Show off your holiday lights and you could win an iPad! Enter your photo by December 13. Winner will be selected by popular vote.
Sen. Bernie Sanders lets Walmart have it.
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
Good point! The fact that tax payers are subsidizing Walmart and McDonalds workers with food stamps, health care and more because these companies will not pay a living wage. Just pay the employees a living wage and provide healthcare coverage and get people off the dole. Bernie is very smart. Meanwhile RWingers want to get rid of the min. wage. Go figure. Profit first! people last.
The GOP argues that the higher costs of minimum wage just gets passed through to the customers just as they argue the same about taxes. However they forget that market forces are always at work limiting how much they can charge before their products will not sell.
Raising minimum wages instantly increases the purchasing power of the worker while tightening the profit margins of the business. In a short period of time the increased purchasing power of the worker increases the sales volume of the businessman to offset the lower gross margin.
The economy grows, price inflation is limited, the business suffers only a temporary reduction, the worker’s life improves, and the government no longer has to subsidize the worker’s health and welfare.
Raise minimum wages to a livable standard..
Not to mention the sense of loyalty to the employer that used to be common in the business world. Like my dear mother used to say, why waste your love on someone who doesn’t love you back?
Oh yeah, Bernie the Socialist repeats the usual….living wage, rich must pay their fair share, Wal Mart is evil, and need for healthcare. Wait Bernie, Obamacare has been voted into law. Did you forget?
Increasing the incomes, by increasing the minimum wage, of those at the bottom of the wage scale reduces government spending on medicaid, food stamps, etc. That’s what the GOPTea Party says it wants to do. Additionally, because incomes are increased, taxes paid by those at the bottom increases. That’s what the GOPTea Party says it wants the 47% to do as well.
I don’t get the stonewalling by the GOPTea Party on these two things they say they want to happen!!
Ron – business is afraid of change and certainly do not want to suffer the additional expense while the economy reaches its equilibrium under the new costs. It is short term thinking that controls management. Accordingly, the GOPTP gets paid to think the same way. Of course there is always the fact that if the poor are better off, they will vote more democrats into office.
The TPers wants no welfare, no Medicare, no Social Security, no taxes, no minimum wage. And they don’t compromise. It’s their way or the highway, all the time. That kind of thinking is what kicked Sen. Richard Lugar out of office and gave Indiana a Democratic senator in his stead.
But don’t you DARE take away THEIR Medicare, or THEIR Social Security or THEIR pensions or THEIR disability. Hey, THEY earned those!
Oddly enough, the subject has been researched. “Doubling the salaries and benefits of all McDonald’s employees — from workers earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour to CEO Donald Thompson, whose 2012 compensation totaled $8.75 million — would cause the price of a Big Mac to increase just 68 cents, from $3.99 to $4.67, Arnobio Morelix told HuffPost. In addition, every item on the Dollar Menu would go up by 17 cents.”
This is literally an issue of priorities. If you want people to work and support themselves, there has to be a job that will allow that to happen. We have frozen so many people out of the employment pool and then we scream about their inability to finance themselves.
Nobody is forced to work at Walmart. If al workers quit they will have to pay more. Minimum wage is supposed to be entry level pay, then you move up to better things, like I did, and like Dan Casey did. I f you are trying to raise a family working for minimum wage at Walmart, well, maybe you should have stayed in school.
Reality remains that whether or not any one or even a million persons sets out to become a CEO, manager, teacher, journalist or business owner, the low wage jobs will still need to be done.
The jobs and their wages, too low to support a living and saving for retirement and health care are the problem, not the motivations of the people in them. If one low wage worker moves up, another one takes their place. This is NOT an argument about upward mobility so much as deliberate inequality due to low wages, no benefits and no jobs. The mere fact that adults with families are working at supposed “entry level” jobs tells you that there is a serious problem.
lance, when Wal-Mart is unionized that may happen. but so far, Wal-Mart has been able to protect itself from unions with the GOPTP assistance.
Of course education is a means out of minimum wage. It is a shame that the more Obama touts education and the need for gov’t support the GOPTP acts to remove such support.
As for what the workers should have done, we all have a lot of should haves. Unfortunately there are no mulligans in life.
My brother is a primary care physician in Richmond. He said that WalMart and Papa John employees have really crappy (his word) insurance. I rarely shop at WalMart and never buy Papa John food. WalMart does some really good things like trying to reduce their “carbon footprint” but they are not good to their workers.
Does anyone know the minimum wage for people who lost their job under Obama?
