Economics 101: Wal-Mart Hikes Minimum Wages, Prepares To Fire 1000

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

People will work, under the right conditions, for slave wages. Should that be a business model we approve of as a society?

People will work for what the market is willing to pay them. That is one of the factors that sets the market rate. Someone who allegedly owns their own business would not need this explained to them.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

People will work, under the right conditions, for slave wages. Should that be a business model we approve of as a society?

People will work for what the market is willing to pay them. That is one of the factors that sets the market rate. Someone who allegedly owns their own business would not need this explained to them.

People will work, when people need to work. Where subsidies exist which alleviates NEED... people will not work.

Now go ahead... ask me how I know.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

People will work, under the right conditions, for slave wages. Should that be a business model we approve of as a society?

People will work for what the market is willing to pay them. That is one of the factors that sets the market rate. Someone who allegedly owns their own business would not need this explained to them.

Nothing alleged about it. And I don't need it explained but I do need an answer to the question, should we, as a society, embrace companies that cannot afford to pay a living wage? Just you can get people to work for next to nothing, is that where we want to go, yes or no?

 

[SAYIT]

By now we all know that the O/P is an imbecile.....

Less workers=more pissed off customers.
Pissed off customers= LESS customers
Less customers= Less sales...
An opportunity hence opens up for competitors....

Yep, capitalism at work,

Really? IMHO it is the 1st respondent (PMS) and the 3 loony lefties who kissed his silly response.

 

[SAYIT]

Who determines a “living wage”? If they pay a “living wage” does the person with 10 kids get more money than the single person doing the same job? When that new business paying your “living wage” gets undersold by everyone else, are you going to buy from them or suggest we legislate the others out of existence to artificially let your favored business succeed? Once the others are out of business and prices are higher are you going to demand a higher “living wage”?

Two rights our loony lefties will not negotiate is their right to determine what is a "living wage" and their right to tell others how they must spend their money.

 

[Moonglow]

Wal Mart does this regularly....when it has poor sales in their stores....Their online business is booming..

 

[SAYIT]

The companies agree with you.

Capitalism has it's only brutal logic to it. We don't regulate it for nothin'.

Socialism has only its failure to recommend it (and you are buying). We Americans don't reject it for nothin'.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The companies agree with you.

Capitalism has it's only brutal logic to it. We don't regulate it for nothin'.

Socialism has only its failure to recommend it (and you are buying). We Americans don't reject it for nothin'.

Boy did that need work, it was early, and you have already have socialism, a mixed economy, which is a tepid version in our case. Socialism works all over the world, you just don't like it because it means you have to actually care about others as well as you and yours.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

People will work, under the right conditions, for slave wages. Should that be a business model we approve of as a society?

People will work for what the market is willing to pay them. That is one of the factors that sets the market rate. Someone who allegedly owns their own business would not need this explained to them.

Nothing alleged about it. And I don't need it explained but I do need an answer to the question, should we, as a society, embrace companies that cannot afford to pay a living wage? Just you can get people to work for next to nothing, is that where we want to go, yes or no?

Define "living wage." How much is that, exactly? What dollar amount?

What companies should pay is the market rate. That's it. I don't base my patronage of businesses on what they pay their staff. I don't care. If they weren't paying enough then people wouldn't work there. I choose to spend my money based on whether or not they have a good or service I need and how they deliver it.

 

[nat4900]

love how you seem to be able to make connections like this,yet cant make the connection between higher wages and less jobs.

Well, I'm truly sorry that you lost your job at Burger King....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

People will work, under the right conditions, for slave wages. Should that be a business model we approve of as a society?

People will work for what the market is willing to pay them. That is one of the factors that sets the market rate. Someone who allegedly owns their own business would not need this explained to them.

Nothing alleged about it. And I don't need it explained but I do need an answer to the question, should we, as a society, embrace companies that cannot afford to pay a living wage? Just you can get people to work for next to nothing, is that where we want to go, yes or no?

