CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

single mom with 3 kids — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:32:35 -0000

I am in Illinois and have worked for Wal-Mart. I will tell you first hand, I was working, and public assistance didn't want to help me with foodstamps. I was making 7.15 an hour after 1.5 years, raising 3 kids, paying 400 a month house payment, 150.oo a month elec bill and doing this by myself. After taxes and all I was not able to keep up with car insurance, kids' needs, food, and most of all I had to have a phone due to my daughters medical needs. I did get state assistant for medical but struggled to feed them. I was injured in a non-work related incident that left me unable to be on my feet for more than 4 hours. My dr. suggested quiting my job. I went to work and talked to them about going part time same day shift just shorter hours. They wouldn't do that. I had to quit. Now they have fought me on unemployment and since I can work I am unable to get disability. I am now unable to wear anything but "flip flop" sandles due to nerve damage on top of my foot. So now what? Wal-Mart comes into town talking about all the jobs, but what they dont tell you the jobs only last for a min of 6 months then they start laying people off. They just built a new supercenter here, and tell ya what it is useless. The 5 acre store is so big, the floor crew is few and far between. They treat their employees like crap, and talk to them like they are dogs. Management does not do their work they push it on to the next person. The next person will ignore it and hope it goes away. They say customers come first but if you try to help a customer, they reprimand you for trying to do so. They are lame,,,,,

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:37:51 -0000

Econ,

Ultimately, views like yours are either racist or naive.

Which is it for you?

Do you believe that Americans are better than Mexicans, or are you simply a fool who believes it cannot happen here?

Let's deal with FACTS:

How was the U.S. standard of living in 1934 before all those employment laws?

Did the Fair Labor act shut down the U.S. economy? What were the predictions then (this will require that you do some research)? What was the actual result?

How is the American standar of living now? Did that mininum wage destroy American freedom?

Enlighten us. The US has this great sense of innovation, but it also has these employment laws that you claim block all such innovation.

How about worker safety? How did that compare then and now?

Your argument -- if it can be called an argument -- ignores the basics. Most people do not earn the minimum. Of course not. That sets a base. What happens when that base falls away?

Let's look at what employers do when they don't have to pay the minimum wage. What is the paid wage of most waitresses?

You can call yourself "Econ." You can call yourself the King of Siam for all that it matters.

But when you boil it down, you have nothing to counter the facts.

If you prefer a system without wage supports and without rules for the safety of employees, I invite you to go live in a country offering those benefits.

But for you to reap those benefits and then insult them -- sorry that doesn't work.

So, which is it? Are you a racist or a fool?

Re: Question of the day

Econ 101 — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:25:22 -0000

Skeeter, you can keep repeating your simplistic and amazingly naive argument with Red, but you're making a ridiculous statment. Your argument is that if China and Mexico had minimum wage laws, like the U.S., they'd have the same level of wages for the employees working in those countries. That's nonsense. Those countries don't have the economic output or productivity or wealth creation of the U.S. A U.S. style minimum wage law there would shut down most of their economy--leaving only a minority of workers employed with the government's mandated wage.

You attribute the high wages and standard of living of Americans to the minimum wage law? The minimum wage law is irrelevant to all but a tiny number of Americans. We have a high standard of living because we have a mature economy rooted in decades of innovation and the ability of people and companies to act with freedom. I don't think Red is insulting that system. I think he's honoring it.

Re: Question of the day

Truthful James — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:25:11 -0000

Skeeter --

It is the company's value of the work being performed which sets the demand. On the supply of labor we have the value to the workman.

There are two marketplaces: the open market, which is recorded and reported wages; and the gray market in which work is exchanged for cas or for bartered goods or services.

In the latter market the minimum wage is a marker. Workers are well aware that the take home pay will be affected by required deductions and taxes. The employer is aware that he must also contribute 6.5% into the social security system, plus medicare taxes and unemployment taxes.

New workers in many studies agree thattheir contributions to social security may never be harvested. Other workers may be part of welfare systems with benefits accruing to them or their families - -benefits which would be affected if they were part of the open market. Withholding can be a regresive tax as well -- postponing for up to twelve months the return of earned wages which were sent to Washington and Springfield. Repaid without interest.

At the bottom end the contract between employer and employee to pay cash wages deals with the value of work and the preference for full payment of current wages. Each side benefits.

At this level and in this sector of the economy the required minimum wage is no more than a marker. The federal government might just as well announce from their labor data (if it were ever on time) what the market clearing wage was in the taxable sector for a specific job.

The Gray Market exists. The problem for economists is to be able to factor in employment in the Gray Market to the total workers employed and dtermine the real unemployment rate. They are unable to do that.

So how do wages drop below a given level. Only if there is a surplus of labor or a shortage of jobs.

Both of which are what you see in Mexico. Given the Gray Market we have a very small surplus of labor. A shortage of jobs can occur for many reasons. The market for a locally produced product dries up. International competition with cheap prices drives our prices down.

There are dislocations. In order to compete in the marketplace, companies invest capital and upgrade machinery. Fewer jobs are available in a set industry because sometimes capital works cheaper than labor. The jobs that remain are usually higher skilled and paid to reflect that higher skill.

