

You are welcome {Salute}

Pete

11-25-2012, 16:16

You do realize that there is a difference between fiction and reality?

Not according to the MSM every night. To them fiction is reality.

Richard

12-02-2012, 13:06

Here's an interesting piece to ponder from Business Insider.

Richard :munchin

I've Always Hated The Idea Of Labor Unions, But It May Be Time To Reconsider
Henry Blodget, BI, 2 Dec 2012

I've always hated the idea of labor unions.

Why?

Several reasons.

- They create an "us versus them" culture within companies, instead of putting everyone on the same team
- They create a culture of entitlement
- They restrict flexibility and hurt competitiveness
- They drive companies to move jobs out of the country, to places where there are no unions
- They often become career employment for their leaders, who pay themselves well (much better than the workers they're representing)
- They maintain ludicrous compensation and benefit levels for jobs based purely on seniority (some bartenders in one of the New York hotel unions, for example, apparently make ~$200,000 a year)
- They force companies to treat all union employees equally, regardless of the relative skill and value of particular employees--thus reducing incentives for people to do a great job
- Etc.

And all those are indeed negatives.

But we've now developed a bigger problem in this country.

Namely, we've developed inequality so extreme that it is worse than any time since the late 1920s.

Contributing to this inequality is a new religion of shareholder value that has come to be defined only by "today's stock price" and not by many other less-visible attributes that build long-term economic value.

Like many religions, the "shareholder value" religion started well: In the 1980s, American companies were bloated and lethargic, and senior management pay was so detached from performance that shareholders were an afterthought.

But now the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Now, it's all about stock performance--to the point where even good companies are now quietly shafting other constituencies that should benefit from their existence.

Most notably: Rank and file employees.

Great companies in a healthy and balanced economy don't view employees as "inputs." They don't view them as "costs." They don't try to pay them "as little as they have to to keep them from quitting." They view their employees as the extremely valuable assets they are (or should be). Most importantly, they share their wealth with them.

One of the big problems in the U.S. economy is that America's biggest companies are no longer sharing their wealth with rank and file employees.

Consider the following two charts:

1) Corporate profit margins just hit an all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. (Atch 1)

2) Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low. This is closely related to the chart above. One reason companies are so profitable is that they're paying employees less than they ever have before. (Atch 2)

When presented with these charts, many people invoke one of two arguments. First, technology is making employees irrelevant. Second, low-skill jobs command low pay.

Both of these arguments miss key points: Technology has been making some jobs obsolete for 200+ years now, but it is only recently that corporate profit margins have gone through the roof. Just because you can pay full-time employees so little that they're below the poverty line doesn't mean you should--especially when retention is often a problem and your profit margin is extraordinarily high.

More broadly, what's wrong with this picture?

What's wrong is that an obsession with a narrow view of "shareholder value" has led companies to put "maximizing current earnings growth" ahead of another critical priority in a healthy economy: Investing in human and physical capital and future growth.

If American companies were willing to trade off some of their current earnings growth to make investments in wage increases and hiring, American workers would have more money to spend. And as American workers spent more money, the economy would begin to grow more quickly again. And the growing economy would help the companies begin to grow more quickly again. And so on.

But, instead, U.S. companies have become so obsessed with generating near-term profits that they're paying their employees less, cutting capital investments, and under-investing in future growth.

This may help make their shareholders temporarily richer.

But it doesn't make the economy (or the companies) healthier.

And, ultimately, as with any ecosystem that gets out of whack, it's bad for the whole ecosystem.

So, for the sake of the economy, we have to fix this problem.

Ideally, we would fix it by getting companies to voluntarily share more of their wealth with their employees. But the "shareholder value" religion has now been so thoroughly embraced that any suggestion of voluntary sharing is viewed as heresy.

(You've heard all the responses: "The only duty of a company is to produce the highest possible return for its owners!" "If employees want to make more money, they should go start their own companies!" Etc. Beyond basic fairness and the team spirit of we're-all-in-this-together, what these responses lack is any appreciation of the value of personal loyalty, retention, respect, and pride in the workforce. People love working for companies that treat them well. And they'll go to the mat for them.)

Anyway, it would be great if companies would start sharing their wealth voluntarily. But, as yet, with a couple of notable exceptions (Apple recently gave its store employees a raise it didn't need to give them), they've shown no signs of doing that.

So if companies can't be persuaded to do this on their own, maybe it's time to rethink our view of labor unions.

Although correlation is not causation, the chart below suggests that labor unions might be able to help induce companies to share their wealth, at least in some industries.

This chart is from EPI. It is based on the work of Pickety and Saez (the deans of inequality research).

The chart shows the correlation between the share of the national income going to "the 1%" with membership in labor unions. What it suggests is that, as unions have declined, income inequality has soared. (Atch 3)

Again, right now in this country, we have the painful juxtaposition of the highest corporate profit margins in history, combined with one of the highest unemployment rates in history. We also have the lowest wages in history as a percent of the economy.

That's not good for the economy... because rich people can't buy all the products we need to sell to have a healthy economy (they can't eat that much food or drive that many cars, for example).

And it's also just not right.

Healthy capitalism is not about "maximizing near-term profits." It is about balancing the interests of several critical constituencies:

Shareholders
Customers
Employees
Society, and
The Environment

It's time more of our business leaders started to understand that.

http://www.businessinsider.com/we-may-need-labor-unions-after-all-2012-12

Trapper John

12-02-2012, 15:19

Woah - Richard! We will be feeding off this kill for a week :D

Back when I was a Sophomore econ major (first time before US Army) I wrote a term paper that argued that Taft-Hartley should be applied to labor unions. Not well received by the Prof. Could have been academic bias, but more likely a poorly crafted argument on my part - :D. Anyway, I still think that is a notion that should be explored.

The issues you raise are very real and very significant problems. My fear is that some of the Socialists will use this as justification for regulating profitability or outright nationalization of corporations.

IMO the problem is another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences in operation. CEOs of corporations need to increase their shareholders' value. The problem arises when CEOs and Directors only take the short-term view at the expense of the long-term health of the company. Sometimes taking the long-term view will result in a short-term loss of shareholder value. Few CEOs and Directors have the courage to take this path and just "kick the can down the road". Therefore, the corporate policy and direction has negative long-term consequences. IMO markets will correct for this short-sighted view. (The corollary to the dilemma of the US Congress/POTUS is purely intentional :o)

In a subsequent post, I will elaborate on these points with a specific example of the current changes within the pharmaceutical industry and the industry's contribution to the state of the US Health Care System. But first, I want to read your thoughts and opinions as well as the others who regularly join in these types of discussions.

Very good post {Salute}

Pete

12-03-2012, 04:59

"...........Ideally, we would fix it by getting companies to voluntarily share more of their wealth with their employees. But the "shareholder value" religion has now been so thoroughly embraced that any suggestion of voluntary sharing is viewed as heresy..............."

Sounds to me like the author thinks a few more laws would fix the "problem".

Trapper John

12-03-2012, 09:15

"
Sounds to me like the author thinks a few more laws would fix the "problem".

Yeah, that is my fear!

