Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
I don't shop at Wallmart, but I do shop at its big brother Sams.
I've been seeing the same core faces, except for the checkers and stock boys for years.
Employees seem to break into three categories.
1. The managers (they must pay well, they've been there since the store opened)
2. Retirees (that are there to get out of the house and supplement their income.)
3. Students working part time. (the majority)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
Only the affluent can access a 401k, really? I had started my 401k when I was making under 50 grand. And you can invest in bonds, not stocks
And what is the US median amount in 401ks at present? I suspect it is 20K to 30K. Let's hope the median age is 30 or below.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
It doesn't matter how much you make. What matters is how much you set aside.
After 20 years I have about 200k. You just need to choose wisely in terms of your career path and what they offer you as 'benefits'.
It's a private contract between a skilled worker and an employer willing to grant those 'benefits'.
This is what I don't get about unions. Why do we need them, other than for unfair labor pressure and politics.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
This is what I don't get about unions. Why do we need them, other than for unfair labor pressure and politics. because when there are enough union jobs (which may no longer be the case) they raise everybody's wages.
Even yours.
It's called demand and supply. The inverse of supply and demand which relates to sales price.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
And drive up prices to match so there's no net gain for anyone.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
bluey didn't say anything about prices.
Which will go up for whatever reason wages go up.
Except of course we have continuing productivity improvement. We have more increase in product value than increases in labor cost.
So your claim doesn't really hold.
How much did you pay for a laptop computer 10 years ago and how much did it cost?
I can hear the "it's made in China" scream already.
It doesn't matter where it came from if you're still employed and have a good wage.
What did unions get us?
Mandatory lunch and break times.
Mandatory overtime
5 day work week
Employer provided health insurance
Safer working conditions.
And higher wages.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
"Return on assets is better than return on labor" Jerry Brown.
Wallethuggers always win.
Edit:jobcreatorsince82
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
Wait until the US Dollar is dumped from being the Global Reserve Currency--then we can talk about 3rd world status !
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
There was a very interesting analysis in the Upshot a few days back where they divided income into 11 different increments and asked the question (for each of the groups defined by the increments) in what country would a person in the given group be wealthiest? I suppose if you went back to the 1950s or 60s the US would have won, hands down, in every category. However the table begins in 1980 (think: Ronald Reagan and "trickle-down economics"). Well, back in 1980, a person from every category except for the very poorest 5% would be wealthier living in the US (in 1980 the poorest 5% were wealthier in Norway). Gradually evolving over 30 years, by 2010 the US had lost out in all of the lower 6 increments and at this time the middle (median) class was wealthier in Canada. It's an amazing picture of the absolute failure of the theory of trickle-down economics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/this-simple-table-summarizes-our-story-on-american-living-standards.html
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 9, 2014 - 07:58pm PT
|
Yanqui...thanks for proving my point. Reagan was the devil.
Oh, don't forget a thousand points of light.
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
I can't wait for the uprising of the 99%. I'm getting me some more guns.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
I simply suggest that the wealthy are required to reinvest their money back into society where their wealth springs from in an equitable manner, and in proportion to what they gain from society.
They gain a great deal more from public education for instance. Since most wealthy have or manage large numbers of publicly educated. Educations the wealthy did not have to pay the training fees for. Generally they gain more financial reward from the employees education than the employee does. (or they wouldn't be hiring)
The wealthy and their companies use and gain more from public infrastructure. The wealthy use the civil legal system more.
It would be insane and unfair to destroy the wealthy.. they should reap reward for their intelligent and specialized efforts. I recommend a return to the 50% tax rate for wealthy. That was about the tax rate under Raygun.
I certainly do not suggest the 90% tax rate we had for some decades. (which even then did not destroy the nation)
Other issues remain to be solved. Fixing various "Free Trade" acts that gut reasonable protection against immoral and difficult to compete with production practices around the world.
Bringing back government representation of the public in congress. Don't pretend they work for the people anymore. They need NASCAR suits these days for cristsakes.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
SLR,If I lived where you do ,I would myself.
EDIT;LOL
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 10, 2014 - 12:14am PT
|
I don't know if you've looked at and watched the vast majority (and I mean VAST majority) of Walmart workers, Jim. But, seriously, I wouldn't hire one of them for my company at ANY wage. They are doing well to have a job at all, so this idea that they are so "enslaved" that they can't even find the time to search for that "dream job" is patently ridiculous.
Also, if they are so part-time (more Walmart abuse), then why aren't they spending the other 1/3 to 1/2 of their days training for and finding that dream job?
Sorry, but I find the whole liberal "soft slavery" bit to be demeaning to them and to society at large. Those that CAN do train up and move up. Those that CAN'T (for a host of reasons) are doing well to have a job that requires SO little of them in the way of skills and customer relations.
