Hurt Walmart, or Help The Poor?

[PoliticalChic]

2. The phenomenon of "child labor" has been alleviated, throughout economic history, through improved standards of living....capitalism.
As a family's income increases, they no longer allow their children to work.

HA! That's a good one, it's laws that have stopped child labor, and it still occurs in other nations that Wal Mart buys its products from.

Fascinating.

Unexperienced as I am in this area, I've never understood folks who have no knowledge.....absolutely none.....i.e., you.....yet feel perfectly copacetic making pronouncements.

You, expert in this area....might be the one to enlighten me: what is the impetus you feel that forces you to make an idiot of yourself?

Pray tell?



Could it be your worship of government?

It is suggested here: ".... it's laws that have stopped child labor,..."






Oh....and by the way.....I'm right again:

"Child labor, despite what you might have heard, was not created by capitalism. It’s a practice that stretches back to pre-history, when children would help in hunting and gathering as soon as they were able to walk.

Why were most children made to work before the 20th century? Is it because parents were sadistic and governments cruel? Hardly. It’s because, before capitalism made us rich, children had to work if they were to survive at all. When a family lives on the equivalent of a dollar a day, there is no alternative: if you can work, you work—or you starve.

What eliminates child labor is not government decree but a rising standard of living. That’s what eliminated it in the West during the 19th century and that is what is eliminating it today in places like China. As parents grow richer, one of the first things they do is use their burgeoning incomes to send their children to school."
Capitalist Secrets: Capitalism Ended Child Labor ? Laissez FaireLaissez Faire

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. 'underemployment/unemployment' is also mitigated simply by abolishing minimum wage laws.

Hardly, when there was no laws as such unemployment was still in existence.

If the myriad posts could be classified as fields of knowledge, one must be grateful to you for spreading manure on the field.

Of course, you are in error in your post.


1. In 1891, Kansas was the first state to establish what are today called prevailing wage laws: "That not less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed shall be paid to laborers, workmen, mechanics and other persons so employed by or on behalf of the state of Kansas."
Northwest Fair Contracting Association | Providing educational publications, training programs and researching legal questions regarding public works requirements

a. New York was second, in 1894.

b. Samuel Gompers, president of the AFL, began a campaign for a federal prevailing wage law.

c. In 1931, the passage of the Davis-Bacon Act federally mandated super-minimum wages in the construction industry.



2. It should be noted that in 1930 blacks represented over 80% of the unskilled labor force, but were excluded from unions. The fact is that Davis-Bacon minimum wage law was collusion between labor and contractors, as the Secretary of Labor determines the prevailing wage, and almost always the calculation was the same as union wages…no matter large percentages of the work was by non-union workers. .

a. Davis-Bacon wages add 4% to commercial construction, and 9% to residential. Hammermesh and Rees, “The Economics of Work and Pay,” p. 247



3. To be clear, the Davis-Bacon requirements make it unfeasible for non-union shops to hire and train unskilled workers, as they would have to pay wages that exceed the workers’ productivity.

a. After the enactment of Davis-Bacon, black unemployment rose relative to that of whites.
Vedder and Galloway, “Racial Dimensions of the Davis-Bacon Act.”




4. In terms that even you will understand:
Minimum wage laws actually lower the cost of discriminating against the racially less-preferred individuals. To understand, consider this nonracial example on the effects of such ‘price-setting.’

a. Consider filet mignon and chuck steak. For argument’s sake, and in reality, consumers prefer the former.

b. Now ask, then why does chuck steak sell at all? And, in fact, why is it that chuck steak outsells filet mignon?? It is less preferred…yet competes favorably with something more preferred??

c. The answer is in what economists call ‘compensating differences.’ In effect the chuck says to you: “I’m not as tender nor tasty, but not as expensive,either! I sell for $4/pound, and filet mignon sells for $9/pound.”

d. Chuck steak, in effect, offers to ‘pay’ you $5/pound for its ‘inferiority,’ a compensating difference.

e. What if filet mignon sellers wanted to raise their sales against the less-preferred competitor, but couldn’t get a law passed forbidding the sale of chuck, what should they aim to do?

f. Push for a law establishing a minimum steak-price, say, $9/pound for all steak.
From chapter three of "Race & Economics," by Walter E. Williams



Get it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The nominal federal wage in the US is below the actual costs of a living wage. In a way, if we really look at it, it’s basically a workforce subsidy to employers. If we look at the OECD countries, the US minimum wage is on the lower end of the spectrum for the industrialized nations.