JimP

12-03-2012, 09:43

mark46th

12-03-2012, 10:01

The number one reason I despise Obama is the Class Warfare angle he brings out. When I lived and worked in Mexico, there were 2 things I noticed about the work force. The first objective was to not accept responsibility for anything. The second thing I noticed was that everyone who wasn't a dueno(business owner) or gerente(manager), was a martyr using this as an excuse to not perform at their highest level and complain about their status in life.

Trapper John

12-03-2012, 10:42

The problem is that you can't "share" anything when dealing with human nature. Short of the few of us who have been tested and gladly took the radio/batteries/60/etc from a team mate who was sucking on a looong walk, people are selfish. The Pilgrims about starved during their little experiment with commune-style living. Only when changes were undertaken that resulted in DIRECT benefit to the individual involved did they survive.

I own my labor. it is no more nor less valuable than your labor. What gives the government a "right" to value my labor less than a "poor person's" and therefore take more of it??

Sooo true! Maybe someone here saw an op-ed piece on one of the educational channels (I think) a week or so ago. The point was that private ownership of land and animals brings about its preservation. This economic strategy is being employed successfully in one of the countries in Africa to preserve elephants.

I wish I recorded this. Did anyone here see this?

mark46th

12-03-2012, 10:50

I am not a big fan if unions. I was forced to join the Teamster's Union to work at Disneyland. What a bunch of crooks and thugs. That being said, the guild style of workman's organizations such as the Stone Mason guild that set up apprentice programs and maintained standards of performance, are good for the workforce.

Roguish Lawyer

12-03-2012, 20:44

That Blodget guy is a commie

Dozer523

12-12-2012, 14:32

What does he mean by "basic fairness?" and all the rest . . .
Never before has the standard of living of the average person been so equal to that of a wealthy person. Nor has the equality under the law been more equal than nowadays. Well, that may be true but I’m not sure I see the correlation to the benevolence of the owning class. Seems in the pre-history you site the owners were setting the conditions then, too. Do you think the equality under the law part might have something to do with the newfound economic equality?

Companies do not exist to provide employees with special benefits. Companies exist to make the shareholders money by providing products and/or services. I’d add, “without doing harm” to your definition. (As defined by the FDA, EPA, CCC, FAA, ETC. And armies exist to accomplish missions. Good leaders believe and act IAW “Mission first, Soldiers Always.” Not sure I’m seeing “Employees Always” part by the owning class or your posts

Employees are worth whatever the market prices their labor at. . . .
In this world of mutual funds how much risk do the owning class actually have? I own shares of a few mutual funds (anyone with a 401k probably does) and who really drives those demands for performance? Not the stockowners! The fund managers – what the heck do they know about widgets? I’m gonna stop complaining about he owning class (OMG THAT’S ME!) and start complaining about the third party slave drivers at Bear Ste . . . oh crap they were in the news with mortgages.
BTW for those who like to point to the worthless eaters, Unemployment compensation isn’t designed so much to benefit the out of work as to keep the fuel in the economic system. Anyone ever take UC? I would argue it isn’t as lucrative as wages.

The only point for labor unions should be to protect workers from unsafe or inhumane working conditions. You don’t think paying employees “whatever the market prices their labor at” or they’ll close the business, move it to some third-world sh!thole where the owning/managing class (see what I did there?) where people are paid less to work longer in worse conditions. . . you don’t think that’s not inhumane?

Such taxes would disincentivize wealth creation and thus protect the already wealthy while making it very difficult for others to become wealthy . . . Except that all this “incentivization” isn’t happening the way you claim it is! You claim the owning class is looking at a factory and risking all they have to provide jobs and wages and taxes for a little profit. Most are throwing their money in a pool where manager are buying parts of production in the expectation of near-term returns or they sell it off. You paint a picture of Robin William’s dad and the shoe factory in the movie Jumanji. Look what happens later in the movie . . .

"society's weight." Okay this is where I have to stop reading your post. Being Poor is like being obese. Wow . . . In that case maybe the owning class is trying to do those fatties a favor by reducing their “dollor-ic” intake and speeding up the production treadmill.

Pete

12-12-2012, 15:27

......"society's weight." Okay this is where I have to stop reading your post. Being Poor is like being obese. Wow . . . In that case maybe the owning class is trying to do those fatties a favor by reducing their “dollor-ic” intake and speeding up the production treadmill.

Give the average "poor" person $1,000,000 tax free.

Where do you think they would be "poor" wise in 4 years. I'm betting right back where they started from.

Kinda' like the poor family living in a tiny house. in a tiny house neighborhood and they needed more room. One of those build a house shows built them a huge $400,000 home on their lot after demolition of their old home.

They mortgaged the house to the max, bought everybody in the family big old rides - and then couldn't make the mortgage payments and lost the house.

All People are where they are at in life because of the choices they make.

Sigaba

12-12-2012, 16:46

All People are where they are at in life because of the choices they make.Having had classmates with names like Getty, Coors, Harkness, and Traphagen, I can say with some confidence that there are Americans who are going to be exquisitely well off regardless of the choices they make--and they know it.

Did that sound bitter?
Forsooth! I am not bitter.
(At least not anymore.)

Richard

12-12-2012, 16:56

All People are where they are at in life because of the choices they make.

I'm not sure you meant that statement to sound as callous as it does to me.

For example, a quadraplegic who was a productive member of society and is now unable to care for himself or others, or work, is responsible for where he is in life by choosing to be on the road, obeying the traffic laws, when another vehicle in which the driver was chemically impaired runs a stoplight and broadsides him?

And what of those who are inherantly less capable of making quality decisions or holding reasonably profitable jobs and needing supplementary public assistance, such as a marginally functioning adult with fetal alcohol or crack syndrome because of their mother's chemical dependency while pregnant?

Richard :munchin

Pete

12-12-2012, 17:17

[COLOR="Lime"]I'm not sure you meant that statement to sound as callous as it does to me. ........

For every one of them there are 100 welfare broodmares who got prego, dropped out of school, had a few more kids, a few brushes with the law and are sitting there wondering why they are not given a high paying executive job.

The choices for both boys and girls start early in life - go to the next class or cut school and go hang out at the Mall with your party friends.

The next day another choice - the next another choice and so on and so on.

A person who graduates High School has choice of where they go - community college, 4 year college, the military or get a job. They have a choice as to what they study in school.

I am where I am at because of the choices I made. You are where you are at because of the choices you made.

Some people make mostly wise choices - others make uniformly poor choices.

The problem in America is we've made it too easy for folks to exist on welfare - and exist to the point that their standard of living drops if they get a slightly better than entry level job. The means they have no incentive to do better.

Dozer523

12-13-2012, 00:15

I am where I am at because of the choices I made. You are where you are at because of the choices you made.

Some people make mostly wise choices - others make uniformly poor choices
We make thousands of decisions in our life, how many of them matter? In retrospect I can look back on about ten and say, "That made all the difference . . .
One was: I asked a pretty girl to dance before my buddy did . . . we've been married 25 years and have three kids
Another was: a boss overheard me and another guy talking about going golfing. Boss tried to invite himself but I was all "ahh, you don't really want to . . . " I was so worried I'd embarrass myself (I was just learning and I sucked) anyway, he took it the wrong way.
I've made some choices that didn't turn out, but I didn't make the wrong choice on purpose. I didn't always make the right choice on purpose either.