And I'm with the sentiment expressed upthread about the phrase "living wage" being fundamentally fallacious. The poorest people in this country still have a higher standard of living than the vast, vast majority of people on Earth; AND they have a safety net that the VAST majority of people on Earth cannot even imagine (at taxpayer expense).
Sorry, but I'm not boo-hooing about all this "soft slavery." And that doesn't make me a hard-hearted jerk. I've been there and done that. I was born and raised in the ghetto of the lowest parts of Riverside and San Bernardino. There are actually few people on ST that have been there and done that. For most of you, you're babble liberal theory and peddling "soft sympathy." I know first-hand what I'm talking about; so don't even start to accuse me of not knowing the "plight of the poor."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 10, 2014 - 02:30am PT
|
Your understanding of Walmart workers is poorly informed.
Nope! I've known many, many of them over the years.
The majority of them happen to be single parents, by design, in fact. These are the workers that Walmart wants: too desperate to quit or raise a stink, and too strung out by circumstances to find better employment.
"Too strung out by circumstances..."? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to make that lead balloon fly?
Choices have consequences! Almost without exception, these people chose a lifestyle of immediate gratification, lack of self-discipline, and the "easy" road. When that road turned hard, as ALL intelligent people know it will, these people then started boo-hooing about their "circumstances," and the liberal mind instantly capitulated!
Sorry, but choices have consequences, and you CAN get out of the hood, even as a single-parent, if you CHOOSE to turn from the easy road (that got hard and will be harder) until you crest the hill.
Because they are forced to work limited hours, for sh#t pay, they often work second jobs, to barely support themselves and their kids.
And you know this how? How many have you talked to over time? I have known and talked to MANY over the years. The vast majority are not spending their time as you say.
Many are some manner of government assistance.
Really? Do ya think?
See above paragraphs, where I talk about the consequences of ridiculous, self-serving life-style CHOICES that result in a hard road. Of course, there are always a huge pile of liberal-minded hand-wringers to ensure that these folks don't get to suffer ALL of the consequences of their CHOICES... the very suffering that just might cause them to take another road that gets them OFF of the taxpayer dole!
Perhaps you think these workers spend the other half of their time smoking weed behind the 7-11 like you might have seen in the hood. Likelier that they're at their second jobs flipping burgers, changing the sheets in some grubby motel, or scrubbing toilets in Highlands Ranch.
Again, you know this how? "Likelier" implies odds, which implies some statistical knowledge. I can only report what I HAVE seen... and in almost all cases! There are the rare few that are spending that other half of their time trying to get through community college, and THOSE I would do a LOT to help on their way!
But, yes, for most, lifestyle choices have put them in their position, and they lack the will and self-discipline to take advantage of the MANY government helps on the path to education and upward mobility.
I get it. You grew up poor in a crap neighborhood, surrounded by the lazy and the violent. Big fukking deal.
"Big fukking deal..."???
I did too.
Then you should KNOW better than to spew this liberal drivel. IF you grew up as I did, and saw what I saw, and then found the path OUT, then you KNOW what I'm saying is correct, and you'd have no sympathy for this hand-wringing ridiculouslness!
These are the places broken by unemployment and callous capitalism.
What in the world are you SAYING? I see the words, but I can't for the life of me find the referents to them anywhere in the known universe!
You treat the effect as the cause!
Unemployment in the Inland Empire RESULTS from the horrible lifestyle choices of these immediate-gratification people! They CHOSE an easy path KNOWING that there was a taxpayer safety net, and if they had a SHRED of drive and self-discipline, they would do exactly as I did and avail themselves of the many government programs to get educated and truly productive.
And MANY of them would have it easier than I did! Minorities have all SORTS of grants at the state and federal level that I was not eligible for, being a "privileged white boy" and all. My girlfriend in grad school (part black and part American Indian) was getting a free ride, while I was going into debt.
Unemployment did not break these sectors of society! Unemployment is the RESULT of piles of people CHOOSING to not avail themselves of the help to get OUT that would take just a shred of willpower and self-discipline on their part.
No, FAR easier to just shack up with some other punk or floozy and pump out yet another kid that they can't support. And let's watch with rapt attention what the Kardashians are doing next, rather than to read a book, take a course, or do ANYTHING to improve your mind and/or skills.
Lifestyle choices are often subtle, but they have their effects nevertheless.
And "callous capitalism..."???
Wow, what a ridiculous phrase! Capitalism is the only reason this nation STILL (despite the ever-increasing liberal bent) can still make it AT ALL, and capitalism is the REASON that the inner-city folks have ANY hope at all of bettering their situation.
