Wal-Mart's D.C. wage battle: A shortsighted skirmish

Source (-----------Source --------------)

Even the hardest-won business victories can prove bittersweet. Wal-Mart may very well learn that lesson in the coming weeks in Washington D.C. The retail behemoth has engaged in a game of chicken with D.C.'s city council over a living wage bill it passed on July 10 requiring large retailers operating in the district to pay its workers a "living wage" minimum of $12.50 an hour (minimum wage in D.C. is $8.25 an hour). As it happens, Wal-Mart had laid out plans to open six stories there, creating an estimated 1,800 much-needed jobs in the area (the unemployment rate in D.C. is at 8.3% as of May 2013). In response, Wal-Mart (WMT) struck back with force, publishing an op-ed in The Washington Post stating that it would put the brakes on three of its planned DC stores and reevaluate whether it should go forward with three locations already under construction. The retailer is a seasoned warrior when it comes to wage battles, and it was able to beat back similar living wage efforts in Chicago back in 2006. And there are plenty of signs that taking the offensive will pay off once again, as D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray presently weighs whether or not to veto the bill.

Now, with the recent issue with the pay budget software from McDonalds ( Link ) We find ourselves with yet another issue.

You can now count Home depot as well as a few other companies in the Dc Area are complaining and claiming foul too. But get this, Safeway and Giant the grocery stores in the area are exempt from the bill.

So from about 7.25 to 12.50 if you work in DC, which makes sense if you live in DC since the cost of living compared to the wage of pay is normally drastically different and normally not in the favor of the worker. I feel that maybe this is a good stone to use as a step upwards to give ALL WORKERS in the US 12.50 an hour, maybe we would see a rise in the economy for a change if you paid people a wage they can actually live and save off of.

The work and wage concept has been flawed in this world since it's conception in my opinion, since what you are really doing as an employee of that company is making someone's pockets and ego get bigger, might as well even things out some. Since without the workers the companies wouldn't be who they are.

What says you?

If you just wave the wand of Government regulation and deem everyone to have $12.50 an hour come morning? The term to find balance after that, in economic terms, is inflation. The price index will rise and quickly, to balance to new flow of money chasing the same amount of goods as they were today.

It's why, no matter how many times or by how much they raise min. wage? The rush of goodness never lasts long and the prices for everyone who wasn't already sitting that low to get a boost ..only get higher.

It's a nice thought on paper and a great idea to chase...but doesn't work in the real world, IMO.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Of course you have Inflation, but you know what Inflation is really?

It's the places that make money off the people, making it so that the people never actually got a pay raise and really that's illegal if you think about it and should be a crime like Price gouging.

A company who raises their prices after a said wage increase, should be charged with the crime of Anti Prosperity or a Monopoly.

Originally posted by Tranceopticalinclined
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Of course you have Inflation, but you know what Inflation is really?

It's the places that make money off the people, making it so that the people never actually got a pay raise and really that's illegal if you think about it and should be a crime like Price gouging.

A company who raises their prices after a said wage increase, should be charged with the crime of Anti Prosperity or a Monopoly.

edit on 19-7-2013 by Tranceopticalinclined because: (no reason given)

Anti-prosperity....... Gotta love progressive fascist labels. I good starting point for all you progressives with grand ideas would be to look back into history. This is not the first time around for grand ideas for the people and you wanna know what it leads to...........fascism.

reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined



This problem could be mitigated some if companies were willing to accept lower profit margins or those recieving mega-salaries had them reduced, thus freeing up money for us lower-end folk to have more cash and spending power. But, this isn't what happens and there is an eventual return to status quo, as Wrabbit2000 points out, after an increase of the minimum wage. While I find it morally the right thing, I have a hard time arguing against someone who refuses to accept a less profitable company or a reduction in salary? I mean, who in the hell would? I'm on the fence on this one....

reply to post by SubTruth


The problem with progress is that it's always called something else. Good ideas are normally derailed by past historical events that went wrong. But I will point out a world where people actually give a damn about one another and want to make sure people get their fair piece of life. If you work for a company and that company isn't in the red each quarter then why aren't the workers having a good pay?