Define "living wage." How much is that, exactly? What dollar amount?

What companies should pay is the market rate. That's it. I don't base my patronage of businesses on what they pay their staff. I don't care. If they weren't paying enough then people wouldn't work there. I choose to spend my money based on whether or not they have a good or service I need and how they deliver it.

Pick a location: Living Wage Calculator

And I'm betting that most here would care, if the employees were all illegals making less than minimum wage eh?

 

[nat4900]

Really? IMHO it is the 1st respondent (PMS) and the 3 loony lefties who kissed his silly response.

Smacking right wingers around is kind of fun, don't you think? (or do you think?)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Really? IMHO it is the 1st respondent (PMS) and the 3 loony lefties who kissed his silly response.

Smacking right wingers around is kind of fun, don't you think? (or do you think?)

ROFLMNAO!

SO... LOL! Let me get this straight.

You feel... that you're smacking right wingers around, in here?

Would you take a moment and study your respective points and please offer up any of those which you feel remain standing?

(Reader, the above fruitloop will be unable to engage this challenge as there is not a single of the would-be points that it has offered, that remains, even arguably... standing. But enjoy as it either ignores the challenge or attempts to weasel itself into a quarrel that anything its offered has not been thoroughly discredited.)

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

love how you seem to be able to make connections like this,yet cant make the connection between higher wages and less jobs.

Well, I'm truly sorry that you lost your job at Burger King....

Never worked fast food,so whats it like?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

People will work, under the right conditions, for slave wages. Should that be a business model we approve of as a society?

People will work for what the market is willing to pay them. That is one of the factors that sets the market rate. Someone who allegedly owns their own business would not need this explained to them.

Nothing alleged about it. And I don't need it explained but I do need an answer to the question, should we, as a society, embrace companies that cannot afford to pay a living wage? Just you can get people to work for next to nothing, is that where we want to go, yes or no?

Define "living wage." How much is that, exactly? What dollar amount?

What companies should pay is the market rate. That's it. I don't base my patronage of businesses on what they pay their staff. I don't care. If they weren't paying enough then people wouldn't work there. I choose to spend my money based on whether or not they have a good or service I need and how they deliver it.

Pick a location: Living Wage Calculator

And I'm betting that most here would care, if the employees were all illegals making less than minimum wage eh?

So we're supposed to pay people based on the size of their family?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

People will work, under the right conditions, for slave wages. Should that be a business model we approve of as a society?

People will work for what the market is willing to pay them. That is one of the factors that sets the market rate. Someone who allegedly owns their own business would not need this explained to them.

Nothing alleged about it. And I don't need it explained but I do need an answer to the question, should we, as a society, embrace companies that cannot afford to pay a living wage? Just you can get people to work for next to nothing, is that where we want to go, yes or no?

Define "living wage." How much is that, exactly? What dollar amount?

What companies should pay is the market rate. That's it. I don't base my patronage of businesses on what they pay their staff. I don't care. If they weren't paying enough then people wouldn't work there. I choose to spend my money based on whether or not they have a good or service I need and how they deliver it.

Pick a location: Living Wage Calculator

And I'm betting that most here would care, if the employees were all illegals making less than minimum wage eh?

So we're supposed to pay people based on the size of their family?

We used to, men made more because they had families to support, and how many people there are to support is how you figure out what is a living wage.

Whether we'd take that into account is a good question but you seem to be having a serious issue understanding that if you can get people to work for less money, a capitalist is just fine with that. The question is, as a society, are we?

 

[SAYIT]

The companies agree with you.

Capitalism has it's only brutal logic to it. We don't regulate it for nothin'.

Socialism has only its failure to recommend it (and you are buying). We Americans don't reject it for nothin'.

Boy did that need work, it was early, and you have already have socialism, a mixed economy, which is a tepid version in our case. Socialism works all over the world, you just don't like it because it means you have to actually care about others as well as you and yours.

