large companies that pay low wages

Explore the business, economy, finance and trade aspects of human society.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

large companies that pay low wages

#1  Postby HAJiME » Dec 01, 2010 11:25 pm

I was just watching this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubqZNb_U ... r_embedded

And I just... don't understand? People attack WalMart for similar reasons.

I feel like people are expecting these big companies to behave like charities? Why? If they behaved like Charities, they wouldn't be big companies.

Am I missing something?

I've worked on minimum wage. Yes it's shit, but all the while people are unemployed and need jobs, can we really expect them to give anything but the bare minimum?
User avatar
HAJiME
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Joseph
Posts: 582
Age: 32
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: large companies that pay low wages

#2  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Dec 01, 2010 11:43 pm

I agree however I believe in a minimum wage from preventing companies taking advantage of upturns in unemployment. There should always be a standard to work from.
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12686
Age: 53
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#3  Postby AlohaChris » Dec 01, 2010 11:47 pm

Wal-Mart would pay less than they do, but it's illegal.
"Supernatural divinities are the primitive's answer for why the sun goes down at night."
- Cavil of Cylon
User avatar
AlohaChris
RS Donator
 
Name: Chris
Posts: 4453
Age: 50
Male

Country: Uhmerikah
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#4  Postby gleniedee » Dec 01, 2010 11:56 pm

I feel like people are expecting these big companies to behave like charities? Why? If they behaved like Charities, they wouldn't be big companies.


False dichotomy,with a false conclusion and implication;

Big business is amoral,they will pay workers a little as possible to maximise profits. That' why so many major companies have moved to underdeveloped countries. There is a huge difference between paying a living wage and "acting like a charity'"

Business has always used (and still does) the same argument to resit any changes in the worker's favour.Those changes included child labor laws,workman's compensation, the 40 hour week,equal pay for women and,even now any wage increases whatsoever.

The argument is demonstrably fallacious.Efficient businesses usually survives. Nor do I accept that any business should survive only through exploiting its workers.

I have no problem with any large corporation going broke.Such organisations are another boil on the arse of the body civil. (along with such things as organised religion and patriotism)


Am I missing something?


Nah,only the entire point. :coffee:
gleniedee
 
Name: glen dee
Posts: 575
Age: 73
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#5  Postby HAJiME » Dec 02, 2010 12:04 am

gleniedee wrote:
I feel like people are expecting these big companies to behave like charities? Why? If they behaved like Charities, they wouldn't be big companies.


False dichotomy,with a false conclusion and implication;

Big business is amoral,they will pay workers a little as possible to maximise profits. That' why so many major companies have moved to underdeveloped countries. There is a huge difference between paying a living wage and "acting like a charity'"

Business has always used (and still does) the same argument to resit any changes in the worker's favour.Those changes included child labor laws,workman's compensation, the 40 hour week,equal pay for women and,even now any wage increases whatsoever.

The argument is demonstrably fallacious.Efficient businesses usually survives. Nor do I accept that any business should survive only through exploiting its workers.

I have no problem with any large corporation going broke.Such organisations are another boil on the arse of the body civil. (along with such things as organised religion and patriotism)


Am I missing something?


Nah,only the entire point. :coffee:

Then explain, don't patronise.

Do you really think that paying minimum wage is exploitation?

What's the answer?

And why are large companies so offensive to you?
User avatar
HAJiME
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Joseph
Posts: 582
Age: 32
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#6  Postby my_wan » Dec 02, 2010 12:41 am

If the pay requirements were uniform, such that a companies competition couldn't out-compete the one who did pay a good wage, then there would be no negative ramifications for the company paying those wages. For business, the primary concern is competition. If workers got a better wage, then the companies marketing to them would be more profitable. There's nothing government can do to equalize pay, but what can be done is to implement policies that shift pay down toward the bottom levels.

Many companies, not all, essentially face a kind of tragedy of the commons. If they pay more then their competition eats them. Yet if a large proportion of the public goes underpaid, then their customers lack the money to buy their products. So the competition has them trying to pay their employees as little as possible, while they hope everybody else's employees make as much as possible so they will buy more of their products.

Now a pay raise can either be a cut in cost of living or an increase in relative pay, so ideally getting paid less should also mean a lower cost of living. The problem with that occurs when the pay drops below some percentage of the total productivity of the economy. Hence the money merely represent what percentage of the productivity your entitled to. Yet the pay competition doesn't stop just because the pay drops below some percentage of the total productivity. It's merely stretches out the income distribution to better favor higher paid people. As well as cuts productivity because so many can't afford the services that we are productive enough to provide.