I tell younger folks (who are interested) "Some day, you will make the most important decision of your life and you need to be right."
But, how do you know it's the most important one?
"You don't know, you won't know, usually you can't know so treat them all as if they were."

Which of course is impossible.:D

SomethingWitty

12-13-2012, 01:20

The problem in America is we've made it too easy for folks to exist on welfare - and exist to the point that their standard of living drops if they get a slightly better than entry level job. The means they have no incentive to do better.

Could the problem maybe be that entry-level and long term wages have deflated in a lot of areas where this actually does happen? People that have full time jobs at some companies can still qualify for public benefits.

Why is it a company like Costco can afford to pay it's entry level workers 11.50/hour, with a progressive pay scale with seniority that tops out at 17.50/hour in 24 months (with cost of living increases every few years), provide a top notch health insurance for its full and part-time employees, but other similar retail companies (Walmart) cannot?

SF-TX

12-13-2012, 07:45

C

Why is it a company like Costco can afford to pay it's entry level workers 11.50/hour, with a progressive pay scale with seniority that tops out at 17.50/hour in 24 months (with cost of living increases every few years), provide a top notch health insurance for its full and part-time employees, but other similar retail companies (Walmart) cannot?

What is preventing a Walmart employee from applying to work for Costco?

Dozer523

12-13-2012, 08:00

What is preventing a Walmart employee from applying to work for Costco?
If I may,
Well, nothing prevents them from applying. But, there may be many factors that prevent them from getting hired. Many of them beyond the control of the job seeker.
As SW points out, COSTCOs business practices seem to have results that work to management, stockholder, and employee benefit. What's preventing WalMart from adopting those techniques? For one, they don't need too, for another they don't have too.
Could it be WalMart doesn't want to engage is such an obviously socialist wage structure. Then if WalMart was more like COSTCO where would all those "People of" go?

SF-TX

12-13-2012, 08:08

If I may,
Well, nothing prevents them from applying. But, there may be many factors that prevent them from getting hired. Many of them beyond the control of the job seeker.

If Costco offers a better pay and incentive package to its employees, I suspect they attract and hire more qualified entry-level employees.

Trapper John

12-13-2012, 09:07

Broadsword- you posted "Unions are legalized worker cartels that artificially jack up the cost of labor to a business. Businesses are not allowed to form cartels and neither should labor IMO." Thanks! You just validated my term paper's premise back when I was an econ major for all of 10 minutes (see post #23 in this thread) :D Either that or we are both out in space. ;) It's nice to have company in either case. I think the recent example of Hostess makes this point quite nicely.

In thinking about the various posts in this thread, I am wondering if we are not confusing "equality" with "equitable" some times. I for one favor "equitable" distribution of resources (including wealth). This does not mean that there will be "equal" distribution, nor should their be (exceptionalism as opposed to egalitarianism). In any dynamic system there must be a disequilibrium otherwise it is static. Unequal distribution of resources including wealth is essential for driving an economy. IMO we are too focused on trying to artificially legislate equality and equalize the distribution of resources (wealth, labor, etc.) as opposed to equitable distribution. If a person or corporation or institution is not playing by the rules and disproportionately accrues resources (wealth included) that is not equitable. Bernie Madoff, for instance, as compared to Mitt Romney.

This is a very slippery slope and we need to be careful that we are not trying to regulate economic equality. IMO we, as a society, are slipping into that mode.

In a separate post (later) I will explore the notion of corporate responsibility and short vs long-term thinking as I see it playing out in the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Thanks all for some very provocative posts. {Salute}

PS: Sig are you a Stanford grad?

Richard

12-13-2012, 09:40

PS: Sig are you a Stanford grad?

OK - that's gonna cause a ruckus. I guess you missed his comment a week or so ago when he claimed he was being forced to root for the Cardinals because he disliked the Bruins so much and his alma mater's head football coach had just been sacked. WWSHD? ;)

Significant Clues: Sig wears navy/gold and burnt orange/white - except when either the Lakers or Cowboys are playing. :D

Richard :munchin

Roguish Lawyer

12-13-2012, 11:01

The problem in America is we've made it too easy for folks to exist on welfare - and exist to the point that their standard of living drops if they get a slightly better than entry level job. The means they have no incentive to do better.

Right on. Richard, callous as it may seem to you, you promote irresponsible conduct when you subsidize it. The principal cause of the destruction of the family in America and the number of people taking government assistance today is that we have eliminated historical disincentives to bad behavior. It used to be extremely difficult, for example, to be a single mother with multiple children -- in addition to cultural disapproval, it was incredibly difficult to survive. Now it is easy and even celebrated, so look at what we have.

Trapper John

12-13-2012, 11:12

OK - that's gonna cause a ruckus. I guess you missed his comment a week or so ago when he claimed he was being forced to root for the Cardinals because he disliked the Bruins so much and his alma mater's head football coach had just been sacked. WWSHD? ;)

Significant Clues: Sig wears navy/gold and burnt orange/white - except when either the Lakers or Cowboys are playing. :D

Richard :munchin

Uh-Oh! Me thinks I'm about to be haiku'd :D

Trapper John

12-13-2012, 11:26

The problem in America is we've made it too easy for folks to exist on welfare - and exist to the point that their standard of living drops if they get a slightly better than entry level job. The means they have no incentive to do better.

The unintended consequence of well meaning, but wrong-headed policy IMO. Then the Curley Effect takes hold and the now dependent electorate keeps electing the chuckle-heads that created the problem in the first place.

Dozer523

12-13-2012, 11:26

If Costco offers a better pay and incentive package to its employees, I suspect they attract and hire more qualified entry-level employees.

Which then makes those less qualified (remember quality is subjective to quantity when it comes to the hiring pool) less likely to earn a livable wage at Walmart because they won't have to pay it (unemployed people are desperate people in a Grapes of Wrath sorta way) which means shopping at Walmart sucks worse. Walmart has to stop buying Made in America and instead buys from China and American manufacturing jobs are lost. Now fewer people buy at Costco and more people look like People of Walmart. But even with lower revenue Walmart still makes the bottom line by reducing expenses.
And as long as we think of people as expenses to be minimized this is what will continue to happen.
BTW I hope like the dickens y'all have a merry Christmas.

Trapper John

12-13-2012, 11:54

And as long as we think of people as expenses to be minimized this is what will continue to happen.

But unskilled labor is, in a purely economic sense, a commodity - nothing more and nothing less. (I recognize that labor is comprised of real breathing people, but I have qualified this as a "purely economic" POV).

The issue, as I see it, is one of incentive and motivation for people to move out of the "commodity" pool and move into the skilled labor pool. If we believe in the right of self determination, then we cannot legislate or mandate social engineering at the government level. The consequences of doing so result in making the situation worse - fewer jobs, fewer new businesses, lower GDP, more taxes to compensate, and on and on.

Labor unions (big labor) are counter-productive IMO so that isn't the answer either. Case in point - Hostess.

I know its trite to say it, but IMO the approach lies in education and this requires not only great teachers and good schools, but involved parents most of all. How we get parents involved, particularly in the inner cities, is the real problem IMO. Policies that strengthen and reinforce families might be a start?

Dozer523

12-13-2012, 12:17

Trapper,
Maybe is China and India unskilled labor is a commodity but not in America.

