freeman2 wrote:oh yeah, we should just love Walmart. They don't innovate, they haven't come up with products that make our lives better. All they do is shake down workers by virtue of their bargaining power to pay them less, use Chinese suppliers (who pay their workers very little), and they give part of that savings to consumers and the rest they pocket themselves.
Because large businesses can use their bargaining power to artificially lower wages I am most concerned about them. I don't believe that you would have wages paying beneath the poverty line but for powerful corporations dictating that. So, yeah, I would not mind if small employers (say under 10, maybe 25) got an exemption from the minimum wage so that maybe small employers paid $9 an hour and large employers paid $12 an hour.

Do you shop at Walmart? I try not to myself, but the stores are limited in the small town I have. You are making that choice.

I do not agree that a worker should be allowed to be exploited in a small business, but not in a larger one. That is discrimination, and I am surprised that you would support that.

Even though when you take into account the reality of a lot of people's work contracts etc, it becomes true for them?

What contract are you talking about? The one that they agreed to?

The point is that a worker is not very likely to be exploited when there are many small companies competing each other, Brad. But a small number of large corporations dominating a certain market sector can dictate wages. A small business exploiting workers would find that the workers would leave and go somewhere else. That is not true when the worker's only alternative is go to work for another large corporation also paying low wages.
And I don't shop at Walmart. I realize that in a small town a consumer would not have much of a choice. And I certainly would not fault someone for getting cheaper goods at Walmart (especially if money is tight).

bbauska wrote:What contract are you talking about? The one that they agreed to?

Yes. But it may not be a perfect free choice - if you need work and the only jobs on offer are zero hours, should you stay on the dole because you don't like those contracts?

freeman2 wrote:The point is that a worker is not very likely to be exploited when there are many small companies competing each other, Brad. But a small number of large corporations dominating a certain market sector can dictate wages. A small business exploiting workers would find that the workers would leave and go somewhere else. That is not true when the worker's only alternative is go to work for another large corporation also paying low wages.
And I don't shop at Walmart. I realize that in a small town a consumer would not have much of a choice. And I certainly would not fault someone for getting cheaper goods at Walmart (especially if money is tight).

That's not been my experience. Many small companies can be even more exploitive; in addition, they often ignore basic payroll protections and employee safety. They often operate on tiny margins and don't even know many labor regulations. The notion that small business is good for people and bad business is bad for people is a popular Hollywood theme, but often not true in reality.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:What contract are you talking about? The one that they agreed to?

Yes. But it may not be a perfect free choice - if you need work and the only jobs on offer are zero hours, should you stay on the dole because you don't like those contracts?

It's never "perfect". We strive for better than the alternative.

Point being that it's all very well saying that employees have a choice to sign a contract, but what are the alternatives for them at the time. If it was a choice between two different types of contract, that would be a real choice. If it is between a job with a poor contract or no job, it is less of a free choice (and if no job is the better alternative, no wonder there are lots of complaints about indigency)

We should improve things. Perhaps we could start by having stronger employment rights laws?

bbauska

We have proven that 1 person (a person?) working 40 hours at Walmart will get (QUOTING RAY JAY):
For a household of 1 it is $1,211 per month. If you work 40 hours per week X 4.33 weeks per month, at $7.25 per hour you are at $1,255

.

Here'e the reality bbauska. Because of scheduling by Walmart, and the fact that you are "full-time" at WalMArt if you work 28 hours a week....

employees on average take home pay of under $250 a week. The salary for full-time employees (called "associates") is $6 to $7.50 an hour for 28-40 hours a week, which is typical in the discount retail industry. This pay scale places employees with families below the poverty line, with the majority of employees' children qualifying for free lunch at school. When closely examined, this amounts to a form of corporate welfare, as the taxpayer subsidizes the low salaries. One-third are part-time employees - limited to less than 28 hours of work per week - and are not eligible for benefits.

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html

and again, Ricky is railing on Walmart and Walmart only. but he wants us to believe ...what?

I guess I was talking about the capitalistic utopia when there are many small companies competing each other and they will compete for a worker's labor rather than the real world. Of course, large companies are better with complying with all of the regulations that they are required to deal with. But the point is that small companies do not have the power to dictate wages. We have been talking here about workers not making enough to get by. It is one thing to say that workers are not making enough because that is what their worth is on the market. But it is quite another thing when workers are not making enough due to distortions to the market caused by the bargaining power of a market participant (Walmart).

Surprise, but I look at it differently. The distortions are being caused by the government interventions into the market. Walmart is following the government rules and regulations. There has been no evidence pointing otherwise.

Minimum wage: Set by government
ACA hours for health insurance: Set by government

So if the government sets a low limit for hours to be a non-health care employee, and sets minimum wage; we must not be surprised that the rules are being followed.

As I have said before, if the rules are not what are wanted; then change the rules legally. (Just like the Constitution and Amendment process)

And yet, going back to the original topic, it seemed you were reluctant to explain which rules might need changing to disability.

Given that some have already suggested rule changes (increased min wage, different ACA hours limits, changes to employment laws) I don't believe your post is as insightful or incisive as you may think it is.

I do not think my post is the end all of the discussion. Just a point.

But a rather redundant one. I think that I can safely say that Freeman, Ricky and I would support legislative change of the rules to address the problems we see with wages being low enough that people are on food stamps.

Just as RJ and I would support changes to the rules and practices to deal with the problem highlighted at the start of the thread on disability. I've no idea what rules Tom or you would change (so far it's more about enforcement of the existing ones), but DF would seem to have an idea.

So I think we all already accept that if we want changes, it will likely mean changing the rules. And before you do that, what better than to discuss them openly and lobby for politicians to take up the baton, or try to convince people to support such moves?

Gosh - that's politics and political debate. So, umm, obvious.