Hence the raw free market is flawed when the poor only competes against the poor for jobs, rather than companies competing for their labor. The solution is to raise the minimum pay all companies must pay. It must be a uniform minimum for all companies across the board, or else many of the companies that must pay it will be put out of business by competition that doesn't have to pay it.
User avatar
my_wan
 
Posts: 967
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#7  Postby HAJiME » Dec 04, 2010 11:45 am

The pay requirements are a bit more uniform in the UK, I think? They are slightly higher in greater London and then slightly higher again in central. Where I live it's £5.85 at the moment. Is that enough to live on? I have no idea. These are the kind of jobs that young people take as temporary positions. Those who stay at any given company for long enough move up to supervisor and then management positions.

Many companies, not all, essentially face a kind of tragedy of the commons. If they pay more then their competition eats them. Yet if a large proportion of the public goes underpaid, then their customers lack the money to buy their products. So the competition has them trying to pay their employees as little as possible, while they hope everybody else's employees make as much as possible so they will buy more of their products

I see this, but when you come to company like Wal-Mart... I can't help think that if you took Wal-Mart away everyone would be worse off because of your point raised here.

What is absolute minimum pay in the US? I assume it varies between States? I heard somewhere that it's $5 something? But when my friends have had to work in Wal-Mart, or at theme parks, it's never been that low. It's usually more like $7 something.
User avatar
HAJiME
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Joseph
Posts: 582
Age: 32
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: large companies that pay low wages

#8  Postby NineOneFour » Dec 04, 2010 12:31 pm

HAJiME wrote:I was just watching this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubqZNb_U ... r_embedded

And I just... don't understand? People attack WalMart for similar reasons.

I feel like people are expecting these big companies to behave like charities? Why? If they behaved like Charities, they wouldn't be big companies.

Am I missing something?

I've worked on minimum wage. Yes it's shit, but all the while people are unemployed and need jobs, can we really expect them to give anything but the bare minimum?


Minimum wage in England is around $11 an hour. In the US it's $7.50 and you get to pay for health care out of that. Furthermore, companies like Wal-Mart are disingenuous. They give people 30 hours a week, classify them internally as full-time so they can benefit from nice stats but the Federal government classifies them as part time, so Wal-Mart doesn't have to offer them benefits.

Then they make people "salaried", so they can still timekeep them but don't have to pay them overtime.
Citizen of the (future) People's Social Democratic Republic of Cascadia.
cascadianow.org

For help managing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), go here. I am able to manage it, and so can you.
User avatar
NineOneFour
 
Name: Yes, I'm an asshole.
Posts: 20906
Age: 51
Male

Country: Cascadia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#9  Postby NineOneFour » Dec 04, 2010 12:32 pm

HAJiME wrote:The pay requirements are a bit more uniform in the UK, I think? They are slightly higher in greater London and then slightly higher again in central. Where I live it's £5.85 at the moment. Is that enough to live on? I have no idea. These are the kind of jobs that young people take as temporary positions. Those who stay at any given company for long enough move up to supervisor and then management positions.

Many companies, not all, essentially face a kind of tragedy of the commons. If they pay more then their competition eats them. Yet if a large proportion of the public goes underpaid, then their customers lack the money to buy their products. So the competition has them trying to pay their employees as little as possible, while they hope everybody else's employees make as much as possible so they will buy more of their products

I see this, but when you come to company like Wal-Mart... I can't help think that if you took Wal-Mart away everyone would be worse off because of your point raised here.

What is absolute minimum pay in the US? I assume it varies between States? I heard somewhere that it's $5 something? But when my friends have had to work in Wal-Mart, or at theme parks, it's never been that low. It's usually more like $7 something.


There's another minimum wage for wait staff who are expected to make up the difference in tips. Furthermore, the minimum wage was just raised 3 years ago anyway.
Citizen of the (future) People's Social Democratic Republic of Cascadia.
cascadianow.org

For help managing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), go here. I am able to manage it, and so can you.
User avatar
NineOneFour
 
Name: Yes, I'm an asshole.
Posts: 20906
Age: 51
Male

Country: Cascadia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#10  Postby my_wan » Dec 04, 2010 1:29 pm

HAJiME wrote:The pay requirements are a bit more uniform in the UK, I think? They are slightly higher in greater London and then slightly higher again in central. Where I live it's £5.85 at the moment. Is that enough to live on? I have no idea. These are the kind of jobs that young people take as temporary positions. Those who stay at any given company for long enough move up to supervisor and then management positions.

Many companies, not all, essentially face a kind of tragedy of the commons. If they pay more then their competition eats them. Yet if a large proportion of the public goes underpaid, then their customers lack the money to buy their products. So the competition has them trying to pay their employees as little as possible, while they hope everybody else's employees make as much as possible so they will buy more of their products

I see this, but when you come to company like Wal-Mart... I can't help think that if you took Wal-Mart away everyone would be worse off because of your point raised here.