In our economy, which is pretty job starved, the supply-side will always dictate how the deck is stacked. We should view the federal minimum wage as a glaring example of how modern we consider our country to be. It represents what our society is willing to accept as a minimum wage. Any decisions about minimum wage should ultimately revolve around social policy.

If businesses, such as Walmart or other firms decide they don’t have the ability to pay a minimum wage, then society as a whole can decide these firms shouldn’t operate in the economy. Firms would have to restructure through investments to improve productivity so they can have the capacity to pay the legislated minimum wage. Increased wages also improve productivity and lessen employee turnover, so it’s a win-win situation for all parties involved.

" It represents what our society is willing to accept as a minimum wage."

Left-wing baloney.

 

[Moonglow]

2. The phenomenon of "child labor" has been alleviated, throughout economic history, through improved standards of living....capitalism.
As a family's income increases, they no longer allow their children to work.

HA! That's a good one, it's laws that have stopped child labor, and it still occurs in other nations that Wal Mart buys its products from.

Fascinating.

Unexperienced as I am in this area, I've never understood folks who have no knowledge.....absolutely none.....i.e., you.....yet feel perfectly copacetic making pronouncements.

You, expert in this area....might be the one to enlighten me: what is the impetus you feel that forces you to make an idiot of yourself?

Pray tell?



Could it be your worship of government?

It is suggested here: ".... it's laws that have stopped child labor,..."






Oh....and by the way.....I'm right again:

"Child labor, despite what you might have heard, was not created by capitalism. It’s a practice that stretches back to pre-history, when children would help in hunting and gathering as soon as they were able to walk.

Why were most children made to work before the 20th century? Is it because parents were sadistic and governments cruel? Hardly. It’s because, before capitalism made us rich, children had to work if they were to survive at all. When a family lives on the equivalent of a dollar a day, there is no alternative: if you can work, you work—or you starve.

What eliminates child labor is not government decree but a rising standard of living. That’s what eliminated it in the West during the 19th century and that is what is eliminating it today in places like China. As parents grow richer, one of the first things they do is use their burgeoning incomes to send their children to school."
Capitalist Secrets: Capitalism Ended Child Labor ? Laissez FaireLaissez Faire

really? Considering that I had to do hard labor as a child and my parents and grandparents were middle class. It was something that was expected of children, and I went to school. I made my kids do it also.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The nominal federal wage in the US is below the actual costs of a living wage. In a way, if we really look at it, it’s basically a workforce subsidy to employers. If we look at the OECD countries, the US minimum wage is on the lower end of the spectrum for the industrialized nations.

In our economy, which is pretty job starved, the supply-side will always dictate how the deck is stacked. We should view the federal minimum wage as a glaring example of how modern we consider our country to be. It represents what our society is willing to accept as a minimum wage. Any decisions about minimum wage should ultimately revolve around social policy.

If businesses, such as Walmart or other firms decide they don’t have the ability to pay a minimum wage, then society as a whole can decide these firms shouldn’t operate in the economy. Firms would have to restructure through investments to improve productivity so they can have the capacity to pay the legislated minimum wage. Increased wages also improve productivity and lessen employee turnover, so it’s a win-win situation for all parties involved.

Ah, that's because 99% of the workforce is paid minimum wage, right sparky?

Tell me, should the state set the wage of all workers, from top to bottom? Or just for targets of the unions?

What does the number of workers on minimum wage have to do with his post? Kimura merely asserted that, in a competitive economy with a manifestly powerful capitalist class, the supply-side will dictate public affairs. Not that most people were paid minimum wage, or that the state should be the determinant of all wages.

"...a manifestly powerful capitalist class,..."


The imaginary bête noire created to persuade the unintelligent.
Raise your paw.

 

[Derideo_Te]

As long as the American consumer demands the lowest cost possible - the problem of underemployment/unemployment/child labor/slave labor - will not only continue, but continue to grow.
As consumers, Americans are the most self-centered hypocritical stupid people on the planet. The fact they cannot make the connection that ultra-cheap volume based retail = producers seeking ultra-cheap volume based laborers is just flat out unbelievable.

1. "As long as the American consumer demands the lowest cost possible...."