A Trib article recently pointed out that the failure to upgrade equipment to be able to compete with foreign product is going to cause small machine shops to go out of business. For those companies it is already too late. Third generation manager/owners milked the business and did not understand the market.

The initial price of labor paid to a new worker might easily be less than his value to the company. Over time, as skills are acquired that worker, now trained and knowledgeble, is paid what he is worth.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:52:05 -0000

Red,

What were the wage standards and work standards in the U.S. in 1934 (before that socialist law that you hate)?

How about now?

Does Mexico have any similar laws?

What is their experience without a minimum wage?

How about China? You would love their system. No employment protection at all.

Do those workers have a high standard of living?

I consider it a shame that people like you take the benefit of the American system of employment protections -- wage and safety -- but then have the gall to turn around and insult the very system that has provided you with the standard of living that you now enjoy.

On the other hand, maybe "Red" is a good name for you. Maybe you prefer the Chinese system and their methods of dealing with employees.

Re: Question of the day

Red — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:30:44 -0000

Skeeter, time to move on, so I'll let you have the final word. I'll just say the obvious: the absence of a minimum wage law will not turn the prosperous USA into a Mexican wage ghetto. The vast majority of Americans make much more than the minimum wage. Under your theory, how is that possible? Why is that happening? Don't these stupid companies know that they "only" have to pay the minimum, as established by the government?

They're paying more because they HAVE TO in order to compete, to provide the services and deliver the products they need in order to win the voluntary choices of consumers and their dollars.

There was a time when the U.S. was like Mexico, but we grew and innovated, allowing capital and labor to flow to the highest and best uses. As a result, every generation of Americans has enjoyed a higher standard of living. That will continue, but only if we don't slowly, bit by bit, indulge the arrogance of thinking that a handful of men can decide what's "reasonable" for milllions of others--simply because they have control of the levers of political power.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:59:05 -0000

Red,
Stop going around in circles.

People will not work for less in America because we have a minimum wage -- "socialism" in your words.

Mexico doesn't have any of those pesky minimum wage laws that you despise.

What is the result?

If you get rid of the socialist min. wage laws, what will keep the upward pressure on those wages?

Re: Question of the day

Red — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:47:28 -0000

Simple Skeeter, supply and demand. Tell me how many good workers Wal Mart or Costco or Target or Jewel will attract with those $1 Mexican wages you keep talking about. The answer is none, which means they'd go out of business. Employers compete for good workers and that's what sets the level of wages--not the government.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:59:45 -0000

Red,
You are great at tossing cheap insults my way, but are not big at responding to the issues.

Enlighten us Red. Share your wit and learning. Tell us: If we abolish a mininum wage, what will prevent the U.S. from becoming another Mexico?

We see what the forces of supply and demand do there. Tell us what is different about America that will prevent it from happening either [of course, you must make that argument without relying on either unions or government regulation of wages].

Re: Question of the day

ISU REP — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:37:09 -0000

I find this whole debate to be rather amusing. The city council issuing edicts from on high, trying to do what's best for the city of Chicago etc etc. If that were the case then these same aldermen who make approx 100k a year and who just voted for a pay raise should pass an ordinance that city officials earning 100k plus should donate 10% of their salary back to the community. We all know something like that wouldn't happen...because they work so HARD for the people of Chicago. Our city is becoming a laughing stock thanks to these people. Have no fear the equal protection clause will squash this silly ordinance. It's sad these are the politicians who are running one of the greatest places in the country. What's even worse is people vote for them.

Re: Question of the day

Red — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:41:47 -0000

Skeeter,

Skeeter, It must be fun to live in a world where you, or a handful of aldermen, get to substitute your judgement of what's "reasonable" for the laws of supply and demand dictated by millions of voluntary decisions by consumers and businesses.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:40:35 -0000

re: typical Walmart employee salary. Is that mean or median, or an approximation of mode?

Re: Question of the day

Captain America — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:22:09 -0000

Everyone who wants to be informed about WalMart's business practices should at least browse through the following book: The Bully of Bentonville: How the High cost of Walmart's Everyday Low Prices Is Hurting America.

The author, Anthony Bianco, is not some wild-eyed socialist - he has been a senior writer at Business Week for 20 years. Excerpted factoids from book jacket:

Typical full-time Walmart employee makes $17,600 well below the official poverty line for a family of four.

Only 44% of WalMart's US employees are enrolled in the company health plan because they can't afford the health insurance premiums.

46% of the children of WalMart employees are either uninsured or on Medicaid.

40 class action suits in 30 states alleging that WalMart forces employees to work extra hours without any pay.

When a WalMart store in Quebec voted to affiliate with the United food and Commercial Worker's Union, Walmart closed the store in retaliation.

Annual employee turnover of 50% - WalMart has to hire 600,000 new employees a year - turnover unprecedented in the annals of business.

Sytematic pay discrimination against women resulting in the largest class action suit in history,involving 1.6 million women.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Wlmart is profitable. But its standard labor practices are less than exemplary - it'a a compnay robber barons of the 19th century could appreciate.