What is absolute minimum pay in the US? I assume it varies between States? I heard somewhere that it's $5 something? But when my friends have had to work in Wal-Mart, or at theme parks, it's never been that low. It's usually more like $7 something.

The federal minimum wage is $7.25. That's about £4.64 GPB. Some states have higher minimum wages. The highest is Washington at $8.55, or £5.47 GBP. Though many states have lower minimum wages, they generally are not applicable because the highest applicable minimum wage is generally required.

I'm not so concerned about individual companies, so long as they work within the law, with some exception. Many companies limit employees to 30 hours weeks, because it allows them to classify employees as part time. This get them out of the legal obligations to that employee that are more costly. Such as insurance for instance. In in 25 states they don't get unemployment benefits. The part time benefits laws work against the poor on both ends. Companies like keeping people under 40 hour work weeks, because over that they get 1.5X the pay. Yet if you work a shift less than 40 hours they get to classify you part time, and aren't obligated to many benefits such as those mentioned. It creates a situation where you are not allowed to get company insurance, or make enough to get your own, or even get unemployment benefits if they lay you off. These are artificial limits on income that only hurts the poor and the economy.

I'm more concerned with what the income distribution means at the lowest pay scales. Income distribution is a fractal, which means the income inequality looks about the same no matter what income level you start at. I don't think there's anything that can be done about that, even if you could argue something should be done. What concerns me is a global downward shift in this pay.

If people have more spending money then there's more trade overall, hence making it easier to pay better wages. The fact is that we are capable of far more productivity than the economy actually uses, even without a recession. When you freeze out the pay for a large number of people at the bottom end of the pay scale, it hurts the economy because there's only so much marketing that can be done to a few wealthier customers. The people at the bottom simply can't afford the services needed to keep the economy at something closer to optimum productivity. This is why less pay, when it's significantly lower that the buying power (not dollar amount) of the available productivity, can hurt the economy. Increasing affordability is the hallmark of the growing wealth of a nation, irrespective what dollar figure is used to represent that income.

You can look at it by consider two ridiculous extremes. If workers were slaves, paid essentially nothing, then there is no economy due to a lack of buyers in that economy. If they are payed everything a company makes, then the company can't stay in business to keep paying them. Hence pay distributions have an optimum (unknown variable), not too dissimilar to the idea behind the Laffer curve, which maximizes demand and affordability to keep the economy moving.
User avatar
my_wan
 
Posts: 967
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#11  Postby NineOneFour » Dec 04, 2010 1:38 pm

my_wan wrote:
HAJiME wrote:The pay requirements are a bit more uniform in the UK, I think? They are slightly higher in greater London and then slightly higher again in central. Where I live it's £5.85 at the moment. Is that enough to live on? I have no idea. These are the kind of jobs that young people take as temporary positions. Those who stay at any given company for long enough move up to supervisor and then management positions.

Many companies, not all, essentially face a kind of tragedy of the commons. If they pay more then their competition eats them. Yet if a large proportion of the public goes underpaid, then their customers lack the money to buy their products. So the competition has them trying to pay their employees as little as possible, while they hope everybody else's employees make as much as possible so they will buy more of their products

I see this, but when you come to company like Wal-Mart... I can't help think that if you took Wal-Mart away everyone would be worse off because of your point raised here.

What is absolute minimum pay in the US? I assume it varies between States? I heard somewhere that it's $5 something? But when my friends have had to work in Wal-Mart, or at theme parks, it's never been that low. It's usually more like $7 something.

The federal minimum wage is $7.25. That's about £4.64 GPB. Some states have higher minimum wages. The highest is Washington at $8.55, or £5.47 GBP. Though many states have lower minimum wages, they generally are not applicable because the highest applicable minimum wage is generally required.


Quite true.

I'm not so concerned about individual companies, so long as they work within the law, with some exception. Many companies limit employees to 30 hours weeks, because it allows them to classify employees as part time. This get them out of the legal obligations to that employee that are more costly. Such as insurance for instance. In in 25 states they don't get unemployment benefits. The part time benefits laws work against the poor on both ends. Companies like keeping people under 40 hour work weeks, because over that they get 1.5X the pay. Yet if you work a shift less than 40 hours they get to classify you part time, and aren't obligated to many benefits such as those mentioned. It creates a situation where you are not allowed to get company insurance, or make enough to get your own, or even get unemployment benefits if they lay you off. These are artificial limits on income that only hurts the poor and the economy.


All that is actually legal, and should be illegal.

I submit you should be concerned about companies that do this type of shit even if it is legal.

