The Looters' war against wealth

[Roguish Lawyer]

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

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

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]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

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]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

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

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

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.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

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]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

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.

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.

Edit: Rats, late to the party again...

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

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]

For those asking me to define living wage:

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

[BOfH]

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

[SomethingWitty]

Originally Posted by BOfH

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]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

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]

Originally Posted by MR2

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"?