When I was reading your post and got to the part,"...then we cannot legislate or mandate social engineering at the government level." I thought what about NCLB and the current state of education in America. I disagree, we do most certainly mandate when it comes to national standards. And, it appears the schools aren't meeting the goals, and there are plenty of arguments that lower class parents are incapable, disinterested in doing what you suggest. I don't mean to be unkind, but your last sentence seems to call for the same social engineering you don't like.
Thus i come to my conclussion that treating workers as commodities is not the way to go?

Hostess? I think the court decided that had devolved into A pecker measuring contest that was not good for anyone or the country. (I admit I haven't looked at that in a while but ...) as a Suzie Q fan I'm hopeful.

Did you know that (at least in the STL area) the labor unions run outstanding trade schools?

SomethingWitty

12-13-2012, 12:50

I get in quite a bit of trouble when I loudly voice my "opinion" that unions are just "Socialists in disguise trying to extort business owners out of their hard earned money. Unions should be completely out-lawed so that everyone has the freedom to negotiate the wage they want to be paid."

I say "opinion" because it's the opposite of the point I am trying to make. A lot of my friends are union millrights, machinists, or firefighters, and I do not know of one that is a progressive.

One of the points that union members is that unions serve as a barrier to stupid management, and actually help run a company better.

On the mill-side of things, the example is usually given that the company is adding a new machine to the production line, or adding a new turbine, or whatever it is. What usually happens is that management does not take into consideration the maintence needs of the machine, and when left to it's own devices, would put it in a place where it makes maintence more difficult; to the extent of having to shut down other working machines to make way to transport a part for the broken machine. A good union foreman (because there are bad ones too like any other place) keeps management from making stupid/uninformed decisions that save company time and money in the long run.

In the public service sector, it is much of the same thing. City managers who are facing budget constraints look at the Fire Departments of their cities, and want to make staffing cuts but receive the same kind of services. A lot of the times, it is something that is simply not possible to do without compromising the service that they are providing. There is a bare minimum number of people that are needed to put out a structure fire and still maintain some degree of safety, and when you have to wake people up in the night that are not on duty to be the first responders to a fire, then your response time is going to go up, and your house is going to be a "surround and drowned" operation by the time an adequate number of people get there.

craigepo

12-13-2012, 13:03

Trapper,
Maybe is China and India unskilled labor is a commodity but not in America.

Please explain.

Trapper John

12-13-2012, 13:12

Dozer- I did not mean to imply that individual "workers" should be looked at as commodity. But in the retail industry (Walmart v. Costco) "labor" and the cost of unskilled labor (wages, FICA, FUTA, health insurance cost) is viewed as a commodity. One unskilled worker is interchangeable with another unskilled worker and they are not in short supply. This is purely an economic view. We all probably at one time or another were in that labor pool.

My point with respect to labor unions is that although they can get the individuals in their union a higher wage, the macro effect is fewer people get employed. Fewer jobs (albeit at marginally higher wage per worker) means less taxable revenue and therefore higher tax rates on higher earners to make up the difference. You see the conundrum. BTW I am referring only to unskilled workers - not skilled or professionals in other industries. In low skill requiring businesses (Walmart) labor unions will have a very negative economic impact IMO. Re: Hostess as my case in point.

As to the social engineering point, like you, I believe that government has a very important role in regulating certain industries (Pharmaceuticals for instance with which I know something). What I am referring to is the temptation through tax and other policy to "redistribute wealth" because the poor need it, or because company XYZ is just making too much profit and it needs to be redistributed to the workers (raising minimum wage is doing just that), or a host of any other justifications trying to right perceived social injustices. It is just that I am very skeptical of any legislative effort that is proffered to correct inequalities (see my post re: equality v equity). In my view the Law of Unintended Consequences must always be, but is rarely, considered. Case in point: the Fair Housing Act (good intention) may have actually been the initial driver behind the collapse of the housing market (bad outcome).

It was good to hear about the labor unions and trade schools in STL. Now that is something I can get behind. If you have any literature that you can send me on that, I would love to read it.

Dozer, my biggest frustration is that I believe that most D's and R's have the best interests of this great nation at heart (may be naive, but I believe that). You and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but we can discuss the issues coming from two different POV, and arrive at solutions to the problems. Why the F can't our elected leaders do the same :mad:

Thanks for the provocations :D

GratefulCitizen

12-13-2012, 13:47

I am where I am at because of the choices I made. You are where you are at because of the choices you made.

Some people make mostly wise choices - others make uniformly poor choices.

If you pay attention to how you spend your minutes,
the hours and days will tend to themselves.

If you pay attention to the little decisions,
the big decisions will tend to themselves.

Richard

12-13-2012, 14:33

My train of thought just derailed - there were no survivors.

Richard :munchin

SomethingWitty

12-13-2012, 14:37

Dozer- I did not mean to imply that individual "workers" should be looked at as commodity. But in the retail industry (Walmart v. Costco) "labor" and the cost of unskilled labor (wages, FICA, FUTA, health insurance cost) is viewed as a commodity. One unskilled worker is interchangeable with another unskilled worker and they are not in short supply. This is purely an economic view. We all probably at one time or another were in that labor pool.

I think the point here is the differing way that Costco and Walmart view their employees.

Walmart simply views their employees as economic inputs/outputs, which has became the norm over the past 30 or so years. If an analysis says that they can get away with paying their employees just enough where turnover does not begin to impact their bottom line, they will do it. There is very little ethical considerations from people that do not see the human impact their decisions they make. The only thing that matters is to convince the share holders that they are doing everything they can to maximize share value. The short term is that we are directly subsidizing Walmart profits with our hospitals, housing programs, because they do not pay anywhere near a living wage.

Costco on the other hand views their employees as a resource, part of the team that makes Costco what it is, and part of their long-term strength. Costco can provide a living wage to it's employees, and still make a damn nice profit to boot without passing that cost on to it's customers. In turn, the higher paid workers of Costco do not need to rely on federal or state programs to 'get by', and are also out there in the marketplace buying more things, qualifying for loans that are sensible because they have a stable paying job, and are increasing the 'demand' side of our 'supply and demand' economy.

afchic

12-13-2012, 15:18

My train of thought just derailed - there were no survivors.

Richard :munchin

I am going to start charging you!:D

Trapper John

12-13-2012, 15:21

afchic

12-13-2012, 15:22

I think the point here is the differing way that Costco and Walmart view their employees.

Walmart simply views their employees as economic inputs/outputs, which has became the norm over the past 30 or so years. If an analysis says that they can get away with paying their employees just enough where turnover does not begin to impact their bottom line, they will do it. There is very little ethical considerations from people that do not see the human impact their decisions they make. The only thing that matters is to convince the share holders that they are doing everything they can to maximize share value. The short term is that we are directly subsidizing Walmart profits with our hospitals, housing programs, because they do not pay anywhere near a living wage.

Costco on the other hand views their employees as a resource, part of the team that makes Costco what it is, and part of their long-term strength. Costco can provide a living wage to it's employees, and still make a damn nice profit to boot without passing that cost on to it's customers. In turn, the higher paid workers of Costco do not need to rely on federal or state programs to 'get by', and are also out there in the marketplace buying more things, qualifying for loans that are sensible because they have a stable paying job, and are increasing the 'demand' side of our 'supply and demand' economy.