I'm more concerned with what the income distribution means at the lowest pay scales. Income distribution is a fractal, which means the income inequality looks about the same no matter what income level you start at. I don't think there's anything that can be done about that, even if you could argue something should be done. What concerns me is a global downward shift in this pay.


Income distribution is NOT fractal, can be changed, and has been changing in this country over the past 30 years. Income distribution is far different in other countries. It is not a zero sum game that you imply.

This is some of the worst bullshit you have posted on here.

If people have more spending money then there's more trade overall, hence making it easier to pay better wages. The fact is that we are capable of far more productivity than the economy actually uses, even without a recession. When you freeze out the pay for a large number of people at the bottom end of the pay scale, it hurts the economy because there's only so much marketing that can be done to a few wealthier customers. The people at the bottom simply can't afford the services needed to keep the economy at something closer to optimum productivity. This is why less pay, when it's significantly lower that the buying power (not dollar amount) of the available productivity, can hurt the economy. Increasing affordability is the hallmark of the growing wealth of a nation, irrespective what dollar figure is used to represent that income.


That does seem to be the current situation. We must produce more than we can afford to keep the economic engine afloat.

You can look at it by consider two ridiculous extremes. If workers were slaves, paid essentially nothing, then there is no economy due to a lack of buyers in that economy. If they are payed everything a company makes, then the company can't stay in business to keep paying them. Hence pay distributions have an optimum (unknown variable), not too dissimilar to the idea behind the Laffer curve, which maximizes demand and affordability to keep the economy moving.


This seems pretty obvious, no offense.
Citizen of the (future) People's Social Democratic Republic of Cascadia.
cascadianow.org

For help managing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), go here. I am able to manage it, and so can you.
User avatar
NineOneFour
 
Name: Yes, I'm an asshole.
Posts: 20906
Age: 51
Male

Country: Cascadia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#12  Postby j.mills » Dec 04, 2010 1:56 pm

HAJiME wrote:The pay requirements are a bit more uniform in the UK, I think? They are slightly higher in greater London and then slightly higher again in central. Where I live it's £5.85 at the moment. Is that enough to live on? I have no idea. These are the kind of jobs that young people take as temporary positions. Those who stay at any given company for long enough move up to supervisor and then management positions.

So we should expect anyone who wants to live in financial security to fight their way up the company ladder and take more stressful, more demanding jobs, typically with longer hours? If the lowest paid in our society cannot put a roof over their heads and pay their bills, it's a disgrace; and yet how can anyone on minimum wage of less than £12k aspire to buy a house (present average price £246k!)? If they can't afford an ordinary rent, it's the state and not business who ends up making up the difference.

There will be people who simply do not have the aptitude for more responsible jobs, and personally I think you should be able to live in reasonable comfort at the bottom level even if you do have the aptitude for 'greater' things: what job we take should be a matter of choice, not necessity. House prices in recent years have reached absurd levels, which is a separate problem. But our aspiration should be to reach a point where no one need ever worry about obtaining the basic necessities of life (including housing), cradle to grave, and anyone in any kind of work should be able to obtain a few luxuries as well. After thousands of years of civilisation, it's a bit rubbish that we still have people working hard yet struggling to get by; and we can't expect business to fix that problem, because a degree of desperation among low-level employees is in their interest.

my_wan wrote:If they are payed everything a company makes, then the company can't stay in business to keep paying them.

Hmm, surely there are many organisations doing pretty much that, known as not-for-profits, charities, co-ops and nationalised industries? I tend towards thinking that life's necessities should be kept out of private hands, for much this reason: they want to provide the same service as a nationalised version, but with a layer of profit on top; whilst naturally, as in the case of banks, outsourcing risk back onto the state.
WordsVoiceLimericky tweets

There is grandeur in this view of life
Where one becomes many through struggle and strife,
But the Mother of Mysteries is another man's call:
Why is there something 'stead of nothing at all?

The Darwin Song Project
User avatar
j.mills
 
Posts: 10269
Age: 55
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#13  Postby smudge » Dec 04, 2010 3:07 pm

HAJiME wrote:I was just watching this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubqZNb_U ... r_embedded

And I just... don't understand? People attack WalMart for similar reasons.

I feel like people are expecting these big companies to behave like charities? Why? If they behaved like Charities, they wouldn't be big companies.

Am I missing something?

I've worked on minimum wage. Yes it's shit, but all the while people are unemployed and need jobs, can we really expect them to give anything but the bare minimum?


How about a bit of fairness?
How about some balance?
How about an appreciation of what it may be like to do (as you say ) 'shit' work for 'shit' money long term?
How about trying to imagine how it might feel to be in a crap minimum wage job and try to do your best for your family while others get vast bonuses for being incompetent (talking specifically about bankers here but there are many others) and screwing the rest of us over?