Oh yeah. $0.00.
Henry, who lost their jobs because of Obama? Zero.
Sandi, did you happen to read the whole article or just the first couple of paragraphs? The study was done by a University of Kansas undergraduate student (no team of experts) and only included corporate locations (only 20% of the total). Also, University of Kansas School of Business economics professor George Bittlingmayer said the student’s model was “a little bit of a leap of faith.” You should also read the Forbes article and see what they have to say about the college kid’s work. By the way, if you are talking raising the minimum wage then this guess by the college kid is not valid because it does not include all of the increased costs from all of MacDonald’s suppliers due to their increased labor costs.
Roger, guess what? The minimum wage has been raised plenty of times in the past. Never once after any of those increases did the economy come crashing down. Actually, following EACH and EVERY minimum-wage increase, the economy GREW.
That’s what I can’t comprehend about this “abolish-the-minimum-wage” garbage the RWers are pushing. There’s an untarnished record of economic growth following minimum-wage increases. They’re substituting some Middle-Ages philosophy for historical fact.
It’s like their motto is “history is bunk” or something like that.
“That’s what I can’t comprehend about this “abolish-the-minimum-wage” garbage the RWers are pushing. ”
Oh look. A strawman. Where did you get it?
I’ve never heard anyone advocate completely abolishing the minimum wage. Maybe it’s the just the Libertarian sites where you hang out.
BTW does the Roanoke Times pay its newspaper carriers a “living wage”? (cough)
“Still, National Employment Law Project Policy Analyst Jack Temple said in an interview with HuffPost that Morelix’s findings are “consistent” with what he has seen in previous research. A 2012 study from the University of California, Berkeley, for example, found that a federal minimum wage increase to $9.80 per-hour would cost American households just 10 cents more per day on average for food.”
Challenged as the UK student’s study might be, his findings are consistent with other studies done previously. Above is a quote from the article linked by Sandi Sanders at 10:11 a.m. this morning. In that same article it was also pointed out that “a recent study from NELP found that jobs like cooks, cashiers, delivery workers and other non-managerial positions across the fast-food industry earn a median hourly wage of $8.94 per hour. As fast-food wages remain relatively stagnant, many workers actually have less buying power today than their peers did during the 1950s, writes Mark Bittman of The New York Times.”
Roger, you miss the point on the rising costs of the suppliers. They too will benefit from the increased volume resulting from the workers having more to spend. They too cannot pass on all their additional costs and will have to lower margins. The result is a temporary period of correction and them increased growth as pointed out by Dan above. The GOPTP has used this same logic with their :rising tide floats all boats”; however, in this case it actually works as the tide is under the boats, not over them.
Dan, guess what? Your response had nothing to do with my comment. I did not comment on what would happen if the minimum wage was increased. I did not call for abolishment of the minimum wage. I don’t even know what “RWers” are. Sandi made reference to an article about raising wages at McDonalds. I read the article and some related articles and made my comments on the reliability of the article she referenced. I don’t take these type of statements at face valve and believe that other people should be encouraged read the articles for themselves. Please feel free to comment on what I post but in the future I would appreciate if you did not imply that I have made statements that I did not make.
Why yes Roger, I read the whole article and the Forbes link too. The point is that the idea that paying workers better will bankrupt them or make food unaffordable is just not accurate. It is a choice, you either shut up about the safety nets and those who need to use them, or you make jobs pay what is required to sustain life without the safety nets. There are not a lot of options. The jobs need doing, people need to live. When you look at the inequality from taxpayer subsidized workers to wealthy CEO’s, the plot thickens too. We are out of balance and it shows.
How about a Price freeze on all goods and services until wages can catch up.
If my math is correct hourly wages above 5.21/hr (net) takes one out of “food stamp” maximum, and 8.28/hr takes one out of medicaid.
For a person to go completely without taxpayer funding for ACA they would have to make 22.09/hr.
“How about a Price freeze on all goods and services until wages can catch up?”
It ain’t gonna work. Remember Nixon kinda sorta tried that? It’s just causes discombobulation in a mostly free-market system.
As long as Walmart is allowed to use our tax $ in the form of Corporate Welfare there is nothing we can do to get them to raise wages.We need to figure out how to get our tax dollars replaced by companies like walmart.Consider this ,The walmart employee gets his food stamps,you paid for,then he takes the food stamps to work spends them at Walmart. Walmart then takes the food stampsWE PAID FOR,and redeems them for cash from the gov’t.They didn’t just screw the American tax payer once they did it twice.Evil does have it’s advantages.
butch006 has got it right.