I will say this upfront, I HATE Walmart. I will not step in the door unless it is a DIRE emergency, and even then.... maybe not.

Walmart would not be doing as well as it does, if it didn't have a product that people wanted. So if everyone is as deeply offended at how Walmart treats its employees, then stop shopping there!!!!

Trapper John

12-13-2012, 15:47

I will say this upfront, I HATE Walmart. I will not step in the door unless it is a DIRE emergency, and even then.... maybe not.

Walmart would not be doing as well as it does, if it didn't have a product that people wanted. So if everyone is as deeply offended at how Walmart treats its employees, then stop shopping there!!!!

The problem is that Sam Walton employed a business strategy that was successful in the turn of the 19th-20th century and modified it for retail and it has worked in the near term. Of course at the cost of many a small retail businesses in every small town across the country. And now it would appear at the cost of a "livable wage" for its employees that is in part hoisted off on us through increased health-care costs, food stamp programs and the like. I think a good case can be made that Walmart is not behaving as a responsible corporate citizen. The fatal flaw in that business model may be exposed by the efforts to unionize the workers of Walmart. We will just need to wait and see.

As a side note, I heard a report on the news the other day that among the top 10 wealthiest families in the US that the Waltons were at the bottom or near the bottom in terms of charitable giving. That may tell you something about their mindset.

mark46th

12-13-2012, 15:47

Walmart hires people that have difficulty working eslewhere. They hire the elderly, physically impaired and those with Abby Normal brains. They give jobs to a lot of people who would otherwise be unemployed....

SomethingWitty

12-13-2012, 16:00

[QUOTE=SomethingWitty;478247]I think the point here is the differing way that Costco and Walmart view their employees.[QUOTE]

Agreed. Costco and Walmart have two very different business models regarding valuing their employees. Time will tell which one will prevail. All things being equal - my money would be on Costco. But that is more an emotional statement than a purely analytical one.

As long as the current CEO/co-founder has control, the Costco model will remain the same. The whole model might go out the window when he retires or dies. Shareholders have been trying to get Costco to cut wages and increase the profit margins on the products they sell. If I recall correctly, Costco only sells products at 10-15% mark up, instead of around 25% which is typical of most retail outfits.

It would be too easy for a new CEO to cut wages/benefits, and increase the mark-up and say "look how much profitable we are" and proclaim to be a great success. It would be short term profits at the expense of long-term strength.

However, there is other economic good news in manufacturing. GE has brought some of it's appliance production back to the US because of increased wages in China, increased transportation costs, and the fact that the US has a more robust workforce. The end design of a hot water heater is quicker and cheaper to produce when workers are allowed to have input on how something is produced.

I should find the article somewhere. It is kind of interesting how outsourcing all manufacturing may no longer be the popular thing to do.

Trapper John

12-13-2012, 16:03

[QUOTE=Trapper John;478251][QUOTE=SomethingWitty;478247]
I should find the article somewhere. It is kind of interesting how outsourcing all manufacturing may no longer be the popular thing to do.

If you find it please post it, I would love to read it.

Sigaba

12-13-2012, 16:12

SomethingWitty

12-13-2012, 16:20

I don't think COSTCO is comparable to Walmart. COSTCO requires membership, Walmart doesn't. COSTCO has a focus on B2B sales, Walmart doesn't. (I'd compare COSTCO to Sam's, but why shop at Sam's if one can shop at COSTCO?)

Also COSTCO sells big ass cartons of Q-tips, Walmart doesn't. Not that I'm OCD or anything. I'm just pointing something out important.

Sams Club is part of Walmart.

The economic factors that apply to Walmart/Sam's Club also apply to Coscto, in so far that they are both able to buy a lot of product for their stores, and be able to sell product at a lower cost than local stores.

Also, the demographic that shops at Costco is different than Walmart. Costco caters to mainly middle class families, while Walmart patrons are generally lower middle class, and poor families. I wonder what percentage of Walmarts grocery business is made up of federal food stamp dollars compared to Costco.

I would put money on food stamps/federal programs being a large part of Walmarts business, and probably also a major shot in the arm for Kraft.

ZonieDiver

12-13-2012, 16:21

And...

You can eat lunch at Costco, IF you are patient (they must train those people to be slow) and can elbow all the kids and old ladies out of the way.

I've never been to Sam's, and only bought cat litter at WalMart... when I had a cat.

MR2

12-13-2012, 16:33

(I'd compare COSTCO to Sam's, but why shop at Sam's if one can shop at COSTCO?)

Because COSTCO only takes AmExpress. Us po folk have ta git by wit our MasterCard.

Bunch of Walmart bigots we got here. :mad:

Pete

12-13-2012, 16:46

When I take off from the house I've got a Food Lion 1 1/4 miles to the left and 2 miles to the right.

If I go about 3 miles past each of them I'll hit a Wal-Mart Super Center.

I like Tombstone Frozen Pizzas. I can get the same Pizza at Wal-mart for $1.25 less. If I'm running out and getting one Pizza I stop at Food Lion. Getting four or so I'll go to Wal-Mart.

I do have a Sam's card and go there a few times a year to get bulk stuff.

Shirts? Don't get me started.

mark46th

12-13-2012, 17:34

My wife and I hit Walmart, Sam's and Costco. Walmart for smaller itemss, Costco and Sam's for gas and larger or bulk items. To be honest, I prefer the meat at Sam's, although Costco in the last year or so started selling USDA Prime grade beef... And as an added bonus, going to different stores keeps the wife busy and happy.

TXGringo

12-13-2012, 17:49

On the mill-side of things, the example is usually given that the company is adding a new machine to the production line, or adding a new turbine, or whatever it is. What usually happens is that management does not take into consideration the maintence needs of the machine, and when left to it's own devices, would put it in a place where it makes maintence more difficult; to the extent of having to shut down other working machines to make way to transport a part for the broken machine. A good union foreman (because there are bad ones too like any other place) keeps management from making stupid/uninformed decisions that save company time and money in the long run.

Does a foreman have to be a union member in order to tell management "you shouldn't put that machine there?"

Sigaba

12-13-2012, 18:18

Sams Club is part of Walmart.

The economic factors that apply to Walmart/Sam's Club also apply to Coscto, in so far that they are both able to buy a lot of product for their stores, and be able to sell product at a lower cost than local stores.Sam's is owned by Walmart but run differently.

Also, the demographic that shops at Costco is different than Walmart. Costco caters to mainly middle class families, while Walmart patrons are generally lower middle class, and poor families.
Incidentally, these comments re-enforce my POV that Walmart should not be compared to COSTCO--a POV that is almost the opposite of the one you offered in post #38 when you wrote of "other similar companies."

Richard

12-13-2012, 18:39

Also, the demographic that shops at Costco is different than Walmart. Costco caters to mainly middle class families, while Walmart patrons are generally lower middle class, and poor families.

Costco and WalMart are a poor comparison IMO.

So, for the SAT...

Costco : Sams Club :: ________

A) Exxon : Shell
(B) squirrel : chipmunk
(C) beaver : muskrat
(D) cat : litter box
(E) Lowes : Home Depot

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Roguish Lawyer

12-13-2012, 19:36

And as long as we think of people as expenses to be minimized this is what will continue to happen.