So, yeh. I'd say you "missed something"! ;)

Danny Dorling puts it rather well here; http://www.thersa.org/events/vision/vis ... y-persists
User avatar
smudge
 
Posts: 2714
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#14  Postby Wiðercora » Dec 04, 2010 4:09 pm

Testify, j.mills.
If the unemployed learned to be better managers they would be visibly better off, and I fancy it would not be long before the dole was docked correspondingly.
-- George Orwell


Infrequently updated photo blog.
User avatar
Wiðercora
 
Name: Call me 'Betty'.
Posts: 7079
Age: 31
Male

Country: The Grim North.
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#15  Postby my_wan » Dec 04, 2010 4:10 pm

NineOneFour wrote:All that is actually legal, and should be illegal.

I submit you should be concerned about companies that do this type of shit even if it is legal.

Damn right it should be illegal. Yet, at the time the benefits was made law, special interest argued it would be too big a burden for certain small companies. For some companies, as long as their competition can get away with it, they can't afford not to do it to compete. Yet this inability to provide these benefits and still compete is *only* a problem when their competition doesn't have to abide by the same rules. It's the competition that makes it a problem, not the cost. So even though I frown on individual companies, as many companies do it just because they can, it really should be implemented at the law level.

NineOneFour wrote:Income distribution is NOT fractal, can be changed, and has been changing in this country over the past 30 years. Income distribution is far different in other countries. It is not a zero sum game that you imply.

This is some of the worst bullshit you have posted on here.

Name a country (for which numbers are available) in which you don't think it is a fractal, and I'll pull the numbers for you. However, I certainly can't see how you take it I even implied economics is a zero sum game. It most certainly is not. If someone comes along and sells me something that increases my productivity, and hence my wealth, then I'm buying it even if it means they get wealthy selling it to many people, and making money beyond my imagination. Yet because mine, and many other peoples, productivity and wealth has increased, their uber money didn't *cost* anybody anything. That is certainly not a zero sum game.

I suspect that you made some erroneous assumptions about the absoluteness and context I was describing.

NineOneFour wrote:That does seem to be the current situation. We must produce more than we can afford to keep the economic engine afloat.

I'm not sure how you mean "must produce more than we can afford". Certainly we have to put a certain amount of productivity into infrastructure, for future productivity. But the commodities produced more or less equals the commodities we can afford. Now in a world economy, where we only consider some certain subset of that world economy, then some subsets of that economy can end up being able to afford less than they produce. Yet as a whole it still *roughly* balances out. This is basically my argument for the poorest wage earners, and why they need a bigger share at this point in the economy.

NineOneFour wrote:This seems pretty obvious, no offense.

No offense taken. I'm likely wrong in many ways, but I think I have a rough idea of you politics, which seems to lend toward certain economic views. I would have guessed this would be obvious to you. Yet the *pure* free market people have a much different take, such as the libertarians. Even many economist believe in wage competition, even though the poor is competing with the poor for jobs, such that it lacks the competition for resources the company has control of. I'm a free market person, but not because free markets are always perfect. Too many variations on the tragedy of the commons occurs without rules to help things run more smoothly and fairly. The rules just have to be as simple as possible, and evenly applied to all business. So I'm speaking to a larger audience than those who see the obviousness of it.
User avatar
my_wan
 
Posts: 967
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: large companies that pay low wages

#16  Postby NineOneFour » Dec 04, 2010 6:27 pm

my_wan wrote:
NineOneFour wrote:All that is actually legal, and should be illegal.

I submit you should be concerned about companies that do this type of shit even if it is legal.

Damn right it should be illegal. Yet, at the time the benefits was made law, special interest argued it would be too big a burden for certain small companies. For some companies, as long as their competition can get away with it, they can't afford not to do it to compete. Yet this inability to provide these benefits and still compete is *only* a problem when their competition doesn't have to abide by the same rules. It's the competition that makes it a problem, not the cost. So even though I frown on individual companies, as many companies do it just because they can, it really should be implemented at the law level.


Image

NineOneFour wrote:Income distribution is NOT fractal, can be changed, and has been changing in this country over the past 30 years. Income distribution is far different in other countries. It is not a zero sum game that you imply.

This is some of the worst bullshit you have posted on here.

Name a country (for which numbers are available) in which you don't think it is a fractal, and I'll pull the numbers for you.


A fractal is a shape expressed as a mathematical equation which has a similar yet fragmented shape at all levels and is infinitely recursive.

Can you explain how income is infinitely recursive? I'd love to hear this.

However, I certainly can't see how you take it I even implied economics is a zero sum game. It most certainly is not. If someone comes along and sells me something that increases my productivity, and hence my wealth, then I'm buying it even if it means they get wealthy selling it to many people, and making money beyond my imagination. Yet because mine, and many other peoples, productivity and wealth has increased, their uber money didn't *cost* anybody anything. That is certainly not a zero sum game.