Did you think that that was some sort of pejorative???

Be serious.
Every consumer operates that way....world over.
'Else...they're a simpleton.

Actually consumers don't all operate that way, my dear PC.

Some of them prefer quality instead. Others will shop elsewhere out of principle. Walmart's competitors still exist in spite of all of it's attempts to drive them out of business. Obviously the competitors are attracting business away from Walmart based upon something other than the lowest possible price. Your blanket assumption is false.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The nominal federal wage in the US is below the actual costs of a living wage. In a way, if we really look at it, it’s basically a workforce subsidy to employers. If we look at the OECD countries, the US minimum wage is on the lower end of the spectrum for the industrialized nations.

In our economy, which is pretty job starved, the supply-side will always dictate how the deck is stacked. We should view the federal minimum wage as a glaring example of how modern we consider our country to be. It represents what our society is willing to accept as a minimum wage. Any decisions about minimum wage should ultimately revolve around social policy.

If businesses, such as Walmart or other firms decide they don’t have the ability to pay a minimum wage, then society as a whole can decide these firms shouldn’t operate in the economy. Firms would have to restructure through investments to improve productivity so they can have the capacity to pay the legislated minimum wage. Increased wages also improve productivity and lessen employee turnover, so it’s a win-win situation for all parties involved.

Ah, that's because 99% of the workforce is paid minimum wage, right sparky?

Tell me, should the state set the wage of all workers, from top to bottom? Or just for targets of the unions?

I never said that.

However, by keeping our minimum wage at pathetically depressed levels, it doesn’t improve employment prospects in the least. As a matter of fact, it makes it matters worse, since it takes demand out of the economy and lowers the prospects of someone on unemployment benefits or other types of assistance from reentering the workforce.

Wages are source of demand and an input cost. For example, if we reduce wages and demand falls, it has more of a negative impact than any cost savings derived from paying workers less wages. If we look at today’s pathetic minimum wage, it’s not even in the universe of what could be deemed a living wage. Just sayin’…

"...by keeping our minimum wage..."


Let's pretend that you actually knew what you were talking about.

A stretch...


The word "our" implies that it is yours....in reality you want to mandate what other folks pay.

“You want to know how to solve the low-income
housing crisis? Get rid of Davis-Bacon.” That’s what
Elzie Higginbottom says, and Higginbottom builds
low-income housing in Chicago’s grim South Side
ghetto and manages his 2,500 units with a magic
touch….

The law requires Higginbottom to pay the
prevailing wage to all workers on federally assisted
projects of more than 11 units. In Chicago, that
means paying carpenters $23 an hour, including ben-
efits, and paying laborers $18.82 an hour for hauling
in the drywall….

So let’s say Higginbottom wants to hire some of
the unskilled black men from the neighborhood
where he is building houses. He is black himself and
fiercely committed to building a social and economic
base in Chicago’s poor neighborhoods. But to give a
local guy a chance, Higginbottom has to pay him a
wage set by Department of Labor bureaucrats. “I’ve
got to start out a guy at $16 an hour to find out if he
knows how to dig a hole. I can’t do that.”
"Congress's Deconstruction Theory", by Patrick Barry, The Washington Monthly, January 1990, p. 10

 

[PoliticalChic]

[Red Bold] It is most certainly not out of NEED. People don't NEED wide screen TV's, they don't NEED iPhones, they don't NEED 300 channels, they don't NEED Xbox's and 20 games etc. etc.
At least 90% of "cheap" choices is just that - people have lost all meaning of the word value, equating it only as value=cheapest price paid.

Then start a trend.

Donate the computer you are using to the homeless. Give the amount you pay to your ISP to the poor and live without.

Like most - virtually all - leftists; You're willing to give every dime your neighbor has to the poor.

THEY should give more... The primary difference between left and right is that the Right supports their beliefs with there own capital, where the left believes that charity begins by picking the pocket of others.

Nobody's saying that. Improving the condition of the workers can be done through workplace restructuring - and by decreasing the rate of profit and leisure class compensation, in favor of benefits to the producers.

It takes special kind of idiot to compose a post like yours.

You may be in a class by yourself!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wal-Mart is not the cheapest. There are food stores that beat them on prices daily.Price Cutter is one.

Why would you suggest that the article claims that Wal-Mart is the cheapest?

From the quote on the page you ask that.