OK, let's prohibit firing people and guarantee everyone a job forever with all of their needs taken care of by their employers. Problem solved!

The Reaper

12-13-2012, 19:41

BKKMAN

12-13-2012, 20:17

OK, let's prohibit firing people and guarantee everyone a job forever with all of their needs taken care of by their employers. Problem solved!

That's pretty much what was being offered to the employees at the Long Beach terminal, isn't it?

Long Beach Strike (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_22088656/strike-idles-busiest-port-los-angeles-pier?source=rss_emailed)

"At issue is the union's contention that terminal operators have outsourced jobs to lower-paid paperwork pushers in the U.S. and places such as Costa Rica, India and Taiwan. A union release contended that 51 clerical jobs have been lost in the past five years.

The negotiating group for the shippers denied that any local union clerical jobs were outsourced and said in a statement that the 51 workers had quit, died or retired with full benefits in the past three years.

Their positions weren't filled because there was no "business need," said a statement from the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor Employers Association.

In addition, the companies have offered to guarantee current union clerical workers their jobs for life, Berry said.

He claimed that the union wants contract language to permit "featherbedding"—the practice of requiring employers to call in temporary employees and hire new permanent employees even when there is no work to perform.

Trapper John

12-13-2012, 20:33

That's pretty much what was being offered to the employees at the Long Beach terminal, isn't it?

In addition, the companies have offered to guarantee current union clerical workers their jobs for life, Berry said.

He claimed that the union wants contract language to permit "featherbedding"—the practice of requiring employers to call in temporary employees and hire new permanent employees even when there is no work to perform.[/I]

Yep, that certainly will solve the US global competitiveness problem. :rolleyes:

SomethingWitty

12-13-2012, 20:35

We go to the Sam's in Fayetteville, and the Costco in Raleigh.

I swear, if I went in either one, without store labels, I couldn't tell the difference. The same items are on the same shelving in the same place, at roughly the same price. They serve the same food items in the restaurant. The meats are generally better at the Sam's, IMHO. COSTCO sends out more flyers and has internet specials from a larger variety of products, like caskets.

The employees seem to be cut from the same cloth, and that would be the same as any of the Wal-Mart employees I have seen.

I think we have some serious Wal-Mart haters here who seem to think that COSTCO is some sort or progressive, enlightened, labor-oriented nirvana.

Put down the Kool-Aid.

TR

I was not trying to raise the point that Costco is better than Walmart/Sams Club, but rather that one of the largest retailers in the country can pay a living wage to it's employees and still have competitive prices.

And that by paying a living wage, their employees are not having to resort to tax dollars to get by, and are not a drain on public resources.

Or another way we could look at it, is that we are subsidizing Walmarts profit margin with our tax dollars whether we like it or not.

Roguish Lawyer

12-13-2012, 20:42

Worked great for the auto industry too. See what a vibrant city Detroit is?

Roguish Lawyer

12-13-2012, 20:45

And that by paying a living wage, their employees are not having to resort to tax dollars to get by, and are not a drain on public resources.

Or another way we could look at it, is that we are subsidizing Walmarts profit margin with our tax dollars whether we like it or not.

I have an easy solution. Stop providing endless unemployment and other benefits to people who aren't working.

SF-TX has it right. And BTW, WTF is a "living wage"?

The Reaper

12-13-2012, 20:53

I was not trying to raise the point that Costco is better than Walmart/Sams Club, but rather that one of the largest retailers in the country can pay a living wage to it's employees and still have competitive prices.

And that by paying a living wage, their employees are not having to resort to tax dollars to get by, and are not a drain on public resources.

Or another way we could look at it, is that we are subsidizing Walmarts profit margin with our tax dollars whether we like it or not.

What is the munificent starting pay and benefits package at COSTCO, versus Sam's/Wal-Mart?

Your source is?

Are people bring physically forced to take jobs that they do not want?

Do you believe that the employees are being denied the opportunity to compete for promotion to positions with greater pay at Wal-Mart? Is everyone in the store earning minimum wage?

Would you prefer that they just stay in their homes and be paid welfare in the same amount by the rest of us who are working? How does that eventually work out?

What do you think happens when a business opens a store and cannot employ sufficient numbers of employees at the wage they are offering?

TR

Trapper John

12-13-2012, 21:01

Or another way we could look at it, is that we are subsidizing Walmarts profit margin with our tax dollars whether we like it or not.

For the sake of argument I stipulate the your point is correct. That being the case, what do you think is an appropriate solution? Government regulation? Increase minimum wage? Unionize? So as not to offend the sensibilities of Walmart or Costco patrons, let's call them the ABC and XYZ companies, where ABC Co. treats labor as a commodity to squeeze the maximum profitability from the company. On the other hand XYZ Co. recognizes employee value and pays a higher wage and benefits, but has a smaller net profit margin to potentially distribute to shareholders. Let's also say that XYZ and ABC Cos are competitors in the same markets and are otherwise identical. The question is should government regulate or otherwise penalizing ABC Co. because as stipulated ABC Co. profitability is de facto subsidized by taxpayers? What other possible scenarios might play out in the competition between these two companies? What effect would unionization of ABC Co. have as compared to non-union XYZ Co.? Would ABC Co. be more or less likely to be unionized?

This is an intriguing problem and I would like to hear everyone's opinion on this one. Should be fun :D

Old Dog New Trick

12-13-2012, 21:06

I was not trying to raise the point that Costco is better than Walmart/Sams Club, but rather that one of the largest retailers in the country can pay a living wage to it's employees and still have competitive prices.

And that by paying a living wage, their employees are not having to resort to tax dollars to get by, and are not a drain on public resources.

Or another way we could look at it, is that we are subsidizing Walmarts profit margin with our tax dollars whether we like it or not.

First off count the number of Costco stores in your state then count the number of Walmarts. If sales are remotely even per employee, their is a bigger piece of pie for Walmart to share.

Who cares if people with pickups shop at Walmart and people with SUVs shop at Costco...no one with a Mercedes ML350 is shopping at either.

The point of the thread is between those who are forced to shop at Walmart because they can't afford anything at Bloomingdales or Saks on Fith Avenue.

So there you have it...you can work for Walmart or get off your ass and work for Bloomingdales I'm sure the salary is different but then so is the cost of living. Either way unless you came into this world rich, you are going to have to work your way up as far as you can...or not and sit back and bitch about how unfair it is. :boohoo

Sigaba

12-13-2012, 21:46

Or another way we could look at it, is that we are subsidizing Walmarts profit margin with our tax dollars whether we like it or not.Unless an establishment's customers and employees and vendors are paying "market value" for driving and for parking, tax dollars are subsidizing that firm's profit margin.

plato

12-13-2012, 22:24

I have an easy solution. Stop providing endless unemployment and other benefits to people who aren't working.

SF-TX has it right. And BTW, WTF is a "living wage"?

While you're waiting for the answer, may I offer an interim definition?

The three generations living across the street have two members with $10 jobs, pushing wheelchairs at a local hospital. Grandma and Grandpa have a modest Soc Sec check. They started their GrandDaughter at a local college, but she fell back to part-time student since it "felt wrong" not to work. That makes $10 a "living wage". They live Very well.

