If women and men working at the White House were paid the same,
Posted on 04/09/2014 11:56:04 AM PDT by EveningStar
Many Wal-Mart employees have the best of both worlds.
They get enough from their paycheck to have fun, yet earn so little, they can still get .gov handouts and be low ranking members of the FSA.
Wages are not determined by what you “need”, but by how much value you provide the person paying you - just like any good or service.
bfl
I do not comprehend the issues of wages at Walmart or fast food places. People are free to not work at jobs if they don’t think they pay enough. Walmart is singled out for this sort of crud when I doubt Kmart and Target pay is not much higher if any.
If employees want higher paying jobs they need to find out what qualifications such jobs require and do whatever they need to do in order to qualify for that type of job.
My first job was in fast food, my second job was in retail at a department store, that is how I see that type of job, as a starting point- stepping stone. If working fast food or retail is your cup of tea then bust your butt and/or take night classes so you can move up into positions at those stores that pay what you want to make. Not everyone at Walmart or McDonalds is making minimum wage.
I know several people that work at my area Walmart and none of them are depending on that income to survive. Most are already retired and just want something to do or a little extra money. A couple people I know that work there are college students that are just there for spending money/work experience.
One glaring error in their “analysis” is assuming that everything else would stay the same. Which it never does. The economy is perpetually in a state of disequilibrium. When things are working well, the economy seeks general equilibrium — but, it never actually achieves it. When one thing changes, everything else has to change somewhat, to adjust to that change. And so on.
Some of the likely adjustments are easy to predict from theory. Employers will be able to hire better qualified workers, at the mandated higher wage. They will fire the marginal workers, and substitute more educated, and more motivated workers. They won’t need as many of these workers. Employers will substitute capital for labour — investing in new technology (which their more qualified workers will be able to operate), in lieu of cheap labour. Again — a reduction in workforce. More retail business will migrate from bricks-and-mortar stores to on-line. Once again, fewer minimum-wage workers will be required.
Payroll is the MOST expensive liability businesses have most people
DO NOT realize that ALL employers match ALL payroll taxes, workers
comp insurance is according to payroll (VERY EXPENSIVE), the cost of training NEW employees, and health care!!! MOST LIV’S do not have any idea the COSTS that go along with PAYROLL!!!!
If women and men working at the White House were paid the same,
I don’t disagree with what you are saying. But what does it say about one of the more profitable companies in the US when it pays wages low enough that its employees are eligible for public assistance even when working full time? Are they not making their profits on the backs of taxpayers?
I’m not sure what the answer is. I don’t know that a full-time wage that is low enough to qualify for public assistance is something that we want for adults, though.
That’s something that any liberal I’ve talked to on this issue just will not acknowledge.
Somehow there are no other places to work.
And if there are, none of them want to pay what someone needs (wrong premise, of course).
“The way it works shipboard is, you do your job. You do it good you get a better job” Captain Ron
Bottom tier employees at Walmart make the same or more than their counterparts at Target ...
So there you have it. We are willing to do easy work for lower wages.
The grinding recession accounts for much of the increase the past few years, but not for its entirety. Spending on food stamps doubled between 2001 and 2006, even though unemployment was low in those years. Even when the economy is projected to improve in the future, usage of food stamps will remain elevated above historic norms. Food Stamp Nation is here to stay. One of its pillars is so-called categorical eligibility, which means that if someone is eligible for another welfare program, he is presumptively eligible for food stamps. In 2000, the Clinton administration issued regulations saying that merely getting a noncash welfare benefit could make someone eligible. Getting a welfare brochure or being referred to an 800 number for services is enough to qualify in almost all the states. In Vermont, receiving a bookmark with a telephone number and website for services is enough.
Categorical eligibility effectively wiped out the program’s old asset test (i.e., you couldn’t have $30,000 in the bank and get food stamps), although income limitations still apply. In the Obama stimulus, the work requirement was suspended, too, and hasn’t been restored. The requirement had discouraged young, able-bodied nonparents from utilizing the program; there are millions of them on food stamps. The bottom line is that government at all levels actively wants people on the program.
Newt Gingrich famously calls Barack Obama “the food-stamp president.” But the first president worthy of the moniker was George W. Bush. His administration brought a Madison Avenue element to the otherwise unreconstructed Great Society program. Not everyone who is eligible for food stamps knows it or wants to sign up. Bush began a recruitment campaign. In the same vein, the Obama administration is running radio ads hailing food stamps as a way to lose weight. At the local level, county governments spread the word and work to overcome residual cultural resistance to taking government benefits. The federal government pays $50 million in bonuses to states for signing people up.
Walmart is not the reason a large portion of their income is from food stamps. The reason is this administration thinks the more people they have on food stamps the better and are encouraging many people to get food stamps that would not have previously been accepting them. There is an actual campaign going on to get people on disability, food stamps, medicaid, etc., etc. Walmart happens to sell groceries so they do benefit from all those on food stamps, but would also make money if the economy was better and few were using food stamps.
The whole video relied on numbers supplied by researchers at Berkeley.
Read the closing credits carefully.
Yes. That happens all the time. Many regulations and provisions create distortions in the economy. Look FED interest rates, housing boom.
The tax code alone 'creates' a whole sector of private enterprise. Yet, that does not mean we should have that sector. There is countless regulations to be followed that us peons have to do. That alone creates a entire private job ecosystem.
What is the price elasticity that is acceptable with Walmart shoppers is the question. They can go to someplace else to get pretty much the smae products.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.