Washington D.C. to Wal-Mart: We're raising minimum wage... but just for you

[Krisken]

Yes, things are unbalanced. But that appeals to the nebulous notion of "fairness". What I asked for is a definition of obscene. Is it $1B/year in profits?

Also, the problem with this sort of logic is that it assumes that these business will be willing to take a hit in profits to comply with the law, which has been shown in the past to be expressly NOT true (especially with the mandate that a business must first look to the interest of its shareholders). Pass a law like this, and Wal-Mart will undoubtedly comply, but there will inevitably be a trade-off. Either prices will go up (which hurts everyone in a low-income situation, not just those who work for Wal-Mart), or the company will restructure so that they fit under the minimum requirements of the law (as mentioned above).

Every decision made at the corporate level is intended to maximize profits. It may be cynical, but I guarantee that every company that has excellent wages and benefits for their workers has decided to do so because (a) their business model permits it, and (b) it will improve their reputation enough that their increased profits will compensate for the increased expenses.

So you advocate for no minimum wage? Is that how I read your post? Fairness shouldn't be up to companies to dictate, but society at large. It's the whole reason we have minimum wage laws, 40 hour work weeks, child labor laws, etc. These things didn't come about because the companies had trouble finding workers, but because people died demanding fair employment. Fairness is the heart of the problem here, and that you think that because you feel 'fairness' is nebulous, it shouldn't be applied.

I find this whole discussion a little astounding, to be honest. I never thought I would have to argue the need for fairness to someone who didn't own a multi-million dollar company.[DOUBLEPOST=1374011935][/DOUBLEPOST]

An economist friend of mine said something about the "Wal-Mart effect" on the economy that I think applies here:

"You can have high wages or you can have low-cost goods, but you can't have both."

It's why I shop local, to be honest. Anything I can buy from a local store I do. Food from local farmers, goods (whenever possible). I know it's unavoidable that money flows outside of my community, but I'll be damned if I let a 30 cent difference dictate how I spend my money.

 

[strawman]

It is funny that you are pushing "fairness" and in the same breath saying that some companies ought to have different minimum wages than others.

I think the base issue here is that you and I have different definitions for fairness.

 

[Krisken]

It is funny that you are pushing "fairness" and in the same breath saying that some companies ought to have different minimum wages than others.

I think the base issue here is that you and I have different definitions for fairness.

Some companies need to be reminded of fairness. Companies don't get to be treated fair, they've already weighted the system in their favor.[DOUBLEPOST=1374012377][/DOUBLEPOST]I don't care if you disagree.

Edit: Ok, lets go here- if I had to choose someone to be treated fairly, a nebulous corporation or people, I'm always going to choose people. You can choose corporations all you want.

 

[strawman]

Companies don't get to be treated fair, they've already weighted the system in their favor.

If it were easy to create another walmart, we would have 50 of them. An absolutely stupendous amount of human effort went into creating that company, and a similar effort goes into creating any other billion dollar company. And they have to continue to expend that amount of effort, or they die - Apple has had many near death experiences, and looks poised to make another tumble because they don't have the same commitment and work ethic they had under Jobs.

To say that they are profiting unfairly is to dismiss the work that went into the business.

Which is a rather astounding arrogance, or simple lack of experience.

I don't know which it is in your case.[DOUBLEPOST=1374012799][/DOUBLEPOST]

if I had to choose someone to be treated fairly, a nebulous corporation or people, I'm always going to choose people.

If it came down to one or the other, I'd be choosing people. I don't think we have to choose one or the other though - I expect we can make it fair for both the workers and the corporations.

But, again, you and I have differing versions of fairness. I think an unskilled laborer is worth the same in a given market no matter which company they work for. You believe that fairness dictates that a person working at a richer company should make more than a person working a poorer company doing the same job.

That doesn't seem fair to me, for people or corporations. Now what if I can't get a job a walmart, not due to skills but just due to luck of the draw, and so I'm stuck with the lower paying job. Is that fair? I have the same skills.

