So, You Want $15 An Hour?

T. A. Gardner said:
I'm saying you don't believe in capitalism. A forced minimum wage is anti-Capitalist. You want that. The government subsidizing those that are unemployed (including those attending school) is anti-Capitalist. You want that.
Click to expand...
Requiring a work ethic in an at-will employment State is worse because it creates poverty.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's your ignorance I'm appealing to... If I can't understand what you are stating because it makes little or no sense, it's incumbent on you to make yourself clearer so I can respond.
Click to expand...
You need to explain what it is you don't understand. Otherwise, I don't understand your question.
 
Concart said:
Sure you did. People can read. Unfortunately for you. Here's your problem. You aren't unique. You are an archetype. I call it the anecdotal appeal to authority. This thread is full of examples. 'I have observed', 'As someone who does sign the checks', 'I pay my employees well', 'I own Walmart stock', 'I talked to this worker holding a sign', 'I talked to the Walmart General Manager'. ROTFLMFAO!!! Who the fuck DOES that? No one.

Not one of those anecdotes is relevant to the discussion. And yet you couldn't wait to make sure you got those in. You think it makes your argument more credible. It doesn't. Your original post is lazy, sloppy, and misleading. You ignore the overhead cost of automated checkout lanes because it isn't good for your simpleton math demonstrating 'savings'. The anecdotes are meaningless when what you post completely belies the claims.

How much does breakage increase with self checkout? What is the capital cost of installing automated checkouts? The cost to man them? The cost to maintain them? What are the benefit savings? Payroll tax savings? An experienced business owner would ask those questions. But you didn't. So claiming you are this or that doesn't mean much when you can't even put together a reasonable argument. Does automation save money? I'm sure it does because Walmart is doing it. But it also CHANGES the model in ways that you chose to ignore because that's not what you are here for. And it would require a lot more effort than you are willing to put in. I've seen your type a hundred times. You aren't even that skilled at it.
Click to expand...

Even if automation means savings, there's an altogether different argument against excessive automation. It's called morality.
 
Street Glider said:
You seem to think that the ultimate purpose of Wal-Mart is to provide jobs to people which pay a living wage.

That's so far off base it's funny. I'm laughing at you.

Wal-Mart exists to make money. Period. And they make a shit-ton of it. And, as long as they break no laws doing it, I hope the Walton's do become trillionaires one day. That'd be sweet. See, you see it as, if they have money, you don't, as if you (meaning any retail employee) has a right to the insane profits Wal-Mart makes. Well, you don't. You're entitled to what Wal-Mart elects to pay someone in your position. You, on the other hand, can choose to either accept the terms of employment with that salary, or you can go elsewhere.

How much is a cashier worth? $10 an hour? $15? If they're worth $15 an hour, why not $20? Or $40?

See, as long as you're not the one signing the checks, you'll sit there and spew your nonsense, simply because you have no skin in the game. As someone who does sign the checks, your perspective changes when you have that responsibility.

I pay my employees very well. But everyone of them knows that if they approached me and demanded a higher salary or they were leaving, they wouldn't be shown the door fast enough...
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
Jack said:
UBI is what will/is needed. There will be no other way to feed the unemployed.
So, we are at the point where we can decide how many people to send Checks to in the Future.
Click to expand...

The last thing in the world we need right now is MORE HUMAN WORKERS. They are relatively inefficient. Is there anyone who thinks it wise to dig foundations of buildings using humans with shovels? Is there anyone who thinks it wise to cut a tunnel through a mountain with humans using shovels and axes?

Why do we have 100% of politicians running for office who promise to create more jobs (more work) rather than more leisure time (less work)?

We are so fucked up!
 
Street Glider said:
So, you want $15 to start as a cashier at Wal-Mart?

I rarely go to Wal-Mart, but the last time I was there (about three weeks ago) there were two cashiers on duty, and eight self-service lanes open.

It's a smart move by Wal-Mart. At $15 an hour, eight cashier lanes running 17 hours a day (my local Wal-Mart is open from 6am-11pm) costs Wal-Mart $2,040 per day to operate. In just 2-1/2 days a single kiosk can pay for itself (they run around five grand a pop). The kiosk then no longer needs anything; no training, no time off, no breaks, no health insurance, no paid holidays; nothing.

This is where retail is headed. If we assume ten kiosks per store and an otherwise hourly wage of $15 an hour per soon-to-be-out-of-work cashier, once these kiosks pay for themselves (which would happen in rather short order) Wal-Mart will save a total of $2,550 per day in hourly wages. That's $17,850 per week, or $928,200 a year, and that's per store. Wal-Mart has approximately 10,500 stores. If this approach was put in place in all of their stores, Wal_Mart would save $9,746,100,00 per year.

Many retailers will follow Wal-Mart's lead. If the kiosk idea ultimately fails, Wal-Mart is large enough to absorb the loss. If it succeeds, though, other retailers will start adopting the use of kiosks instead of employing cashier's. Even the largest grocery stores (which are also currently employing self-serve kiosks) will be able to operate with far fewer employees.

This is just an observation based on what I've seen locally here in northeast Florida. I have to believe that northeast Florida is not unique...
Click to expand...

The MW discussion shows just how stupid the left is. When you make people pay more for something do they buy less of it or more of it? What's a "better" scenario? One person making $15/hour or 2 people working making $7.50/hour? Leftists??????
 
Yakuda said:
The MW discussion shows just how stupid the left is. When you make people pay more for something do they buy less of it or more of it? What's a "better" scenario? One person making $15/hour or 2 people working making $7.50/hour? Leftists??????
Click to expand...
Only if you resort to such special pleading, which is usually considered a fallacy. A better scenario would be the minimum wage at fifteen an hour and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed at seven dollars and fifty cents an hour.
 
danielpalos said:
Only if you resort to such special pleading, which is usually considered a fallacy. A better scenario would be the minimum wage at fifteen an hour and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed at seven dollars and fifty cents an hour.
Click to expand...

Why should someone be paid for not working?
 
Street Glider said:
This is just an observation based on what I've seen locally here in northeast Florida. I have to believe that northeast Florida is not unique...
Click to expand...


An accurate observation, perhaps, but not a promising one.
I've now lived long enough to see my country go all the way to hell in a handbasket.
It will never return with "moderate" solutions, and we're mentally incapable of committing to more than that.
We're officially Rome with the Goths at the gate. Say Goodnight, Gracie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top