My middle son lives with me. His Mom loves taking him shopping for clothes. His brother grabs him in the evenings for a burger or a movie. With MS, he can do 6 hour days regularly, longer if his boss will give him a couple hours off the day after a long day. (God Bless her, she does.) His $10 job is a "living wage".

When a man dumps his convertible and buddies, I'm willing to wager that moving in with the mother of his children will cause those two incomes to become a combined "living wage".

How about the traditional 3 college kids sharing an apartment?

Living wage......" Coordinated living arrangements with family/friends to match one's income"

SomethingWitty

12-13-2012, 22:30

Unless an establishment's customers and employees and vendors are paying "market value" for driving and for parking, tax dollars are subsidizing that firm's profit margin.

Would that not be true across every corporation or firm? Any "subsidizing" is going to be a wash when it comes to one firm having a slight advantage over another?

MR2

12-13-2012, 23:12

Sigaba

12-13-2012, 23:13

Would that not be true across every corporation or firm? Any "subsidizing" is going to be a wash when it comes to one firm having a slight advantage over another?No. Location, location, location. IME, a firm will chalk it up to "the cost of doing business" but without realizing (a) the hidden costs of parking and (b) the extent to which those costs are actually subsidized by tax payers.

(Unless, of course, that firm is actually a parking consultancy, in which the hidden costs will be defrayed further by laying off people. But I am not bitter.)

SomethingWitty

12-14-2012, 00:29

For those asking me to define living wage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

BOfH

12-14-2012, 00:54

SomethingWitty

12-14-2012, 01:20

MOO: The whole "living wage" argument is specious. Simply put, while I enjoy what I do(information security/risk management), my job is a means to an end, and not the end in it of itself; and as a means to an end, while not my sole motivation, increasing my base pay provides for great incentive in upward mobility within my career, as opposed to becoming stagnant and staying where I am now. Generally speaking, upward mobility usually requires increased knowledge, skill and responsibility, among others. By attaching the living wage(with COLA and all the trimmings) argument to low paying and generally unskilled jobs, you have essentially killed any sort of motivation to be upwardly mobile, and with it the thirst for knowledge and skill. The idea is that these jobs are stepping stones to something greater and more satisfying, all while motivating people to move into more skilled positions, which increases our overall competitiveness in the global marketplace.

My .02

I disagree.

A persons ambition does not just spontaneously go away just because they earn a living wage. My end goal in life is not to make $11.50/hour, but having more money gives me more options with where to take my life.

I am not going to turn down a promotion, and more money because "I already have everything I need." How many times has someone said "I make x/hour. That's enough, and now I do not want to do anything else"?

That is not to say that increased responsibility is for everyone.

Pete

12-14-2012, 05:37

I disagree.................

Of course you do.

By the way, are you self employed at your own small company and employ a small number of employees - or do you work for somebody else?

Most of the proponents of a living wage are not the ones who have to cough up a paycheck for their employees.

MR2

12-14-2012, 08:09

Ok Witty, please define for us what your definition of "living wage" is, what "employee" is, and what "competitive" is with respects to the three retailers mention. Please also acknowledge the similarity between SAM's/CostCo and the difference between those two and Walmart.

You've used Wikipedia for your definition for living wage and it included my next definition question regarding "minimum wage" - fine. Still waiting on the rest of the question.

Now do you understand that what constitutes a "living wage" in Hawaii is vastly different than Spivey Corner or New York City or or Del Rio? So really, by definition a so-called "living wage" is more of a concept - do you not agree?

So Witty, how does a moving target like a "living wage" correlate to the "minimum wage", a fixed mandate? Does/should a "living/minimum wage" change based upon ones location or the number of mouths they need to feed? Should a cell phone, a SUV, and a 60" plasma be included in the mix for determining what is a "living wage"?

:munchin

Trapper John

12-14-2012, 08:12

So Witty, how does a moving target like a "living wage" correlate to the "minimum wage", a fixed mandate? Does/should a "living/minimum wage" change based upon ones location or the number of mouths they need to feed? Should a cell phone, a SUV, and a 60" plasma be included in the mix for determining what is a "living wage"?

And down the slippery slope we go! Wheee :D

Trapper John

12-14-2012, 08:17

Unless an establishment's customers and employees and vendors are paying "market value" for driving and for parking, tax dollars are subsidizing that firm's profit margin.

Hmmm! Sounds like the rationale for BHO's comment "You didn't build that". Speaking of slippery slopes (see post in response to MR2 above) this is a doozy :eek:

Guy

12-14-2012, 09:06

I am not going to turn down a promotion, and more money because "I already have everything I need." How many times has someone said "I make x/hour. That's enough, and now I do not want to do anything else"?

That is not to say that increased responsibility is for everyone.Mo(re) Money Mo(re) Problems.

Some folks are happy with whatever living standard they're at and have turned down pay raises. Hell! Some folks I know can go to DC/VA and increase their wages substantially however; DC AO is NOT their cup-of-tea and it damn sure ain't mine!:D

WTF is a living wage? I've been out in the field with not-a-pot-to-piss-in nor a-window-to-throw-it-out-of: and was happier than some folks making more than a living wage.:cool:

GO GET YOUR OWN DAMN WEALTH (whatever that may be) AND LEAVE MINE ALONE!:lifter

MR2

12-14-2012, 09:10

GO GET YOUR OWN DAMN WEALTH (whatever that may be) AND LEAVE MINE ALONE!:lifter

:lifter :lifter :lifter

BOfH

12-14-2012, 10:29

I disagree.

A persons ambition does not just spontaneously go away just because they earn a living wage. My end goal in life is not to make $11.50/hour, but having more money gives me more options with where to take my life.

I am not going to turn down a promotion, and more money because "I already have everything I need." How many times has someone said "I make x/hour. That's enough, and now I do not want to do anything else"?

That is not to say that increased responsibility is for everyone.

Well then, we will have to respectively agree to disagree.

My point was not about how much money one has or not(do we ever have enough?), it was: am I going to get that increase in pay from this job through living wage legislation etc. or am I going to try an move up the ladder in skill all while making my talent more marketable and attractive to companies that are willing to pay competitive rates for said skills. I think we can agree on the fact that a company's success and growth depends heavily on the talent, skill and motivation of it's employees. The living wage argument can create a vicious cycle of a decreased talent pool and an increase in "deadwood" employers that are satisfied with just paying a "living wage" and with no incentive at paying competitive rates for talent, as opposed to fostering employee growth and skill by rewarding it , and with it's employees having no motivation for furthering their career.

My .02

Richard

12-14-2012, 10:32

...living wage legislation...

Are you talking about, for example, legislated salaries for the military and the like?

Richard :munchin

BOfH

12-14-2012, 10:35

Are you talking about, for example, legislated salaries for the military and the like?

Richard :munchin

QP Richard,

Nope. I guess you could say that the military talent and skill set is exclusive to the military(excluding PMC and LEO for arguments sake), so there isn't much of a free market to establish what the competitive rate is.

My .02

MR2

12-14-2012, 10:43

Are you talking about, for example, legislated salaries for the military and the like?

Interesting point Richard. Off the top of my head, there's military salary and benefits, federal worker salary and benefits, including legislators salary and perks (bias showing) that all require some sort of legislation.

Just asking, but are these all not just another form of "minimum wage" mandated/proscribed by the Government?