Beason@2, 6, 11, and 19. . .Beason reason without a clue as to how business really thinks and works.
1) @2. . .only some of the workers will experience increased purchasing while others will find themselves unemployed with less hope of finding another job while those still employed enjoy the burden of increased
funding of the unemployed and inflated prices. The socialist policy of
redistribution of wealth does not work on those who are able to change
their business model in the face of restrictive and overbearing government
2) @6. . .the premise that businessmen do not like change is false. They
thrive on it. . .it is the only constant of being in business. I suggest you read,
till you understand it, “The Dynamics of Change” by Price Pritchard. Perhaps
one day the poor Democrat voters will realize that they have been taken snipe hunting by the LIB politicians. . .who have degraded the real means to
succeed; education; while bribing the poor with handouts and welfare so that
they lose all work ethic.
3) @11. . .the premise that there are no mulligans in life is false. Everyone
has the ability; if they choose; to change and better themselves. This is where government assistance should be focused but instead is focused on how many we can get signed up and locked in to control their votes. As for
Obama touting education. . .LOL
4) @19. . .again, the premise is false; growth will not result from artificially raising the minimum wage. . .businesses will do what is in their best interest.
They will trim their workforces and increase prices where they can which is
pretty much across the board. So we all end up paying more for goods and
services while some workers have a slightly larger paycheck (to go with their
now inflated cost of living) and other workers swell the ranks of the newly unemployed thereby limiting growth and further growing the welfare state
which make LIBS HAPPY as they love misery.
Beason; you should stick to bean counting and forget this dabbling in economics and business matters. . .whatever your experience. . .you do
not have a clue.
For an economist with an answer. . .try Walter E. Williams or Thomas Sowell.
Our economic malaise can be reversed but it takes people working in their own best interest. If you want a better lot. . .go out an earn it. . .get educated,
work hard, and stop believing the Liberal lies.
Sandi@10 and 21. . .Life is about choices. God may have created us all equal but after that, humans screw it up which results in us being unequal.
But, we do have free choice. . .and letting the free market and capitalism
operate results in a higher standard of living for all. . .the redistributive socialism you espouse has failed every time it’s been tried.
butch06@25 and Dan@26. . .LYPOCRISY! You wimps blame WalMart
for doing business. . .providing a desired product at a reasonable price.
It is the government that chooses to take your tax dollars and redistribute the
wealth by introducing a new currency = food stamps. Government should be
about helping those in need with getting the means to be employable (education and training) and assisting them to obtain employment. Your
biased blame is misplaced.
Beason@14. . .here’s your fact check. . .
Yes, because butch006,who Dan says has got it right, would rather see the Wal-Mart employee unemployed and COMPLETELY dependent upon and giving even more food stamps ‘WE PAID FOR’ to Wal-Mart. It never ceases to amaze me how liberals think it would be better for some to be unemployed than to work at Wal-Mart.
#17 “I’ve never heard anyone advocate completely abolishing the minimum wage.”
Not listening too closely are you, Henry?Check out some of your FR buds.
“BTW does the Roanoke Times pay its newspaper carriers a “living wage”?”
Probably not since their job is WAY less than full-time.
Any more strawmen, Henry? You’re getting so easy.
1) Either format your posts like everyone else does, or quit posting here, OK? It’s irritating to read your senseless drive when every other line is one or two words. I’m not going to put up with that any longer. Format it in a readable way or leave.
2) There are NO studies that cite actual data that support the notion that an increase in the minimum wage leads to an increase in unemployment on any kind of a broad scale. And: just because one employer uses that that as an excuse to fire a one lazy worker doesn’t mean jack.
3) Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are sellouts. They are paid lackeys of the Koch Bros, who give millions annually to the econ department of Willams’ and Sowell’s employers. The garbage they put out is to please the Koches. That’s all.
4) EVERY time there has been an increase it the minimum wage, economic growth has followed. THAT is a fact, Leon.
If you’re against economic growth, fine. But if that’s the case, why don’t you just admit it?
(And remember what I said about formatting your posts to make them readable. I’m not kidding).
Chuck apparently can’t see the scam that Walmart is running. Is anyone surprised? Walmart has DEPARTMENTS that help their poorly paid workers apply for food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, etc. The company is the largest private social service agency in the country. Except the benefits aren’t coming from Walmart, they’re coming from taxpayers. You can bet your bippy that if Walmart was paying those bennies, those departments wouldn’t exist. Good grief, Chuck, can’t you see beyond your toes?