Time for that ophthalmologist visit you've been putting off.....


You provided a quote that says no such thing.




Perhaps it's that psychologist visit......

 

[PoliticalChic]

Henry Ford must be anathema to Righties in that he did something that industrialist titans of his time didn't do: he paid his workers more than the going rate so that they could hope to buy one of the cars they manufactured some day which they did. Walmart? Not so much.

BTW- ever seen this source PoliChic?

Top Reasons the Walton Family and Walmart are NOT “Job Creators”

Here's an idea with which you may not be familiar.....it's called 'freedom.'



You, as employer, get to offer to pay what you wish.....

....and you, as employee get to decline any offer you find unacceptable.


Please list the names of any......any.....Wal-Mart employees who are forced to work for that company against their will.


1.____________

2.___________

3.___________




I'll wait.....but I have a pressing appointment in 2019.....





So.....where are those names, dotty?????


Who are those slaves that you plan to emancipate from the Wal-Mart salt mines????




Wait.....you have no names???
......does this mean that you are our best source of green house gases?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

I get 10% off at Wal Mart, but i still look for better deals. The one thing that Wal Mart has developed and succeeded upon is one stop shopping.

1. The diverse group of self-identified liberals are better educated than the country as a whole, less religious, more urban, less married and wealthier. They support abortion and gay rights, are unconcerned about pornography, and rarely own guns.
Edsall, “ Building Red America,” p. 18.



a. The group frequently finds themselves in disagreement with white, working-class voters, as outlined in the Pew survey of 2007, “Trends in Political Values.” One example: two-thirds of working-class Democrats have a favorable view of Wal-Mart, while a majority of professional-class Democrats consider it to be something akin to evil incarnate.
Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007 | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

 

[PoliticalChic]

HA! That's a good one, it's laws that have stopped child labor, and it still occurs in other nations that Wal Mart buys its products from.

Fascinating.

Unexperienced as I am in this area, I've never understood folks who have no knowledge.....absolutely none.....i.e., you.....yet feel perfectly copacetic making pronouncements.

You, expert in this area....might be the one to enlighten me: what is the impetus you feel that forces you to make an idiot of yourself?

Pray tell?



Could it be your worship of government?

It is suggested here: ".... it's laws that have stopped child labor,..."






Oh....and by the way.....I'm right again:

"Child labor, despite what you might have heard, was not created by capitalism. It’s a practice that stretches back to pre-history, when children would help in hunting and gathering as soon as they were able to walk.

Why were most children made to work before the 20th century? Is it because parents were sadistic and governments cruel? Hardly. It’s because, before capitalism made us rich, children had to work if they were to survive at all. When a family lives on the equivalent of a dollar a day, there is no alternative: if you can work, you work—or you starve.

What eliminates child labor is not government decree but a rising standard of living. That’s what eliminated it in the West during the 19th century and that is what is eliminating it today in places like China. As parents grow richer, one of the first things they do is use their burgeoning incomes to send their children to school."
Capitalist Secrets: Capitalism Ended Child Labor ? Laissez FaireLaissez Faire

really? Considering that I had to do hard labor as a child and my parents and grandparents were middle class. It was something that was expected of children, and I went to school. I made my kids do it also.

I am always fascinated by you hagiography, but if you feel that the story of your journey toward the presidency is dispositive as compared to the post above it.......


.....guess again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As long as the American consumer demands the lowest cost possible - the problem of underemployment/unemployment/child labor/slave labor - will not only continue, but continue to grow.
As consumers, Americans are the most self-centered hypocritical stupid people on the planet. The fact they cannot make the connection that ultra-cheap volume based retail = producers seeking ultra-cheap volume based laborers is just flat out unbelievable.

1. "As long as the American consumer demands the lowest cost possible...."

Did you think that that was some sort of pejorative???

Be serious.
Every consumer operates that way....world over.
'Else...they're a simpleton.

Actually consumers don't all operate that way, my dear PC.

Some of them prefer quality instead. Others will shop elsewhere out of principle. Walmart's competitors still exist in spite of all of it's attempts to drive them out of business. Obviously the competitors are attracting business away from Walmart based upon something other than the lowest possible price. Your blanket assumption is false.

"Actually consumers don't all operate that way, my dear PC."

Would you be happier if I said "the vast majority"?