No, we don't (check out the definition of socialism and get back to me) and socialism fails all over the world which, I suppose, is why you find it so appealing. Socialists (and socialism) have no monopoly on real compassion but rather some self-serving self-delusion.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The companies agree with you.

Capitalism has it's only brutal logic to it. We don't regulate it for nothin'.

Socialism has only its failure to recommend it (and you are buying). We Americans don't reject it for nothin'.

Boy did that need work, it was early, and you have already have socialism, a mixed economy, which is a tepid version in our case. Socialism works all over the world, you just don't like it because it means you have to actually care about others as well as you and yours.

No, we don't (check out the definition of socialism and get back to me) and socialism fails all over the world which, I suppose, is why you find it so appealing. Socialists (and socialism) have no monopoly on real compassion but rather some self-serving self-delusion.

Your dogma doesn't hunt. You have to actually learn economics before you can debate this. Start here: Types of Economic Systems

And for the lazy:

"In a command economic system or planned economy, the government controls the economy. The state decides how to use and distribute resources. The government regulates prices and wages; it may even determine what sorts of work individuals do. Socialism is a type of command economic system. Historically, the government has assumed varying degrees of control over the economy in socialist countries. In some, only major industries have been subjected to government management; in others, the government has exercised far more extensive control over the economy.

The classic (failed) example of a command economy was the communist Soviet Union. The collapse of the communist bloc in the late 1980s led to the demise of many command economies around the world; Cuba continues to hold on to its planned economy even today.

In market economies, economic decisions are made by individuals. The unfettered interaction of individuals and companies in the marketplace determines how resources are allocated and goods are distributed. Individuals choose how to invest their personal resources—what training to pursue, what jobs to take, what goods or services to produce. And individuals decide what to consume. Within a pure market economy the government is entirely absent from economic affairs.

The United States in the late nineteenth century, at the height of the lassez-faire era, was about as close as we've seen to a pure market economy in modern practice.

A mixed economic system combines elements of the market and command economy. Many economic decisions are made in the market by individuals. But the government also plays a role in the allocation and distribution of resources.

The United States today, like most advanced nations, is a mixed economy. The eternal question for mixed economies is just what the right mix between the public and private sectors of the economy should be."

 

[SAYIT]

People will work, under the right conditions, for slave wages. Should that be a business model we approve of as a society?

People will work for what the market is willing to pay them. That is one of the factors that sets the market rate. Someone who allegedly owns their own business would not need this explained to them.

Nothing alleged about it. And I don't need it explained but I do need an answer to the question, should we, as a society, embrace companies that cannot afford to pay a living wage? Just you can get people to work for next to nothing, is that where we want to go, yes or no?

Define "living wage." How much is that, exactly? What dollar amount?

What companies should pay is the market rate. That's it. I don't base my patronage of businesses on what they pay their staff. I don't care. If they weren't paying enough then people wouldn't work there. I choose to spend my money based on whether or not they have a good or service I need and how they deliver it.

According to our loony lefties you must then lack their bleeding-heart "compassion."

 

[SAYIT]

The companies agree with you.

Capitalism has it's only brutal logic to it. We don't regulate it for nothin'.

Socialism has only its failure to recommend it (and you are buying). We Americans don't reject it for nothin'.

Boy did that need work, it was early, and you have already have socialism, a mixed economy, which is a tepid version in our case. Socialism works all over the world, you just don't like it because it means you have to actually care about others as well as you and yours.

No, we don't (check out the definition of socialism and get back to me) and socialism fails all over the world which, I suppose, is why you find it so appealing. Socialists (and socialism) have no monopoly on real compassion but rather some self-serving self-delusion.

Your dogma doesn't hunt. You have to actually learn economics before you can debate this.

Evidently you couldn't find a definition for socialism that serves your agenda (because America is not, despite your silly claims, socialist) but thanks for playing.