Think about this, why am I a fascist for suggesting that people actually get paid a wage that can afford a place to live, a car to drive, clothes to wear, food to eat without being on food stamps, and ability to give your kids the things they need in order to live life and grow. Why am I a fascist for wanting a better life for people while I know damn well the owners of those companies, the CEOs, and the secretaries of those CEOs get more money than their workers at any of their stores will ever see in their life, while most struggle with some sort of financial hardship.

History called, it wants you back. Remember, It's called History for a reason, because it's in the past for a reason as well, since we moved on to other things.

Without your workers, your company is just an IDEA!

reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined


You know, if Wal Mart had been stopped dead it in tracks the first time it tried to hold jobs and the economy hostage for it's profits, we would not have this problem.

I'm a bit on the fence about minimum wage legislation because I do know it effects smaller businesses and can sometimes be very bad for them.

For a large multi-national like Wal Mart though..yeah, it's appropriate. They don't even offer them retirement or benefits. Might as well make the minimum you can to live on.

~Tenth

reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined


I don't see it so much a conspiracy with inflation, as I do a bedrock law of economics. Like gravity in physics. It's not just a city or state where min. wage rises that you can see this. Ever played an MMOPRG with a complex and sophisticated model running the 'virtual world'? Everquest II is one as is Anarchy Online but I think Final Fantasy XI is the one I saw that was the most realistic in responding to pressures and events in the "game world" in that same, almost 'spooky' way the real markets do sometimes.

When the Chinese credit miners arrived to really start hammering the named mobs and rare ores to make a literal real world business out of flooding the game economy, prices on everything changed as money supply changed. It's amazing to watch in a small scale like that for how it really behaves just like the full size one in some many ways.

* My knowledge isn't from video games, of course, but given how sophisticated they are these days? They make excellent examples of the point at times.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Absolutely true, which is why instead of just increasing the wages and solving things for about a few months while ruining so many people in many ways. We work on a means to improve the way people are paid in the day and age and maybe even the way we work. Understood, it's a extremely huge issue to tackle and not one that can be taken offline and brought back up when ready. Bit by small bit a change for the people needs to take place. Or we will end up in a world where the majority works just to eat and the rich keep employing their kin as the majority's bosses.

Let's look at things this way. A little break down.
You goto school from grade K to 12
Then if you're lucky and able to either get a co-signing for a loan, or have the money You get to goto college,
Or you can goto a community college and learn what is available.
Then if you can, you find intern work, entry level, or start ups ( either you find or make )
( you have spent how much to get here? If you have a family by now a lot )
Even if you played it ( Mr/Miss Prepared ) you're going to have a good amount of over head achieving any of this, and the more you are in debt by this time, the harder it is to equalize that amount in the future.

Most go from H.S. and a College of sorts, and search for work that pays a living salary, but end up with an hourly wage. It's a growing issue, as the salaries aren't everywhere they used to be, since the work isn't everywhere it used to be.

I've always seen an issue about wages even from a younger age.
It's been a issue of the higher up in a company you get, the more you get paid and the less work you actually do. Which some may see as a seniority thing, but it's a waste if you think about it. Less work should equal less pay, more work should equal more pay, regardless of what variables are placed on this model to argue otherwise is to lose money.

The bleeding of the Economic system could very well be the over paying of the less working.
Since if you have enough to begin with and then don't at the end, something is very wrong in the middle.

In many ways, I understand that without the motivation of earning a higher amount than the average that the system of things may break. But at the same time, a dwindling source of capital for the majority should also result in a increasing number of variables from working them just then same if not harder.

While the gap divides further, the cracks are easier to see by all and more action or lack there of can take place, a failure of the system could result in the lack of proper pay through added stresses of living costs.

I do Like the MMORPG concept, and have seen the same thing, but also shouldn't make it right, it's a system that was created by a few but implemented by many, meaning it seem's to be rigged like a casino. I am sure I cannot be the only one to see a huge flaw in the system of pay for everyone. We have steadily decreased the work for pay model and buy per quality concept of old, while pay increases the cost of living does as well which is how inflation works, but a unregulated understanding thats allowing this model to continue would mean to foresee a world where people are paid a small fraction of what things costs, since inflation has passed the majority and reached the minority of the rich.

Originally posted by Tranceopticalinclined
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Of course you have Inflation, but you know what Inflation is really?

It's the places that make money off the people, making it so that the people never actually got a pay raise and really that's illegal if you think about it and should be a crime like Price gouging.

A company who raises their prices after a said wage increase, should be charged with the crime of Anti Prosperity or a Monopoly.

edit on 19-7-2013 by Tranceopticalinclined because: (no reason given)

The problem is that it isn't the companies trying to screw people. You still have a limited amount of resources. SO, the price goes up to keep the supply in check so that resources don't run out or get redirected away from vital uses.

Nearly a century of minimum wage studies show that for every 10% increase in the minimum wage there is a .1% increase in unemployment. There is also an increase of inflation. The down side is that the increase in unemployment effects mainly the young and the rural. It doesn't effect the lady married to the college football coach that works part time to finance her clothing habit. It takes kids that need the experience for future jobs out of the market. In turn it makes it harder for them to find jobs as they age because they have no work experience.

Yeah jack the minimum wage up to $12.50. You could expect to see a rise of nearly .67% in unemployment. It would come directly from those American's that such laws claim to help.

Don't forget the resulting raise in wages for people already making more than the minimum wage. If you start paying the bag boy $12.50 do you think that suddenly the cashier will want to make the same as him? No, they will still want their differential. So, now they have to be paid $13.25 an hour. Do you think the manager that makes $13.25 is going to want to make what the cashier is making? Nope, they are going to want to be compensated for the responsibility of their role. So, now the manager wants $18.25. How is the grocery store going to make up for the new expenses? They are going to raise prices.

Inflation comes from the very process. It is embedded into the fabric of the legislation.

reply to post by MikeNice81


The Same could be argued that inflation will happen with or without the minimum wage increase. Since people will always make more than others, eventually since in economics much like life one thing events everything else, those other people making more than everyone else will raise the prices of most of the basic items we the people who didn't get a pay increase have to still pay for with our unchanged pockets.

After a while of this, if balance isn't struck you have people who have more driving up prices for people who made the same, this is half the reason the middle class isn't as big as it is, and credit or it's concept helped since it gave people this false sense they could borrow money days before they had it, creating many other negative aspects of things, such as people paying more for things than others, knowingly and unknowingly.

I understand how economics works, but what I am not sure that is being seen by others here is that, it's not a sustainable system, just because it's working now doesn't mean it's future is secure, and that's what I am addressing, we can already see parts of this system quake.

BTW: Awesome input guys, It's nice when it stays awesome and ideas and mindsets can properly be expressed.


Thank you

reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined

It's been a issue of the higher up in a company you get, the more you get paid and the less work you actually do.

Do you even real life?

I was friends with a record company exec. The guy was one step from the top echelon. He was putting in 18 hour days on the regular. He would often be in meetings for 8 to 10 hours. He was answering to accountants, executives, and the marketing department. He would often have to fly to California, New York, or Miami for 5 or six days at a time. At one point he was home with his family two days out of fourty-five.

I've had the opportunity to sit and observe top level guys from large companies, small companies, and even police departments. If you think that being on top of the managerial heap means you're not doing anything, you've never been in a position of real responsibility or you've been around a lot of bad leaders.

Maybe you don't understand the amount of mental work that goes in to synthesizing the reports from various departments and creating a goal and plan of action. They may not be laboring as physically as those on the bottom, but their mind and body still take a beating. I've watched a police chief spend hours going over analytical data and trying to devise deployment schedules, then turn around and have to meet with "concerned parties" about community relations, have to make a decision about the venue for an award ceremony, then get up and go meet with the budget office about why he couldn't deploy people in a hot spot because of "over time concerns," and then finish his day trying to figure out how he would tell his officers they couldn't get needed safety equipment because the big bean counters wanted to cut their budget by 20%.

He didn't work in the same way as a patrolman, but he worked just as hard and went home just as tired and burnt out.

ETA:
People could ask, "why does he deserve 350% more than the starting pay for patrolman, and a car?" His officers don't though. Nobody that has been there to see what he does ever asks a question. Thy know he earns that money because he does what it takes to keep his department running at it's best."

reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined


When the government decides how much wages are and forces companies to pay them this is fascism. And history has shown it does not work. What will happen is the more control the government gets the more the system will crumble.



If you really want change for the common man we need to follow the plan laid out by our founding fathers. They understood all to well what happens when banks and industry mix with the government. Progressives will push till they are blue in the face for more government control over everything. They are not for the common man. It is time to see the cold hard truths.



A good way to see this in real time is the PIG countries. Look how the progressive dream is working over there. It will fail and it will fail in a epic way.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Why would I respond to a statement, that you and I both know the answer to.

At the same time, look around in this thread, and read my posts. Maybe you can understand what I am saying through all the yelling and screaming inside your mind.

People deserve to be treated fairly, and if you want them to be able to share their innovations and ideas with the world as well, we need to fix the system and allow the public a better platform to share their innovations and ideas on.

Right now, most are working to stay alive, I dunno about you, but I was born the same as other humans, so why am I being treated any differently now? We all deserve a fair shot to communicate with our goals and dreams, and most cannot even begin to think about that part if they are struggling to make ends meet.

You tell me of Record Exces and Police chiefs, and I tell you look at the people on the lower end of that totem pole, how hard do they work and how much are they compensated? The jobs are still needed, the tasks sttill need to be preformed, and the work is there to be done regardless of who is doing it, but if it's not done the company will die, That's that unfair aspect I want addressed, you can call me whatever you want now...

reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined


You said they do less work. They don't, they do a different type of work that actually keeps things running for those on the bottom. There is this long running thread of resentment against upper management across the country. For some reason they believe those higher up do nothing, or nothing of importance. That is simply a fallacy.

I have worked my way from nothing to having my dream job. I realized I didn't enjoy it and while I made a decent living, I wasn't living. I now do something much different, and love it. I have less prestige and less financial opportunity, but I love my life. I've worked at everything from hanging sheet rock and scrubbing toilets to recording albums and being a sales manager.

I've witnessed a homeless man with $3 and 3 cigarettes become the head of a production company. I've witnessed a man that never graduated high school become a job site foreman and make $25 an hour. This idea that people can't make it is utter garbage. It isn't easy, but nothing is. People can come to the full realization of their being if they put in the work and the effort. The CEO is putting in 80 hours a week. When you get in to the stratosphere where you make the magical sum liberals believe will make everything roses, you're putting in 50 hours a week on average. You don't have time to search for self realization.

It does take the lowest guy on the totem pole. The guy scrubbing the toilet is important. He keeps the morale up for every one else. A good secretary is a blessing for any company. However, without good leadership, they are all jobless. The assembly line worker gives the CEO a product to sell, but the CEO gives the worker a product to build. The thing is, there are less people capable of being good CEOs. So, with the basics of economics, they make more. Rarer resources always generate higher prices in an open and free market place. I can find 50 janitors easier than I can find 50 accountants, and I can find 50 accountants easier than I can find 5 quality executives. Therefore I pay the executives more money.

Nobody is forced to take part in the system. You can be a subsistence farmer if it makes you happy. You can be a lumberjack, you can get out there and do a million things, and you can decide your fate. It isn't as easy as it use to be, but it isn't impossible.



This guy did it. He went through foreclosure and many other problems. However, he did it and no he does what he loves and makes enough money to have moved in to his dream neighborhood. He is becoming the fullest realization of himself instead of crying for someone else to make it happen. Shift the paradigm if you don't like it.

I don't agree with our system. I think fractional reserve banking is a burden on man kind. I think that a lot of our economic system is screwed. I also know that looking to the government that ruined it to fix it is pointless. I meant no disrespect in my last post, I had the same thoughts as a young man. I grew out of them through experience and observation. IF you want to become the fullest and most actualized version of yourself, it will take pain and hardship. It will mean suffering through the system to break the system. You can not rely on the system to change for you. You must find the new path that works for you and act as a guide to others.