In reality, I used your quote because you wrote "dear."
I have to be honest.

 

[Staidhup]

Walmart, like Sears, Montgomery Wards, and other large scale retail outlets serve to provide an entry point, step forward, opportunity to prove ones self, catalyst for advancement. Once a person gains confidence and experience the likelihood that they will move on for a better paying job is possible. But then again the liberal mindset understands when people have opportunity, a taste of personal success, dependency upon the government for support is reduced and vote uncertain.

 

[Staidhup]

AS for Ford, He understood market dynamics, by providing a low end vehicle at reduced price he could make more in the long run by sheer volume of the market. Did Henry Ford pay an entry level employee the same as a proven employee? Let me answer that for you, no he did not, he firmly believed that a person needed to first prove capability, reliability, and full comprehension before they were advanced to the line or parts department. One final fact to consider he vehemently opposed labor unions and viewed them as the catalyst to financial destruction and upheaval in manufacturing. Little did he know he was just a little ahead of his times.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Walmart, like Sears, Montgomery Wards, and other large scale retail outlets serve to provide an entry point, step forward, opportunity to prove ones self, catalyst for advancement. Once a person gains confidence and experience the likelihood that they will move on for a better paying job is possible. But then again the liberal mindset understands when people have opportunity, a taste of personal success, dependency upon the government for support is reduced and vote uncertain.

Unlike several in this thread, you actually understand the nexus of economics and life.

Just as minimum wage laws prevent resume-building and skill-gaining, so would depriving folks of opting to enter the job market at the Wal-Mart level.

Further, they have an excellent stock option plan, and as the OP states, produce $100,000 managerial positions.


"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.

.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably

 

[Moonglow]

Walmart, like Sears, Montgomery Wards, and other large scale retail outlets serve to provide an entry point, step forward, opportunity to prove ones self, catalyst for advancement. Once a person gains confidence and experience the likelihood that they will move on for a better paying job is possible. But then again the liberal mindset understands when people have opportunity, a taste of personal success, dependency upon the government for support is reduced and vote uncertain.

So even when there was no welfare you still contend that no one voted democratic?

 

[Moonglow]

Walmart, like Sears, Montgomery Wards, and other large scale retail outlets serve to provide an entry point, step forward, opportunity to prove ones self, catalyst for advancement. Once a person gains confidence and experience the likelihood that they will move on for a better paying job is possible. But then again the liberal mindset understands when people have opportunity, a taste of personal success, dependency upon the government for support is reduced and vote uncertain.

Unlike several in this thread, you actually understand the nexus of economics and life.

Just as minimum wage laws prevent resume-building and skill-gaining, so would depriving folks of opting to enter the job market at the Wal-Mart level.

Further, they have an excellent stock option plan, and as the OP states, produce $100,000 managerial positions.


"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.

.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably

Depends what you are a manger of and the location. Around this area, the store managers do not make 100k a year as a store manager. The store my wife works at it is youth that is promoted before experience. Not lall store are run the same, it depends upon the manager and co-managers.

 

[Staidhup]

Walmart, like Sears, Montgomery Wards, and other large scale retail outlets serve to provide an entry point, step forward, opportunity to prove ones self, catalyst for advancement. Once a person gains confidence and experience the likelihood that they will move on for a better paying job is possible. But then again the liberal mindset understands when people have opportunity, a taste of personal success, dependency upon the government for support is reduced and vote uncertain.

So even when there was no welfare you still contend that no one voted democratic?

Apparently once again you missed the point, but keep it up, someday you may see the light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Walmart, like Sears, Montgomery Wards, and other large scale retail outlets serve to provide an entry point, step forward, opportunity to prove ones self, catalyst for advancement. Once a person gains confidence and experience the likelihood that they will move on for a better paying job is possible. But then again the liberal mindset understands when people have opportunity, a taste of personal success, dependency upon the government for support is reduced and vote uncertain.

Unlike several in this thread, you actually understand the nexus of economics and life.

Just as minimum wage laws prevent resume-building and skill-gaining, so would depriving folks of opting to enter the job market at the Wal-Mart level.

Further, they have an excellent stock option plan, and as the OP states, produce $100,000 managerial positions.


"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.

.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably

So how many minimum wage employees can spare $1800 for stock purchases out of the $11k or so they make to pay for food, clothing, transportation, medical bills, rent, etc, etc?