Consequntly, WalMart got exaclty what it deserved in terms of the "'big-box ordinance." Chicago is an entirely appropriate venue for this type of action given its historical role in the American labor movement.

I'm not a lawyer - so don't know if the ordinance will withstand legal scrutiny. At worst it's an important symbolic victory. The Bully of Bensonville got its rightful due. Politicans in other jurisdictions will be taking notice.

Re: Question of the day

Ignatius J. Reily — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:19:32 -0000

How many jobs are we really talking about here-- a few hundred thousand--maybe half a million? Wow, was I was misinformed! I thought we were talking a few hundred combined-total. And here, I was thinking that these big-box enterprises employed about 10,000 people each. Whew-- so it isn't a big diversion to make Daley look a modern north american mayor as opposed to an old-world strong-man then huh? Gee, maybe some of us should stop being so cynical-- the guy is trying to lead his beloved city by consensus. I'll bet he's working on getting a new press chief. Any body have any names that come to mind?

Re: Question of the day

Bill Baar — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:01:38 -0000

TOA,

Probably something along the lines cost of labor compared to sales.

I don't know, but I'm sure the bean counters have a metric.

That's part of the problem with all of this... in a few years those check out lines will be completely automated and we'll look back fondly on those unskilled jobs.

Had we kept those unskilled jobs in the city to look back fondly upon of course.

Re: Question of the day

Truthful James — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:07:25 -0000

TOA --

How do you measure worker productivity in a service economy or even a retail business?

Re: Question of the day

the Other Anonymous — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:57:33 -0000

I don't believe that wages are being set in an efficient, free market environment.

Barbara Eirereich's book, Nickled and Dimed, describes her experience being hired by a big box: she went through training and orientation and was scheduled to work, without being told her wage. In other words, crucial information to inform the market was purposely missing, withheld, or made harder to access.

Another reason the wage market is not efficient: worker productivity has increased tremendously in the last twenty years. Under classic economic theory, this would make the value of labor -- and hence wages -- increase. Instead, what we see is increasing income inequality and stagnant worker wages. In other words, any gains from increases in productivity are going to higher executive salaries, not to the workers' who produce more.

It's just too hard to justify the fiction that 21st century American commerce comports to classic economic theory. And yet we rarely hear from the business community about how to reform the market -- instead, we have bold assertions that the market will sort it out.

Well, the market isn't sorting it out. Instead, the well-connected use the power of government to increase market inefficiencies (e.g., special tax breaks for companies to relocate; creation of barriers to entry) at the expense of the middle and working class.

Welcome to the Gilded Age, v.2.

Re: Question of the day

Lovie's Leather — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:32:37 -0000

To qualify: I BELIEVE, Hankster, that some arbitrary number that defines "the poverty line" is relatively useless to determine the minimum wage in a country where housing prices can vary so greatly. Maybe the minimum wage should be raised. But does that justify some number the government made up?

"First, I am smarter than you. And better looking IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure." I will concede better looking... I am a moderate... So I like to meet in the middle...

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:41:18 -0000

Kids? Did you see my request?

Re: Question of the day

HANKSTER — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:38:26 -0000

Lovie's Leather....I will not get into the absurd argument with you that people who work more than 40 hours a week should still be living under the povery level (which 5.15/hr guarantees).

The fact is that people making such low wages cost everybody in the end. When Walmart encourages employees to join state and federal aid programs that costs us. When workers cant afford health insurance that costs us. When workers cant put food on the table that costs taxpayers money.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:30:40 -0000

- Lovie's Leather - Tuesday, Aug 1, 06 @ 3:24 pm:

"Hey skeeter, I see $5.15 as reasonable. So what makes your opinion more valid than mine?"

First, I am smarter than you. And better looking I'm sure. Beyond that, not much.

People can semi-reasonably argue $5.15 v. $10.00 [although given the buying power of $5.15 there really should not be much debate].

Where the argument goes wrong though is when people claim that the government should not set any minimum wage. That sort of argument, if accepted, would lead to a Mexican system.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:24:56 -0000

The problem with this discussion is that people are trying to define what the other side believes by distorting the other side's intentions, leading to much huffing and puffing about nuffing.

Let's stick to what you believe.

Re: Question of the day

Lovie's Leather — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:24:49 -0000

Hey skeeter, I see $5.15 as reasonable. So what makes your opinion more valid than mine?

Re: Question of the day

Lovie's Leather — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:18:50 -0000

P.S. Now that the tribune is reading the Capfax, make sure they pressure Lovie Smith into wearing the leather jacket when it gets cold. I love that jacket. I am so excited now that training camp has started!!!

Re: Question of the day

Econguru — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:18:13 -0000

Skeeter, I am noting the fact that businesses have adapted to Walmart, and have prospered because of Walmart. One store can sell items from a broad variety of sources (groceries, clothes, electronics, etc.), but they are hard pressed to sell everything in groceries that people would buy. That is where new businesses can prosper, along with other larger businesses that compete with Walmart, as Costco, Home Depot, Menards, etc. have done.