Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The individual customer will gladly pay a few cents more to make sure the employees that are working in that store are earning enough to live on. Not you of course, because you're an asshole. But normal, decent people don't have a problem with that.
The individual customer will gladly pay a few cents more to make sure the employees that are working in that store are earning enough to live on.
The customers want to pay $7 billion to save $300 million?
I know you're a stupid commie, I didn't think you were that stupid.
Workers aren't forced to work at Walmart.
If a low-skilled worker doesn't earn enough at Walmart, they are free to leave.
It's you rich folks who are the infantile parasites, depending upon other people's labor to generate an income
You're right, low-skilled workers can earn more by working for poor people. DURR
Your customers aren't paying 7 billion, they're paying a few cents per product to cover the cost of the living wage, assuming you pass the cost to customers. Not all retailers will do that, even though they will also pay a living wage. There are other expenses that come with poverty, that you're not factoring into your "equation". If your stingy ass doesn't want to pay full-time workers a living wage, you can go get a job. Stop being a parasite.
They can earn more working for their government. Your point is moot because Walmart should pay its full-time workers enough for them to live on. Your "low-skill" label is subjective, arbitrary, and irrelevant because a job position doesn't have to require a high level of skill to be valuable and important. People who pick up your garbage, throwing it into a garbage truck, don't require much skill to do that, but nonetheless, what they do is important and it's also labor intensive. The employees that manage retail stores like Walmart are performing an important job, to keep retail stores functioning. If they work full-time they should earn a living wage, especially if they're working for WALMART, a multibillion-dollar corporation.
That's a straw man. When did I ever say anything about doubling wages? However, whether you increase sales or not, full-time workers should earn enough not to be on government welfare.If I double employee wages will I double sales?
Your customers aren't paying 7 billion, they're paying a few cents per product to cover the cost of the living wage,
They are paying $7 billion. Your video said a 1.4% increase in price. I know math makes commies sad.
They can earn more working for their government.
Just what we need, more low-skilled workers on the government payroll.
Your "low-skill" label is subjective, arbitrary, and irrelevant because a job position doesn't have to require a high level of skill to be valuable and important
Stocking the shelves and running the register.....very valuable.
People who pick up your garbage, throwing it into a garbage truck, don't require much skill to do that
Now a lift picks up the can.
The employees that manage retail stores like Walmart are performing an important job, to keep retail stores functioning.
The managers make decent money.
That's a straw man. When did I ever say anything about doubling wages?
There's more to economics than "supply and demand", I'm not surprised a pearl-clutching elitist refuses to recognize that.Supply and demand. It's economics, I'm not surprised a commie doesn't understand.
Individual customers are paying a few cents, not billions.
Yes, inventory, stocking shelves, serving customers, and operating the cashier machines, is definitely important for a store to function.
Large dumpsters and you still need someone operating the lift. Smaller, residential trash is still often picked up manually by workers and thrown into the dump truck. I agree we should automate as much as possible, and eventually eliminate the need for wage-labor and capitalists.
If I increase wages 10%, will sales increase 10%?
There's more to economics than "supply and demand", I'm not surprised a pearl-clutching elitist refuses to recognize that.
It doesn't have to, but it can. Even more than that. If capitalists pay all of their full-time workers a living wage, consumers will have more money to purchase goods and services. You'll have more customers. You can also become eligible for tax incentives, cuts..etc.
All customers pay $7 billion more to save the government $300 million.
You wouldn't have lower profits, because every business would be paying their full-time workers a living wage. The consumer would have more purchasing power.It doesn't have to, but it can. Even more than that.
For every employer? Sales can increase more than salaries?
If capitalists pay all of their full-time workers a living wage, consumers will have more money to purchase goods and services. You'll have more customers.
More customers and lower profits. It's a wonder why they don't all do it already. DURR
There's more to economics than "supply and demand",
But it's mostly supply and demand.
Which is why it's so funny that you're completely ignoring it.
The government covers other expenses and social services. Individual customers don't have an issue with paying a few cents more to make sure workers earn a living wage. It's a problem for you, but not for normal people.
You wouldn't have lower profits, because every business would be paying their full-time workers a living wage. The consumer would have more purchasing power.