The only thing "callous" about capitalism is that it DEMANDS productivity and real value. If you don't like that aspect of it, then you really do have causality reversed.
Look at what's happened to detroit, and countless other inner cities where those that could moved out, and those that couldn't became the lazy and violent you deride.
Wow... too much to say, and this is already getting too long. Your causal sense is severely lacking!
So, the collapse of the auto industry MADE so many people lazy? Are you seriously trying to float that?
It's not like there was some SUDDEN moment in time when everything just went poof, and the "poor folks caught up in the problem" suddenly found themselves without any good options.
Let's take auto workers. That same sense of entitlement is what drove Detroit into the ground, while Japan stole a march on the auto industry. You all love unions, but UNIONS did more to bury the auto industry of this country than another other factor.
And those people WERE getting good salaries prior to the collapse! Ever hear of SAVING, people?
What you see again and again are the "ones that could" being the ones that weren't constantly taking the easiest path available to them. Being "trapped" is almost always a function of immediate-gratification lifestyle choices.
Even now, the "poor" that "can't afford" healthcare can SOMEHOW afford their cigarettes, beer, and big-screen TVs.
I shop at Walmart because I always look for the most value for my dollar, and Walmart's prices are usually the best. I am upper-middle class and still upwardly mobile. But I'm there for the prices, and I watch the checkout lines like a hawk. I see the foodstamp people, and I watch what they are buying.
You will NOT get sympathy from ME, when I see the groceries (mostly all crap "food") paid by foodstamps alongside a 46-inch TV paid by credit card.
It's LIFESTYLE choices... and I'm sick of footing the bill for these CHOICES! I've seen it my entire life.
Maybe you think a "living wage" is fallacious.
I think it's all relative and that even the "poorest" in this country CAN live within their means. And, damn it! QUIT popping out yet MORE kids that you have NO HOPE and NO PLAN to support!!!
If I'm expected (in the spirit of being "humane") to support all these kids, then I also get the right to decide who gets to have kids. I cannot be on the hook for unlimited risk, which is EXACTLY what liberals expect of taxpayers!
Now I'm even told by Obama's administration that illegals have the RIGHT to a public education, paid for by, you guessed it, the longsuffering and apparently deep-pocketed taxpayers.
Where is the end of tapping the taxpayer for yet some NEW liberal fantasy???
There HAS to start being some personal responsibility, or we're going bankrupt as a nation. The people that CHOOSE should start REALLY suffering the consequences of their CHOICES and priorities.
And if you're going to float the line, "But the kids didn't choose," thereby attempting to shame me into thinking a BIT more liberal at least toward the "poor kids," you won't. My response will be: Then people MUST stop having kids that they KNOW they cannot support. So, there MUST be laws with TEETH in them to stop the irresponsible breeding habits of these people.
But NOBODY wants that (including me), so the only REAL alternative that truly is FAIR to everybody is to make people suffer the consequences of their choices and priorities. And that means that kids growing up can BLAST their parents for the lifestyle choices that made THEIR lives harder. But they do NOT get to blast the taxpayers.
Like John Wayne said, "Life is hard. It's harder if you're stupid."
Maybe you can explain why the richest country in the history of humanity can justify having (any) full time workers forced to live hand to mouth in abject poverty, ignored by a government that heaps so much on it's wealthiest citizens.
Oh wow... almost all of what you just said is pure, liberal drivel.
First, reread the above paragraphs and see if the idea of individual responsibility and consequences can even begin to get the slightest foothold on the slippery walls of radical liberal thinking. Really TRY!
Then, let's parse your statements bit by bit....
"forced to live hand to mouth...." NOT! They have MANY options open to them, including government-subsidized education. Of course, even today, after decades of liberalism, higher-education remains hard. So, yes, they would have to CHOOSE a hard road. Or, they could just continue to wring their hands and blame "circumstances."
"abject poverty...." NOT! See the above paragraphs. They are on foodstamps and STILL somehow affording a 46-inch TV. A big, flat-screen TV is NOT a RIGHT!!! This is CHOICE, and they are NOT in anything APPROACHING real poverty! Compare their condition to that of 95% of people on this planet and then see if you really can keep a straight face as you say "abject poverty." Give me a BREAK!
"ignored by a government...." NOT! There are COUNTLESS programs to help these people up and out. Of course, ALL of them do require a lifestyle and priorities change... and THAT is what is really ignored!
"a government that heaps so much on it's wealthiest citizens...." NOT! The taxation data simply does not bear this claim out in the slightest!
You liberals actually think that wealth redistribution is the answer, but we have decades of data proving that as you increase the tax rate, you actually reduce taxes paid. And if you want to REALLY "level the playing field" to utterly avoid all possible loopholes, then CHOOSE a flat tax.