The argument ,I believe is whether or not Walmart is using our tax system to make taxpayers pay their workers wages.They are. Having started working in the grocery industry in1968 I can tell you I Know of no workers who needed public assistance in my industry.What I am having a problem with is the fact that Walmart expects me to subsidize tax dollars to pay their workers.
You are assuming that the workers are forced to work at Walmart and forced to apply for free government money. That assumption is incorrect. They voluntarily go to work at Walmart just like I volunteered to work in the Notell Motel back in NC.
#36 That has nothing to do with the argument going on here, Henry. Try to keep up.
Just for the record, I would like to see people employed at Walmart receiving a liveable wage and benefits, and I will pay more for their products as a result. Probably not even much more. That’s a side of the equation that seems to be wilfully ignored.
You tell me how you want to handle it? Higher federal taxes for social welfare subsidies to minimum wage workers at Walmart, or a nickel more for items on Walmart shelves? Taxation or the market?
And, as Walmart is the largest employer of people in the US, what kind of influence do you think they might have on insurance rates if they got into the insurance game?
Roger, I too “believe that other people should be encouraged read the articles for themselves”, which is why I offer links to whatever I am referring to. Something, I might add, that few right wingers here ever offer.
You cannot have it both ways folks. Either you agree that the workers of a multi-billion dollar behemoth like Wal-Mart should be paid more or you shut up about our tax dollars subsidizing their business model. It isn’t rocket science.
This war on labor is not going to end well for business.
Leon, you need to brush up and stop using 1980s theory on 2013 economics. Try to follow along. We just had a recession and are in a slow recovery (due to GOPTP thinkers like you). Businesses that survived are operating on as few employees as possible and hire only when necessary. They will not and cannot lay anyone off, they have already done that four years ago. Some weaker ones might go out of business, but most will not as they are stronger now as many of their competitors fell by the wayside during the recession. Accordingly, your first premise is incorrect and all those following are just as incorrect. You are just like all the other GOPTPs that keep claiming inflation, inflation using your 1980s thinking when the conditions in today’s economy could not be more different than the 1980s. We are no where near having high inflatin, which by the way, is another reason raising the minimum wage works.
either keep up or shut up, you are looking out of touch and silly again.
Leon, as for redistribution of wealth – you are wrong again. The only time it has failed in the US has been when the GOP did it in 1986, 2001 and 2003. Each of these times has brought recession. When done by the Democrats in the 30s, the 50s, the 60s, the 90s, and in 2010s it has been most successful. A strong middle class is the secret to a strong USA economy. Trickle down has been VooDoo economics since Reagan. Perhaps you should change your reading to something more factual.
Leon, as for mulligans, perhaps you need to check the definition. It means to allow a “do over”. It does not mean change. Unless you have a time machine, Leon, you can’t do over life.
Leon, why your Factcheck cite? I have not said anything about Bush vs. Obama rate of job creation. Perhaps you are having trouble comprehending. Age does that. I said, Obama has not caused any job losses, Bush’s recession did that along with the GOPTP austerity crap. Obama’s policies, along with the Fed, have created jobs, not lost them.
For the “compassionate” conservatives, whose views reflect the old, “let them eat cake” policy of economic inequality, some FACTS:
The Vital Statistics
US poverty (less than $22,300 for a family of four): 46 million people, 15.1 percent.
Kids in poverty: 16.4 million, 22 percent of all kids.
Deep poverty (less than $11,157 for a family of four): 20.5 million people, 6.7 percent of population.
Impact of public policy, : without government assistance, poverty twice as high—nearly 30 percent.
Impact of public policy, [1964–1973]: poverty rate fell by 43 percent.
Number of Americans “deep poor,” “poor” or “near poor”: 100 million, or 1 in 3.
I was searching to find out how much is a “living wage” in dollars per hour, compared to what WalMart pays and found this article? It is rather interesting and brings a bit more perspective.
I could not find an actual number for a “living wage” does anyone have an idea?
Name is required
A valid email is required (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Thu, 05 Dec 2013 05:40:24 +0000
Metro Columnist Dan Casey knows a little bit about a lot of things but not a heck of a lot about most things. That doesn't keep him from writing about them, however. So keep him honest!
He welcomes your rants, raves and considered opinions, so long as the language is civil (i.e. no four-letter words). He'll read all your posts and may or may not respond.