I suspect that you made some erroneous assumptions about the absoluteness and context I was describing.


I suspect you are using the term "fractal" incorrectly, but it is certainly possible I might be wrong.

NineOneFour wrote:That does seem to be the current situation. We must produce more than we can afford to keep the economic engine afloat.

I'm not sure how you mean "must produce more than we can afford". Certainly we have to put a certain amount of productivity into infrastructure, for future productivity. But the commodities produced more or less equals the commodities we can afford. Now in a world economy, where we only consider some certain subset of that world economy, then some subsets of that economy can end up being able to afford less than they produce. Yet as a whole it still *roughly* balances out. This is basically my argument for the poorest wage earners, and why they need a bigger share at this point in the economy.

NineOneFour wrote:This seems pretty obvious, no offense.

No offense taken. I'm likely wrong in many ways, but I think I have a rough idea of you politics, which seems to lend toward certain economic views. I would have guessed this would be obvious to you. Yet the *pure* free market people have a much different take, such as the libertarians. Even many economist believe in wage competition, even though the poor is competing with the poor for jobs, such that it lacks the competition for resources the company has control of. I'm a free market person, but not because free markets are always perfect. Too many variations on the tragedy of the commons occurs without rules to help things run more smoothly and fairly. The rules just have to be as simple as possible, and evenly applied to all business. So I'm speaking to a larger audience than those who see the obviousness of it.


Fair enough.
Citizen of the (future) People's Social Democratic Republic of Cascadia.
cascadianow.org

For help managing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), go here. I am able to manage it, and so can you.
User avatar
NineOneFour
 
Name: Yes, I'm an asshole.
Posts: 20906
Age: 51
Male

Country: Cascadia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#17  Postby HAJiME » Dec 04, 2010 8:45 pm

NineOneFour wrote:
Minimum wage in England is around $11 an hour. In the US it's $7.50 and you get to pay for health care out of that. Furthermore, companies like Wal-Mart are disingenuous. They give people 30 hours a week, classify them internally as full-time so they can benefit from nice stats but the Federal government classifies them as part time, so Wal-Mart doesn't have to offer them benefits.

Then they make people "salaried", so they can still timekeep them but don't have to pay them overtime.

Minimum wage here isn't around $11 an hour. It's £5.85, which is $9. And I only got that because I live in London. You get less elsewhere in the country. The cost of living here is higher than the US, so we SHOULD get more. That's only $1.50 an hour more. At my last job, I made about £40 a day and it cost me £25 a week to get there.

And companies do similar things here. I was only contracted to do 4 hours a week when I was at the cinema, but did many full time weeks whilst there. My contract basically said that I was willing to do overtime, so they have the freedom to fuck you about. Similar thing happened when I worked at a theme park, where despite being part time, seasonal and thus temporarily employed, 60 hour weeks were not uncommon amongst my colleagues.

The issue is surely the goverment, not the individual companies.
User avatar
HAJiME
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Joseph
Posts: 582
Age: 32
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#18  Postby NineOneFour » Dec 04, 2010 8:52 pm

HAJiME wrote:
NineOneFour wrote:
Minimum wage in England is around $11 an hour. In the US it's $7.50 and you get to pay for health care out of that. Furthermore, companies like Wal-Mart are disingenuous. They give people 30 hours a week, classify them internally as full-time so they can benefit from nice stats but the Federal government classifies them as part time, so Wal-Mart doesn't have to offer them benefits.

Then they make people "salaried", so they can still timekeep them but don't have to pay them overtime.

Minimum wage here isn't around $11 an hour. It's £5.85, which is $9. And I only got that because I live in London. You get less elsewhere in the country. The cost of living here is higher than the US, so we SHOULD get more. That's only $1.50 an hour more. At my last job, I made about £40 a day and it cost me £25 a week to get there.


Fail.

Your minimum wage is £5.93, which is $9.23.

You don't get that because you live in London. It's nationwide. Boris Johnson wants to raise the London minimum wage to £7.60 an hour.

As for cost of living, let's look at reality.