I don't think your version of fairness is fair to either the people or the corporations.

 

[Krisken]

If it were easy to create another walmart, we would have 50 of them. An absolutely stupendous amount of human effort went into creating that company, and a similar effort goes into creating any other billion dollar company. And they have to continue to expend that amount of effort, or they die - Apple has had many near death experiences, and looks poised to make another tumble because they don't have the same commitment and work ethic they had under Jobs.

To say that they are profiting unfairly is to dismiss the work that went into the business.

Which is a rather astounding arrogance, or simple lack of experience.

I don't know which it is in your case.

Maybe I'd rather see a very large corporation suffer a minor setback rather than the 30 million people who are currently considered poor in America. But you know, it's my arrogance that probably leads me to that conclusion.

 

[strawman]

I agree, it's likely your arrogance that says we can pick and choose who should pay and who shouldn't, rather than setting rules everyone lives by equally.

 

[Krisken]

I agree, it's likely your arrogance that says we can pick and choose who should pay and who shouldn't, rather than setting rules everyone lives by equally.

If the world could be equal, we wouldn't have all the problems we have today. Sorry I'm not naive enough to believe the companies will treat their employees well without them. Experience is a harsh mistress.

 

[GasBandit]

If the world could be equal, we wouldn't have all the problems we have today. Sorry I'm not naive enough to believe the companies will treat their employees well without them. Experience is a harsh mistress.

Well thank goodness we have you here to tell us which companies are good and should be allowed to make money, and which aren't and should be beaten into insolvency with unfair, laser-point regulation.

You do hit on a valid topic, however - There will always be economic imbalance, no matter what you do. There will always be rich people, there will always be poor people. This demonstrates the futility of redistribution as a general policy. For there to be genuine opportunity to achieve and do better, there also has to be genuine opportunity to piss away your opportunities and end up poor.

 

[strawman]

I trust the government very little in determining "fairness." Anything the fat cats in DC dream up as "fair" is bound to be profitable for them and their biggest donors.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Right?

Hurray for communism!

 

[Krisken]

I don't trust the government to be fair either. But they're going to be more fair to the people than the corporations in this instance.

Nobody said you have to go all one way or another. It's only the silly fuckers on the internet who make that argument.

Hooray for corporate greed! Now doesn't that just look ridiculous to you?

 

[strawman]

I still wish I knew what corporate greed meant, but no one has yet defined it in a way that is objective and measurable.

The communism thing is a bit over the top, but when the government regulates people and corporations based on their success rather than regulating everyone equally, there is a distinct resemblance.

 

[Krisken]

I still wish I knew what corporate greed meant, but no one has yet defined it in a way that is objective and measurable.

The communism thing is a bit over the top, but when the government regulates people and corporations based on their success rather than regulating everyone equally, there is a distinct resemblance.

The problem I have with it is it is used as a boogyman. Instead of admitting there are levels of communism in our society and a reason for allowing a reasonable amount into our system to help stem the tide of corruption from capitalism (just as in a communist society they need a reasonable amount of capitalism to limit the tide of corruption from communism), we truck on with these tired tropes.

My point with everything here is simply this- large business in America currently holds too much power. Financially and politically.

 

[PatrThom]

My point with everything here is simply this- large business in America currently holds too much power. Financially and politically.

Well, I can certainly agree with this point, and that's even if you don't factor in Citizens United. People eventually die and return (a significant portion of) their accumulated assets to society. Corporations don't. When a corporation looks like it's about to die, another corporation buys it and subsumes it, preventing those assets from returning to the pool. And what with the interest these days in building your IP war chests as large as possible, many of those assets aren't even tangible.

--Patrick

 

[Bubble181]

I still wish I knew what corporate greed meant, but no one has yet defined it in a way that is objective and measurable.