:munchin

Sigaba

12-14-2012, 14:18

For those asking me to define living wage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wageSW--

Please note that wikipedia is a very controversial source on this BB. That resource allows for the dissemination of inaccurate information.

Moreover, its "open" culture encourages disrespectful and dismissive conduct towards SMEs who offer sound guidance in good faith. This sensibility is especially outrageous when that SME is a retired professional soldier who is committed to educating the general public on an important topic.

The living wage argument can create a vicious cycle of a decreased talent pool and an increase in "deadwood" employers that are satisfied with just paying a "living wage" and with no incentive at paying competitive rates for talent, as opposed to fostering employee growth and skill by rewarding it , and with it's employees having no motivation for furthering their career.Another possibility is that very skilled and highly motivated employees will stay put and work their asses off because they're getting paid what they consider to be "enough" to live the lives they want to live.

Moreover, for some, what they do for a living is very much part of who they are. Self-efficacy isn't just about income.

Paragrouper

12-14-2012, 18:48

I admit it, I am an upper-middle class Walmart Shopper. I, and most of my neighbors shop routinely at Walmart for our everyday needs. There is a Costco, but it is 15 miles away and the Walmart is only 3. I guess if I wanted the whole 'Costco Shopping Experience,' I could go the the Sam's--only 7 miles away.

I've shopped there for over 10 years now--pretty much every week I go by for something. Most of the old-timers there are management and I expect they're earning a 'living wage,' otherwise I expect they would have died from starvation long ago. We also have the more itinerant employee crowd. They are mostly college kids that go to UNT, TWC or the local community college. They're the ones manning the bar code scanners at the check out. Others I talk to are supplementing their family income (I guess their spouse has a living wage issue too). In any case, most don't plan to make a career out of Walmart.

Me, I understand Walmart. They exist to be the biggest of their kind--and they do a very good job at it too. They're turning over $440 Billion a year and thats some serious coin. They are pretty much kicking the crap out of their competition. Their objective is to make their investors money, for if they don't they will go away.

They pay the salaries they pay because workers accept them. I have no doubt that if they couldn't find workers they would raise their salaries (of course, I would be pissed if I had to pay more for my Chunky Beef Stew) so they could maintain their profitability.

So to those that don't like Walmart--shop elsewhere. You have far more choices than just Costco and if you wish to pay more for the same products--enjoy! Further, if you don't like their wages and benefits, do not work there. See, that's so easy.

Oh SW; please use better references than 'Wiki.' That is just plain lazy.

GratefulCitizen

12-15-2012, 15:05

BOfH

12-16-2012, 11:30

Another possibility is that very skilled and highly motivated employees will stay put and work their asses off because they're getting paid what they consider to be "enough" to live the lives they want to live.

Moreover, for some, what they do for a living is very much part of who they are. Self-efficacy isn't just about income.

Sigaba,

Agreed. My point regarding upward mobility wasn't just outside the company, one could be upwardly mobile within the same company and even in the same position; as GC pointed out, there are reasons for staying in the same company and/or position if the work environment suits the employee.

As far as enough to live on, I would love for my income less living expenses to plateau, unfortunately, where I live, my living expenses go up regardless of my salary, and so does my tax bracket. The same could be said for many others.

I try to avoid to allowing what I do define who I am, income or otherwise. To each his own.

My .02

1stindoor

12-17-2012, 08:42

For those asking me to define living wage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

Well there you go...it's in wikipedia...it's official.

Minimum wage is not a living wage....it was never meant to be a "living wage," whatever that means.

Hand

12-17-2012, 11:30

Having never heard the term "living wage" before, I went and did some research. While I in no way mean to circumvent QP MR2's instructions to SomethingWitty, I figured a little data from the ILO may help direct future discussion and give me a base from which to assert that "living wage" is a really nice way to say "another entitlement program".

Note: <source> (http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/publication/wcms_162117.pdf)

The idea of a living wage is that workers and their families should be able to afford a basic, but decent, life style that is considered acceptable by society at its current level of economic development. Workers and their families should be able to live above the poverty level, and be able to participate in social and cultural life.

There's the definition, essentially. Its very touchy feely IMO and leaves more questions than it answers (granted, it is meant to apply to a large set of people). There is a chart in the .pdf which attempts to set forth some basic guidance on determining the actual $$ involved with a "living wage". But how is what I imagine would be a local government body (?) supposed to sit down with a new hire and analyze their particular situation/age/weight/number of kids/neighborhood/number of room in house/number of cars etc... and determine "You, sir, will be compensated X dollars and your across the street neighbor, who will do the same job will be compensated in X+Y dollars."

Notice that there is no mention of skill level, physical ability, education, experience etc. Can someone who is hired with a "living wage" only ever get a raise when their life situation changes according to some chart? Does increased skill or a new skill set or a new degree offer them the opportunity for a higher "living wage"?

An important reason why living wage is not more widely applied is that there is neither a generally accepted definition of what a living wage is, nor is there a generally agreed methodology on how to measure a living wage. Partly because of this, many companies do not attempt to pay their workers a living wage and many governments do not seriously consider worker needs when they set legal minimum wages.

“The main problem is how to define the living wage in a consistent way and making sure that it is auditable” (Fair Labor Association, quoted in Chhabara, 2009).

Section 2 discusses and provides evidence that a living wage is seen as akin to a human right.
:rolleyes: - Just as I suspected. A "living wage" removes completely the personal responsibility involved with ones own livelihood and/or survival. So you dropped out of high school and knocked up 3 different women and have no skills? Thats ok buddy, the state will take care of you, all you have to do is get a job flipping burgers and we are going to make sure that you live a comfortable life style that allows you to participate in society based on current economic conditions. :boohoo

Ive had a steady job since I was 12 years old. I cant ever remember not taking a job when I needed one because it wouldn't "afford a basic, but decent, life style that is considered acceptable by society at its current level of economic development." I wouldn't pay someone more than they were worth to me as an employee and I damn sure didn't expect an employer to pay me more than I was worth. I worked my ass off for a long time, went to school, payed for it out of my own pocket and now I'm in a position to demand a good salary, why? Because I have a skill that is of high value to an employer. Would a "living wage" have allowed me to work my way up the food chain? Would it encourage vertical movement in the work place? Expansion of skills?

It appears that President Roosevelt fathered the idea
(please God - I sure hope that its not taken out of context because Sigaba will eat my lunch).
“We have come to a clear realization that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and that „necessitous men are not free men‟. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a Second Bill of Rights of economic security. Among these are: … the right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing and recreation.”

The right to earn enough.... What is that? Earn... Earn... Oh yeah!!! Work your ass off and get something in return. Roosevelt did NOT say that people have the "right" to be GIVEN enough, but to EARN enough. Well, Ive been working a long time, and I could work as many jobs as I could stay awake for, and Ive never had a cap placed on my salary. So in my experience, you can EARN as much as you are willing to WORK for.
To demand to be GIVEN enough though, I will gladly GIVE you the opportunity to go stand in line with the rest of the looters and hold your hand out and see how fast someone runs up to fill it. It wont be me, and unless the government takes it from me to give to you, it wont be them either. I don't think you are going to find an employer who will pay you to stand around with your hand out, so try not to listen to all the grumbling stomachs of all the "living wage" earners standing in line with you.