LONDON
Consumer Price Index (Excl.Rent): 93.64
Rent Index: 44.77
Groceries Index: 80.50
Restaurants Index: 91.24
Consumer Price Plus Rent Index: 68.85
Local Purchasing Power: 111.42

NEW YORK
Consumer Price Index (Excl.Rent): 100.00
Rent Index: 100.00
Groceries Index: 100.00
Restaurants Index: 100.00
Consumer Price Plus Rent Index: 100.00
Local Purchasing Power: 100.00

http://www.numbeo.com/common/

BIRMINGHAM
Consumer Price Index (Excl.Rent): 105.73
Rent Index: 47.37
Groceries Index: 85.20
Restaurants Index: 76.56
Consumer Price Plus Rent Index: 76.12
Local Purchasing Power: 64.39

CHICAGO
Consumer Price Index (Excl.Rent): 96.45
Rent Index: 49.79
Groceries Index: 87.33
Restaurants Index: 78.04
Consumer Price Plus Rent Index: 72.78
Local Purchasing Power: 121.52

It ain't that different.

And companies do similar things here. I was only contracted to do 4 hours a week when I was at the cinema, but did many full time weeks whilst there. My contract basically said that I was willing to do overtime, so they have the freedom to fuck you about. Similar thing happened when I worked at a theme park, where despite being part time, seasonal and thus temporarily employed, 60 hour weeks were not uncommon amongst my colleagues.


Keep it up and you'll be just like America.

The issue is surely the goverment, not the individual companies.


Surely not.
Citizen of the (future) People's Social Democratic Republic of Cascadia.
cascadianow.org

For help managing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), go here. I am able to manage it, and so can you.
User avatar
NineOneFour
 
Name: Yes, I'm an asshole.
Posts: 20906
Age: 51
Male

Country: Cascadia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#19  Postby HAJiME » Dec 04, 2010 10:30 pm

Your minimum wage is £5.93, which is $9.23.

You don't get that because you live in London. It's nationwide. Boris Johnson wants to raise the London minimum wage to £7.60 an hour.

Well then the minimum wage must have raised in the last month. And a quick google tells me that yes, they did. lol, so okay. Still isn't the $11 you said. When I was working 2 months ago it was 5.85. As for the wage varying nationwide, again that was first hand experience because I knew someone working in Staffordshire... But it might have been becuase they were under 21 thinking about it.

But anyway, my point is that I don't see why individual large companies are being attacked... Or even people attack America for this consumerism, because it's any company that has the power to get away with it doing it, worldwide. And of course it's the goverment's fault. The minimum wage should be higher and raise fairly with inflation and like you said it "should be illegal".

As for the cost of living figures, what do those things even refer to? Consumer price index, what? Even "rent index"? What does that mean? Average cost of rent? As for the restaurants, is that saying that it's cheaper to have a meal in London... than in New York? Because that just... isn't true. I can only assume that figure is bumped because MORE people eat out in New York than London. So yeah, I don't know quite what those things are referring to.
User avatar
HAJiME
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Joseph
Posts: 582
Age: 32
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: large companies that pay low wages

#20  Postby NineOneFour » Dec 05, 2010 12:00 am

HAJiME wrote:
Your minimum wage is £5.93, which is $9.23.

You don't get that because you live in London. It's nationwide. Boris Johnson wants to raise the London minimum wage to £7.60 an hour.

Well then the minimum wage must have raised in the last month. And a quick google tells me that yes, they did. lol, so okay. Still isn't the $11 you said. When I was working 2 months ago it was 5.85. As for the wage varying nationwide, again that was first hand experience because I knew someone working in Staffordshire... But it might have been becuase they were under 21 thinking about it.

But anyway, my point is that I don't see why individual large companies are being attacked... Or even people attack America for this consumerism, because it's any company that has the power to get away with it doing it, worldwide. And of course it's the goverment's fault. The minimum wage should be higher and raise fairly with inflation and like you said it "should be illegal".


Well, okay, you have a point there. But just because a company CAN do something legally doesn't mean it SHOULD.

As for the cost of living figures, what do those things even refer to? Consumer price index, what? Even "rent index"? What does that mean? Average cost of rent? As for the restaurants, is that saying that it's cheaper to have a meal in London... than in New York? Because that just... isn't true. I can only assume that figure is bumped because MORE people eat out in New York than London. So yeah, I don't know quite what those things are referring to.


Sorry, here's a ginormous breakdown of London figures:


Restaurants
Meal, Inexpensive Restaurant 11.73 £
Meal for 2, Mid-range Restaurant 44.70 £
Combo Meal at McDonalds or Similar 5.00 £
Domestic Beer (0.5 liter draught) 3.13 £
Imported Beer (0.33 liter bottle) 3.27 £
Coke/Pepsi (0.33 liter bottle) 1.06 £
Water (0.33 liter bottle) 0.84 £

Markets
Milk (regular), 1 liter 0.89 £
Loaf of Fresh Bread 1.03 £
Eggs (12) 2.12 £
Fresh Cheese (1kg) 5.15 £
Chicken Breasts (Boneless, Skinless), (1kg) 10.50 £
Water (1.5 liter bottle) 0.97 £
Bottle of Wine (Mid-Range) 7.32 £
Domestic Beer (0.5 liter bottle) 1.25 £
Imported Beer (0.33 liter bottle) 1.57 £
Pack of Cigarettes (Marlboro) 5.38 £