A flat tax would ELIMINATE all of the whining about the "classes" because EVERYBODY would be contributing at the exact same RATE!
The IRS could virtually go away. The "rich" would pay much more in real dollars. And the "poor" would start actually contributing at the same RATE.
Oh, but you liberals wouldn't want the "poor" to have to contribute ANYTHING, and the "poor downtrodden masses" would vote en mass to reject this OBVIOUSLY FAIR proposal.
So, loopholes and exemptions would spring up for the "poor," and the next thing you know, we would not have a FLAT tax at all!
At that point, just as is their RIGHT as citizens, OF COURSE the wealthier people are going to try to get THEIR loopholes and exemptions as well. And why shouldn't they? On what basis is it "wrong" for them to try the play the SAME GAME that the "poor" want to play?
Look, FLAT TAX or shut up!
I'm SO sick of the liberal whining about how "downtrodden" these people are. They live in a society with the widest and best slate of opportunities to better themselves in human history. Let them pay the price of will to take advantage of their opportunities.
|
|
MVDF
climber
Oakland
|
|
|
May 10, 2014 - 03:01am PT
|
Trust me, coming from one of those "third world" countries- the US is nowhere near being one.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
May 10, 2014 - 03:04am PT
|
John L...Making minimum wage is working in lock step with no chance of getting a raise...personally i would prefer working for a union that pays a living wage.....better yet , i'd rather be the CEO who reaps the benefits of his minimum wage workers hard labor while doing dick...
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
May 10, 2014 - 03:30am PT
|
Great post climbski2..
I simply suggest that the wealthy are required to reinvest their money back into society where their wealth springs from in an equitable manner, and in proportion to what they gain from society.
They gain a great deal more from public education for instance. Since most wealthy have or manage large numbers of publicly educated. Educations the wealthy did not have to pay the training fees for. Generally they gain more financial reward from the employees education than the employee does. (or they wouldn't be hiring)
The wealthy and their companies use and gain more from public infrastructure. The wealthy use the civil legal system more.
It would be insane and unfair to destroy the wealthy.. they should reap reward for their intelligent and specialized efforts. I recommend a return to the 50% tax rate for wealthy. That was about the tax rate under Raygun.
I certainly do not suggest the 90% tax rate we had for some decades. (which even then did not destroy the nation)
read the above madbolter…
Look, FLAT TAX or shut up!
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
|
May 10, 2014 - 04:29am PT
|
Sorry, but I find the whole liberal "soft slavery" bit to be demeaning to them and to society at large. Those that CAN do train up and move up. Those that CAN'T (for a host of reasons) are doing well to have a job that requires SO little of them in the way of skills and customer relations.
I tend to agree. We all make choices, and live the consequences of those choices.
I spent my high school years in the public libraty instead of on the street smoking cigarettes and being "cool." I went to an inexpensive state college (San Jose State) and got a college degree. I put in a total of 15 years of college by working and saving and work some more. (I'm still paying over $1,000 per month on my student loans, more than a decade after leaving school.)
Now I have young punks who dropped out of high school and got their GED, who are demanding to make the income that I make because they're entitled to it. They demand the same lifestyle as me, and they never even finished high school. When I tell them to work hard and study, they go back to asking their dad for money and playing video games on the computer all day and all night.
My wife's sister was commuting 45 minutes every day to work a dead-end, minimum-wage job, supporting two kids. She put herself through college while working and taking care of two small children, got a B.A. degree, and now makes a good, secure living.
I think that's important to reduce the gap between the richest and the poorest, but we should never lose sight of the fact that poor people are poor because of poor choices - primarily poor choices of their poor parents, that sent them down the path of poverty even before they had learned to speak.
And it's important to remember that I got so far along in life because I worked hard and because I'm a white guy and because my parents valued education and discipline.
Capitalism is the only reason this nation can STILL make it AT ALL
Foolish boy. Capitalism may have been good at some time in the past... But now it is destroying this country. It's ruining everything. It's ruining out lifestyles, our mental health, our jobs, our medical care, our environment, our happiness, everything. Capitalism has completely ruined the health care system in this country
The only "good" thing about capitalism is that it's making the 1% even richer.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
May 10, 2014 - 06:37am PT
|
I'm only on the first page so far, ok?
I read about the health report. Scary and interesting reading, if I'd been American. Thought to myself, 'another report which will be buried and no one cares about. Too many who will never hear about it, and those who do, they have pretty much given up. They don't believe in their democracy anymore.'
But laughed at the last sentence. The possible wake-up call. Maybe the right bell to ring.
We don't like to lose to Europe.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!