"measurable" nor "objective" are possible for such a term. "Corporate greed" refers to corporations who put too much emphasis on profit (margin) or bottom line and do this at the cost of human welfare/product quality/employee health. I'm sure you can think of more and better examples than I can. An oil company pays their drill people in the middle of the sea by Cambodjan worker laws, ships sailing under Nicaraguan flags, Walmart-style shops firing all cashiers at the start of summer to replace them with temp student workers, only to rehire them after summer (Carrefour actually does this every year, don't know if Walmart does it but hey, thread title), games companies making Call of Warcraft XVII instead of trying new IPs, new concepts or original games - all of them are often cited as "corporate greed".
In a well-working system, a corporation has to have a basic amount of greed: giving everything back, wanting to make the very best product with super happy employees and bollocks the cost, isn't a good business model - unless you're something like Rols Royce. And they, of course, get their too high prices considered "corporate greed". Making Rolls Royces at Kia prices, turning no profit whatsoever, is no way to run a business, unless in the USSR. It doesn't work there, either, because laborers have no reason to ensure quality or work hard.
Too much greed should auto-correct: consumers choosing the competition because of the lack of quality or price gouging you can often see at work. Consumers changing their buying/using habits because of ethical reasons, eh, it happens when someone points it out in a large campaign (Nike and such having to pay labor more than $1 an hour etc - the "clean clothes" campaigns,....). Consumers changing their habits because local people aren't treated properly? Good luck - I don't think I've ever seen someone not buy something because the guy who's stocking it doesn't get a dental plan or "only" makes $8.25 an hour.
In our current situation, median and average household income is low compared to average prices, and because of media and commercial interests, people feel a constant need to do/have/see more things than they can easily afford. Rather than having a bit less, but all ethical and "good", almost everyone is willing to compromise such things for "more for less". As long as that continues, companies like Walmart who sell "cheap, but don't ask where it came from" will make big profits.

To get back to my original point, though, "corporate greed" can't be defined any more objectively or measurably than regular old human greed. What's the tipping point between "thrifty", "good with money", "doesn't just throw his money at anything and everything" and "greedy"?

 

[GasBandit]

Greed is the only reliable human motivator to performance, other than fear... and fear is a whole lot more work with worse results.

 

[MindDetective]

:roll eyes:

 

[Krisken]

I unclicked ignore just for a second, just to see what MindDetective rolled his eyes at. Lets just say I got a good chuckle.

 

[GasBandit]

You both know it's true. Without motivation for personal gain (or rather, linking gain to performance), every system depending on human contribution falls apart and fails.

And I still find it hilarious you put me on ignore but still post in my political thread. (I know this isn't that thread, you just do and this is where it came up)

 

[strawman]

And I still find it hilarious you put me on ignore but still post in my political thread.

I think he had minddetective on ignore, not you. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to see your thread anyway, without typing in the URL, or clicking "show ignored" on the subforum thread display.

 

[GasBandit]

I think he had minddetective on ignore, not you. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to see your thread anyway, without typing in the URL, or clicking "show ignored" on the subforum thread display.

No, it's definitely me he has on ignore.

 

[AshburnerX]

You both know it's true. Without motivation for personal gain (or rather, linking gain to performance), every system depending on human contribution falls apart and fails.

And yet their are numerous wildly successful charities that work entirely on charitable donations. And don't even START with "donations for tax reasons". The vast majority of donations are from average people who believe in a cause, not in millionaires trying to dodge the tax man.

 

[Krisken]

I think he had minddetective on ignore, not you. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to see your thread anyway, without typing in the URL, or clicking "show ignored" on the subforum thread display.

No, I have Gas on ignore. I get updates in the "What's New" when other people post here. Otherwise, yeah, I don't see the thread.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Greed is the only reliable human motivator to performance, other than fear... and fear is a whole lot more work with worse results.

greed leads to entitlement.