Transportation
One-way Ticket (local transport) 2.67 £
Monthly Pass 92.24 £
Taxi (5km within center) 9.90 £
Gasoline (1 liter) 1.13 £
Volkswagen Golf 1.4 90 KW Trendline (Or Equivalent New Car) 16,270.20 £

Utilities (Monthly)
Basic (Electricity, Gas, Water, Garbage) 111.37 £
1 min. of Prepaid Mobile Tariff (no discounts or plans) 0.11 £
Internet (2 Mbps ADSL flat) 13.62 £

Sports And Leisure
Fitness Club, Monthly Fee for 1 Adult 53.42 £
Tennis Court Rent (1 Hour on Weekend) 11.63 £
Cinema, International Release, 1 Seat 8.18 £

Clothing And Shoes
1 Pair of Levis 501 67.39 £
1 Summer Dress in a Chain Store (Zara, H&M, ...) 30.24 £
1 Pair of Nike Shoes 56.65 £
1 Pair of Men Leather Shoes 63.10 £

Rent Per Month
Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre 1,152.44 £
Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre 826.79 £
Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre 2,556.43 £
Apartment (3 bedrooms) Outside of Centre 1,483.84 £

Buy Apartment Price
Price per Square Meter to Buy Apartment in City Centre 8,172.06 £
Price per Square Meter to Buy Apartment Outside of Centre 5,036.62 £

Salaries And Financing
Median Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax) 2,138.28 £
Mortgage Interest Rate in Percentanges (%), Yearly 4.43



Now, here's the breakout for New York, converted to British Pounds Sterling:

Restaurants
Meal, Inexpensive Restaurant 11.10 £
Meal for 2, Mid-range Restaurant 37.61 £
Combo Meal at McDonalds or Similar 4.19 £
Domestic Beer (0.5 liter draught) 3.52 £
Imported Beer (0.33 liter bottle) 4.69 £
Coke/Pepsi (0.33 liter bottle) 1.36 £
Water (0.33 liter bottle) 1.20 £

Markets
Milk (regular), 1 liter 1.24 £
Loaf of Fresh Bread 1.74 £
Eggs (12) 1.44 £
Fresh Cheese (1kg) 7.09 £
Chicken Breasts (Boneless, Skinless), (1kg) 7.15 £
Water (1.5 liter bottle) 1.12 £
Bottle of Wine (Mid-Range) 6.62 £
Domestic Beer (0.5 liter bottle) 2.24 £
Imported Beer (0.33 liter bottle) 3.04 £
Pack of Cigarettes (Marlboro) 6.35 £

Transportation
One-way Ticket (local transport) 1.46 £
Monthly Pass 57.49 £
Taxi (5km within center) 6.88 £
Gasoline (1 liter) 0.54 £
Volkswagen Golf 1.4 90 KW Trendline (Or Equivalent New Car) 13,187.98 £

Utilities (Monthly)
Basic (Electricity, Gas, Water, Garbage) 100.03 £
1 min. of Prepaid Mobile Tariff (no discounts or plans) 0.22 £
Internet (2 Mbps ADSL flat) 26.24 £

Sports And Leisure
Fitness Club, Monthly Fee for 1 Adult 46.50 £
Tennis Court Rent (1 Hour on Weekend) 27.18 £
Cinema, International Release, 1 Seat 8.32 £

Clothing And Shoes
1 Pair of Levis 501 38.09 £
1 Summer Dress in a Chain Store (Zara, H&M, ...) 24.97 £
1 Pair of Nike Shoes 52.50 £
1 Pair of Men Leather Shoes 79.70 £

Rent Per Month
Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre 1,512.49 £
Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre 921.88 £
Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre 2,810.07 £
Apartment (3 bedrooms) Outside of Centre 1,606.89 £

Buy Apartment Price
Price per Square Meter to Buy Apartment in City Centre 6,326.36 £
Price per Square Meter to Buy Apartment Outside of Centre 3,521.06 £

Salaries And Financing
Median Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax) 2,219.34 £
Mortgage Interest Rate in Percentanges (%), Yearly 5.02


I think you'll find living in London is still more expensive than New York, but not by as wide a margin as you'd suspect.
Last edited by NineOneFour on Dec 05, 2010 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Citizen of the (future) People's Social Democratic Republic of Cascadia.
cascadianow.org

For help managing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), go here. I am able to manage it, and so can you.
User avatar
NineOneFour
 
Name: Yes, I'm an asshole.
Posts: 20906
Age: 51
Male

Country: Cascadia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Economics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest