D.C. Council votes to Force Walmart to pay "living wage"--50% over minimum wage.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

D.C. lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill requiring some large retailers to pay their employees a 50 percent premium over the city’s minimum wage, a day after Wal-Mart warned that the law would jeopardize its plans in the city.

The retail giant had linked the future of at least three planned stores in the District to the proposal. But its ultimatum did not change any legislators’ minds. The 8 to 5 roll call matched the outcome of an earlier vote on the matter, taken before Wal-Mart’s warning.

articles.washingtonpost.com...

Forget supply and demand. Typical childish thinking from Usual Suspects. Some jobs that require little skills or knowledge simply aren't worth even minimum wage. No one should expect to be able to live independently on minimum wage jobs. Without incentive, motivation, our society will be more screwed than it is.

So, you'd be FINE with a company paying say socks? Boxes of Jell-O? You all for the Company Store? The Company Bank that you MUST use and are forced to buy "shares" of as part of employment?

You realize that the min wage requirement attempts to keep the few from getting over on the many?

Really.

Derek

Sometimes I can't help but wonder if the world is going to be vaporized by a neutron star or something, and it's being kept a secret from everyone but a few select, ridiculously wealthy families because they're acting like there is no tomorrow regarding the rape of the environment, rape by the banks of entire country's economies, etcetera.......

It's madness, and ya know what?, tomorrow will come eventually, and it will be realized who actually, literally puts the damned food on the table and gets up to their elbows in everything else while producing what EVERYONE needs.

Not so long ago there were laws written to control the size of monopolies, but now they call themselves by another name, so those laws somehow don't apply, does anyone notice?, apparently not.

Not long ago there were laws written to protect workers from unscrupulous employers, I mean they actually had to write a law requiring them to pay you at all, and not dock wages and penalize for certain things that happen which the employer is ultimately responsible for, no worries, now you're employed by proxy through some hokey employment agency that buffers everyone but you!.

Unions?, goes without saying, I have had a few union jobs and they were the best ones I ever had compared to the BS going on out there with will to work/right to work laws out there now, and terribly low starting wages where I nearly went bankrupt proving myself to them before I got compensated, and then only fairly, never well....

I used to be able to get by, and found jobs outside the cities pay better, but still not well enough to get by, what happened?.

I went to college on the G.I. Bill, thankfully, because the job I was qualified for was gone by the time I graduated. I had a wife and 3 kids so relocating for a measly $6.00hr more wasn't worth it when the expenses of relocating were tallied.

Oh, and before I waste more time rambling on about this, please take note!.

You must live BELOW your means, or all you do is break even and stay stuck in a rut, when some of you get older you might realize that.

There is probably going to be another war, that always distracts most people, gets everyone who can work to work, and generates the need for credit to produce war material to fight, the banks love it!.

War fixes everything, but believe me, you really don't want to go there because there is going to come a time when it is realized the war can be ended by destroying a country's ability to provide logistical support, and that means we die here at home.

Anyway, Whatever.....

reply to post by Gazrok


What is wrong with setting a precedent for treating people fairly, even those that many deem unworthy? Are they not the one who need the most protection?

How about a law preventing businesses from taking advantage of people, it is still we the people, right?

reply to post by Tazkven


I've already explained in the very first page of this thread that the very government entity that is forcing a private business to pay their employees a min wage (that is ABOVE the one set by law) that the government itself doesn't do. There are right now DC city employees making less than $10 an hour. There are other private businesses (Retail) right now in DC paying their employees the law mandated min wage of 8.25.

Why are you not screaming about this but only angry about 1 business? Oh the the employees making min 8.25 an hour also have union dues removed from that pay that Walmart employees don't have to.

reply to post by Tazkven


Dude, I don't mean to rock the boat, but the term "Capitalism" literally means to take advantage of.......

Currently most Businesses somehow figure that they can make a killing literally overnight, when in the past people knew they were built over time. Once people get tired enough of being taken advantage of things may change.

More of the people who have the least and do the most work will have to agree on a common cause before it's too late.

It's about to get really bad here...

reply to post by Tazkven

When Amerrikka was a real live republic, that was how it worked for awhile.

When Amerrikka was a real live republic, that was how it worked for awhile.

reply to post by Carreau


Look over my post history or even posts in this thread ... I scream about them all my friend.

reply to post by Tazkven


I just read every post in this thread by you all 2 pages worth and there wasn't a single sentence about the min wage union employees of other businesses in DC or anything about DC city employees making less than the Walmart mandate of 12.50. If you posted something about this in another thread by all means post it here and now.

Otherwise your a hypocrite and unworthy of continued debate.

Originally posted by Garkiniss

Originally posted by Gazrok
Whether evil or not, you can't just arbitrarily make laws that target one group or business. And that is for a good REASON..... This is a very slippery and dangerous slope to start down....

Wrong. When that business or group's actions are at the expense of the American economy, or worse, the American people themselves, then yeah... they need some rules to keep them in check. Both the Government and the corporation are slaves to the people, not the other way around.

Actually, government is a slave to both people and corporations.

Technically, corporations are people too.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by seagull
Many of you don't seem to realize, or are ignoring...

Minimum wage is a starting point at most, maybe even all, jobs. Starting. It goes up from there, if you can be bothered to stick around.

Stick around you say? That requires work ethic, character and the ability to see something through, day after day in doing something the vast majority of people don't want to do and need to be paid to do.

That's yucky stuff there. Earn a higher wage? EARN a higher standard of living? What? You hate poor people or something? They must have all that with a path to a corner office by the end of their first month or 2nd, at the VERY latest or it's off to churn into another job that better appreciates their....umm...ability to stand upright, I guess.

S&F. Excellent point.

Yes, I agree, people should earn their way in this world, not have it handed to them on a silver platter. Those who get everything handed to them and never have to earn it never once learn to appreciate what they have.

In my life I have gotten to the top and fell back to the bottom again, and the day I cant earn another place at the top is the day I just gave up and quit..... and I am no quitter!

Quitters never gain anything.... and they never experience life to its fullest.

And to the people who say you have to spend over a thousand dollars a month in rent etc... I pay 400 for a 1 bedroom all utilities paid. No, its not government subsidized, and no, its not the taj mahal.... but its mine and I have certainly seen worse... and its not going to be forever either because I will earn my way in this world to gain something better....

Originally posted by FuZe7

Technically, corporations are people too.

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Originally posted by Tazkven
reply to post by Gazrok

 

What is wrong with setting a precedent for treating people fairly, even those that many deem unworthy? Are they not the one who need the most protection?

How about a law preventing businesses from taking advantage of people, it is still we the people, right?

I believe that Gazrok is pointing out that this law is the opposite of what you request.

This law is not 'we the people', it is 'we the select of the moment'.

I don't think this thread would exist if the law was blanket across the board.

For whatever reason, the government has deemed Walmart the unworthy of today. Who will be the unworthy of tomorrow? You...me?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Garkiniss
"Better Themselves." And how much "Better" is the CEO of a corporation than his average floor worker? I'd like you to put a dollar percentage amount on what you believe that difference is. I'm curious how much "better" you tell yourself these people are.

Don't be obtuse. You knew EXACTLY what I was saying. People need to make themselves more marketable. They need to gain skills. They need to get an education. They need to learn a trade. They need to 'better themselves' ... which is a saying meaning 'make themselves more marketable'.

A CEO of a corporation is much more valuable to a company than a cashier. The CEO is educated and makes money decisions. A CEO understands supply and demand and determines what products the company should and shouldn't carry. A CEO hires the correct people for the different decision making positions within the company and is responsible to the stock holders to make a profit. A CEO takes the company in the direction he/she thinks it should go in order to make a profit. Whereas ... a cashier can be hired off the street. Just about anyone who is 16 years old or older can be a cashier. It requires no special training. It requires no special education. It has very little responsibility.

Higher paychecks go to those with stronger skill sets. Lower paychecks go to those in positions that are easily filled with skill-less people.

Companies don't employ people unless they NEED them.

Cashiers are important to the company which is why it employs them, and although the cashier may not be educated, will work just as hard as a CEO, it's just a different and less responsible role.

The whole point of going out and getting any job is to EARN A LIVING, and all people want in return for hard work is to be paid enough to provide. Just because some people aren't very academic doesn't mean they work less hard. If a person goes to work they should be entitled to a fair, living wage.

I think the minimum wage amount should be raised to a 'living wage' and all companies should be forced to pay it, not just Walmart. Less profits for the super-rich companies but so what, they'll still make profits - just a little less. And it's employees won't need to claim top-up hand-outs from the taxpayer purse either because they'll be earning enough to pay their own way, including their fair share of income taxes.

Company makes vast profits and pays a living wage = workers get off benefits and pay their own way = welfare spending is reduced considerably = everyone gains.

Could someone please tell me the amount of money a "living wage' is? Is it the same amount for everyone? everywhere? And while we are at it......

How much is a "fair share"?

People sure at charitable with other people's money aren't they?

Originally posted by peck420

For whatever reason, the government has deemed Walmart the unworthy of today. Who will be the unworthy of tomorrow? You...me?

The OPs title is misleading. This bill won't just affect Wal-Mart, though their behaviour was the catalyst to the bill being passed in the first place.


reply to post by Carreau


liv·ing wage

(Noun)
A wage that is high enough to maintain a normal standard of living.