 

[strawman]

No, I have Gas on ignore. I get updates in the "What's New" when other people post here. Otherwise, yeah, I don't see the thread.

Huh. I only have one person on ignore, and I don't see their threads at all in what's new, regardless of who is posting in that thread.

Maybe my ignore is better than yours.

It's probably my white/cis/hetero/christian/middle class privilege.

 

[GasBandit]

greed leads to entitlement.

No, sloth leads to entitlement.

And yet their are numerous wildly successful charities that work entirely on charitable donations. And don't even START with "donations for tax reasons". The vast majority of donations are from average people who believe in a cause, not in millionaires trying to dodge the tax man.

So do you think the american economy would work if it was as based on charity to the same degree as it is now based on capitalist profit motive?

 

[Krisken]

Huh. I only have one person on ignore, and I don't see their threads at all in what's new, regardless of who is posting in that thread.

Maybe my ignore is better than yours.

It's probably my white/cis/hetero/christian/middle class privilege.

I thought it was there. It might be in the Alerts when someone posts there as I've posted in that thread already?

 

[sixpackshaker]

No, sloth leads to entitlement

Something for very little is greedy. Doing nothing all day is sloth.

These Wall Street Moguls think that they are entitled to crazy salaries and golden parachutes, even when they fail.

 

[GasBandit]

Something for very little is greedy. Doing nothing all day is sloth.

These Wall Street Moguls think that they are entitled to crazy salaries and golden parachutes, even when they fail.

No, wanting something for yourself is greed. Thinking you deserve something is sloth. You deserve whatever you can get yourself, within the confines of the law.

 

[AshburnerX]

So do you think the american economy would work if it was as based on charity to the same degree as it is now based on capitalist profit motive?

Last time I checked, the American Economy wasn't working at all, thanks to a housing crisis created by irresponsible bankers doing illegal things as a requirement for employment. You don't get to say that the current system is working when the only reason it worked is because of illegal activity at the heart of it.

 

[GasBandit]

Last time I checked, the American Economy wasn't working at all, thanks to a housing crisis created by irresponsible bankers doing illegal things as a requirement for employment. You don't get to say that the current system is working when the only reason it worked is because of illegal activity at the heart of it.

Really? The American economy doesn't work? Is that why you're sitting in an air conditioned building in the richest nation in the world with the entire range of human knowledge at your fingertips, your very own automobile, and can take time away from foraging for food in the wilderness to spend the evening playing video games online and checking what's on sale on steam?

I didn't realize all that came to you on charity.

Realtalk: If the American Economy wasn't "working at all" you'd probably be dead.

 

[Covar]

Wait, I thought Obama fixed the economy with the power of positive thinking and that everything was back to the way it was before that Republican bastion of Evil entered office destroyed everything?

 

[Krisken]

Wait, I thought Obama fixed the economy with the power of positive thinking and that everything was back to the way it was before that Republican bastion of Evil entered office destroyed everything?

I don't remember anyone saying that. Of course, lets blame Obama and not all the obstructionism in the Senate and the batshit crazy House.

There's plenty of stuff to be mad at Obama for. We don't have to attribute shit to him he isn't responsible for as well.

 

[strawman]

I thought it was there. It might be in the Alerts when someone posts there as I've posted in that thread already?

Yeah, if someone quotes or tags you, you'll get an alert that will show the thread.

Like this one.

Otherwise, even though the thread is active, it won't show up in the forum thread lists or what's new, although you can show it there if you click "show ignored..." at the bottom of the thread list (which will only appear if there are threads by people you've got on ignore).

 

[Covar]

I don't remember anyone saying that. Of course, lets blame Obama and not all the obstructionism in the Senate and the batshit crazy House.

There's plenty of stuff to be mad at Obama for. We don't have to attribute shit to him he isn't responsible for as well.

That's because you're smart enough not to watch news networks.

 

[Chad Sexington]

You can ignore people?

There's no one I want to ignore, but.. Interesting.