Where did I say “low skilled”?
Also, unskilled workers will be required for the foreseeable future. If we refuse to pay a living wage, let alone a wage with some wiggle room, aren’t we really just talking about serfdom?
2 Likes
Yep! Those getting their first job and working their way through higher education will be unskilled. But that is expected to be their temporary first step, not a career choice.
Not really. Temporary first timers will likely still be living with their parents.
And then we are back to trying to define what a living wage really is. It varies greatly depending each individual’s set of circumstances; where they live; lifestyle; number of dependents; etc…
The simple solution here is for each individual to become responsible for their own set of circumstances and to acquire the skills necessary to survive in their chosen environment.
We have been talking about unskilled workers throughout the entire thread. Skilled workers very likely wouldn’t need government assistance.
As to your point, corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits. Has always been that way. As a stock holder I would expect no less.
In order to maximize their profits, corporations would be looking to hire the best and the brightest. Those who are willing to gain the needed skills and apply themselves will have a leg up. Those who choose to remain low skilled are a dime a dozen. There is no reason to compensate them in the same manner as a valued high skilled employee.
That’s the way the real world works. No amount of wishing and hoping will change it.
And how has that worked out for the country’s industrial base?
You have a skewed view if the modern American work force.
Manufacturing jobs are largely gone for a variety of reasons. I strongly believe some of those reasons are excessive government regulations, high taxes and inflated union wages.
That kind of intrusion can have an impact on the bottom line. The result is that any corporation worth their salt would look to move their operations to places with minimal regulations, low taxes and low wages. Once again, as a stock holder, I would expect no less.
As a stock holder I would have no interest in owning shares in a company that wasn’t focused like a laser on their fiduciary responsibility to me as a stock holder.
So is the corporation to blame or is big government and the unions to blame?
Please elaborate.
Now what would your company response be if a competitor to you is able to under cut your prices by lowering employee wages and having the government make up the difference and pay a part of their income
Why do the prices need to increase tho, Walmart would still be profitable if they covered the 7k a year the average Walmart employee is paid by the taxpayers.
If Walmart Insists are paying the Walton’s 10 billion a year and increases prices people can just shop at other markets Costco target and other companies can fill their market.
LIBs continue to talk about government making up the difference in wages. How exactly does that work, given that welfare payments are given to those who are unemployed and looking for work? There are no welfare payments for someone who is employed in a full time job.
Additionally most major corporations provide health benefits to their full time employees, so Medicaid wouldn’t be required.
The average Walmart employee costs the taxpayers 7k a year
Sooner or later I was hoping you might realize that no one is paying attention to your continued ranting about Walmart and the Walton family. But if not please feel free to carry on.
Why do you think your investment in stock should be worth more than the actual labor to produce the revenue? That is the crux of the issue. Expecting exhoboriant returns on your stock investment.
The crux of the issue is unskilled labor looking for a living wage. I have no obligation to anyone who chooses not to acquire the skills necessary to earn a decent living; and neither does anyone else. I, like every other stockholder, expects their shares to increase in value. Its always been that way and it isn’t about to change to accommodate those few who choose not to get an education…
The Walton’s are the best example of a parasitic company. What should be done about a company who’s growth drains America at the tune of 7k dollars a year per employee? Do you understand that this is unsustainable and more and more companies are following Walmarts lead?
Sooner or later im hoping a con trumpy here will address the statistics instead of just throwing out rhetoric that had nothing to do with anything.
But of course I’d expect a trumpy to ignore anything that challenges your world view. You haven’t attempted to address anything.
0 trumpism 101
I don’t entirely disagree. You are entitled to a return on your investment. How much is enough though? That is the problem. It should not come at the expense of the labor producing that revenue.
You are essentially expecting money for nothing.
1-you seem to think all low wage/skill jobs are “entry level”. By this, I assume you mean first time entrants into the workforce. One can simply look around, and see this is not true.
2-You say that “skills” are needed so companies can hire the “best and the brightest”. By this, I assume you mean workers should get an education. Fine, I agree.
A-what if you can't afford that.
education? I assume that you also
oppose government funded 2ndary
education? If so, then what?
Serfdom?
B-suppose that you *do* manage to
get that 2ndary education, but aren't
the "best and the brightest"? Then
what? Serfdom?
3-you are very anxious to blame things like unions and regulations for the current state of affairs, while blithely overlooking the profit motive: to wit, companies will pay as little as possible into overhead costs, including payroll. And they can succeed in this as long as we all agree to maintain a caste of serfs. However, as has been noted in this thread, we still end up paying for this via the social safety net. And to me, even that is fine, except:
A-the richest corporations in the world
are taking advantage of this largesse
B-we are trying to have a society here.
There wouldn't be a problem with
incipient socialism if everybody could
count on a basic standard of living.
4-Finally, the economy is extremely complicated. A tweak here will negatively affect something there. Nevertheless, I feel that we, as Americans can, and should, do better.
Edit: I have no idea how or why the format changed
Its never enough. That’s the way I feel about it and I’m quite sure I sit in the majority on that one.
It doesn’t. Corporations highly compensate their valued employees. They would be committing suicide if they didn’t But those employees are not paid more than what they are worth to the company. Again they would be committing suicide if they did.
The major difference between us seems to be who gets to decide what wages are appropriate for a given employee. As a conservative and as a stock holder, I’m going to go with the employer. I have no doubt you will disagree, but hey that’s what freedom in this great country is all about.
If the only reason the return/profits are possible is because the government is massively subsidizing the employees it not only had a significant advantage over it’s competition in the ability to undercut prices but penalizes sustainable corporations