I.E.> Rent/Mortgage, utilities, food, fuel, and insurance, while still having enough left over to put towards retirement and your children's future.

reply to post by Domo1


Have you not heard?
They are opening up a new chain.
It's called Obamamart.
Hey The King Rules.

reply to post by Openeye


No kids, just a girlfriend and a cat. I've done the line-item budget thing before and it comes down to food. Where I live the food/consumables are extremely expensive. The groceries here cost about the same as Hawaii.

It's not easy getting ingredients to make dinner for two people. I have to either buy to much of something (and it goes bad) or we eat something out of a can. So, if I choose to buy the stuff to make enchiladas, I end up wasting quite a bit.

One thing I have done recently is buying lean cuisine type meals for lunch at work. I can't justify spending $8-12 on a lunch every day. I'd rather save that for something else.

I've been good at replacing all my bulbs with CF's, and other than my washer/dryer all my appliances are energy star rated for efficiency. In the winter I do have to run a small space heater, but I've been working to mitigate that with better curtains, a new storm door, insulating behind exterior light switches and outlets. My average electric bill is about $80 still. (and I'm a turn off the juice when not in use guy).

I'm lucky I got into my condo when I did with a low interest rate. I pay about the same as I did renting a one bedroom, but now I have two. I also can upgrade things to gain equity over the long term. As it is, I was spending over $800 for a one bedroom with a carport. That's actually really cheap where I live, and it's not a huge city by any means. We probably have 250,000 people here.

I used to get awesome mileage in my Toyota Echo, but it was to small and lacked AWD for where I live. When you get 24" of snow in less than 24 hours and the plows haven't been out, and you HAVE to be at work -- AWD and snow tires are must. So now I drive a Subaru Forester that gets 18mpg in town and about 24 on the highway. I used to get 26 in town and about 33 on the highway.

No debt, I have one credit card with a $300 limit which I keep paid down.

Normally I'm just fine between paychecks, but this one is the longest of the calendar year. The only thing I ask of my GF is that she give me $250 a paycheck to help with food, cleaning supplies/paper towels/toilet paper/shampoo, ect...We usually try to get that stuff at Costco if we can.

I just see that "comfort" zone that I usually have between checks shrinking all the time. As I said, my ability to buy food 3 years ago vs today is quite different. I'm going to the store in a bit, I'll price check a few "staples" to give you guys an idea.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I'm seeing something interesting here. . .

I can almost tell who is older and who is younger. Older people had things much differently than today's youth. They could afford to go back to school on a minimum wage job. Today, someone making minimum wage doesn't have the money OR the time to go back to school. How can you feed yourself if you are going to school and not working? Get a part time job? No one can survive on that.

This wasn't the case when my parents went to college. Sure, you had to have good grades to get in, and you had to study and work hard -- but it was affordable and attainable to people that sought it out.

Older folks just don't understand what today's 20-somethings entering the work force have to look forward to. On the converse, today's youth also don't understand what it means to work hard and climb the ladder to success like their parents did, as it's much harder today.

College is more attainable now than it was then, there is more help from the government in the way of food stamps and rental assistance for those making little to nothing while working themselves through college. In many ways college IS easier now.

I am older, I lost everything and am starting all over again.... I lost everything including my health and my ability to do what I was trained to do.... so now, at a much older age, I am retraining for a different career path and starting once more...

So, with many strikes against me that youth today do not have I am learning a new skill and trying to become gainfully employed... which I am, just at the bottom... but I work twice as hard to prove to everyone I can do it.... and that hiring me was worth it to them and to anyone in the future they would recommend me to.

My work ethic is strong, and my sight far reaching, so while some youth may get ahead of me this time, there are still many that due to work ethic and drive will never come close.

Originally posted by Carreau
Could someone please tell me the amount of money a "living wage' is? Is it the same amount for everyone? everywhere? And while we are at it......

How much is a "fair share"?

People sure at charitable with other people's money aren't they?

Living wage is more than minimum wage.

As long as minimum wage is at such a level where workers still have to claim benefits to live, people who defend such a low amount deserve to keep paying higher and higher taxes in order to provide them with low-income benefits. Yes, they deserve it.

You want working people to continue to earn less than they need to live on, then the snobby high-flying earners will just have to keep paying for it.

The alternative is to force all companies to dip into their vast profits and pay them enough to live on. Less profit is still profit.

Originally posted by Garkiniss
The OPs title is misleading. This bill won't just affect Wal-Mart, though their behaviour was the catalyst to the bill being passed in the first place.

You are about 15 years behind the times if you need it spelled out that Walmart is synonymous with large retail outlet.

Now that that is covered....who is next?

Small retail? Maybe mid size manufacturing?

Where does this end?

The government has created this problem, but refuses to admit it, let alone approach realistic solutions.