BERNIE’S BIG WIN: Amazon Caves to Sanders, Raises Minimum Wage to $15

tnt · 2018-10-05T16:13:48.540Z

Guvnah:

Precisely. It’s a shame that our discussions focus on the entry level when the whole point should be advancement. Most people CAN advance, but we’ve lost that focus. People’s productivity needs to be worth a better salary, and that’s why they should get more – whether at the warehouse or at a different company where salaries are even better. Not because the entitlement mentality cries for more.

Not always true - every step up the ladder, there are fewer and fewer jobs. So not everyone can advance - not even MOST people. Most implying greater than 50%. Middle management positions have been cut as technology improves efficiencies there as well.

tnt · 2018-10-05T16:16:19.008Z

A typical retail big box store has about 200 floor employees and 25 middle managers and about 10 managers. Pretty bad odds for advancement.

TheRedComet · 2018-10-05T16:30:03.231Z

True to an extent.

The unfortunate truth is that you have to be willing to relocate. If you can’t relocate then retail is a terrible career path. Once someone gets to a management spot they tend to stay there until they are offered an out of store promotion. If you can’t relocate for some reason then your opportunities are essentially cut down to someone getting fired.

I’ve had to move twice this year. The company took care of it but if I hadn’t been able or willing to relocate I’d have been stuck at where I was.

I was underpaid for the amount of productivity I made as an assistant manager; most assistant managers run a 12-13% personal payroll which is what the company expects. I ran 6-7% personal payroll. I not only handled every single operations task in the store but I still outsold everyone else in the store. But I’m the kind of guy who hates making demands so I just kept my mouth shut about it. Plus the district manager we had at the time was a tight ass on raises no matter what your personal numbers were. So I didn’t bother.

Once we got a new DM (the old one went to a competitor) he noticed it and offered me a store. I took it and ran it for a couple of months. They decided to shake the districts up and my store was going to end up under a guy I really didn’t care for so out of loyalty I moved again to stay under my current DM.

tnt · 2018-10-05T16:37:55.415Z

Retail is brutal, no doubt about it.

I’m just arguing that if there was a higher minimum wage, fewer people with jobs would be on government assistance and that would be good for eh country. If this results in a rise in prices, let the consumers who use the stores bear the true cost of keeping the work force fed and sheltered, rather than making everyone - regardless of patronage - do it.

AngraMainyu · 2018-10-05T16:53:04.836Z

I’m glad amazon employees are being paid more

Guvnah · 2018-10-05T17:05:20.453Z

tnt:

Its neither liberal nor conservative.

I didn’t say your logic was liberal. there can be reasonable liberal arguments. Yours is just libberish.

Guvnah · 2018-10-05T17:07:52.051Z

tnt:

Not always true (snip blah, blah, blah)…

This is an example of what I’m talking about. Always an excuse. Always an exception.

Nothing is ALWAYS true. Go cry on someone else’s shoulder.

tnt · 2018-10-05T17:08:00.905Z

Guvnah:

I didn’t say your logic was liberal. there can be reasonable liberal arguments. Yours is just libberish.

So, if more people earn a wage higher than the threshold, less people will be on food stamps.

Yes or no?

tnt · 2018-10-05T17:09:58.336Z

Guvnah:

This is an example of what I’m talking about. Always an excuse. Always an exception.

Nothing is ALWAYS true. Go cry on someone else’s shoulder.

Red Comet agreed and cited real life experience. Sorry that your simpleton talking points don’t always hold true. Life is tough that way. You should try to get used to it. You will be more successful and happier if you come to accept that not everything is always the way you want it to be.

Guvnah · 2018-10-05T17:14:22.896Z

tnt:

So, if more people earn a wage higher than the threshold, less people will be on food stamps.

Yes or no?

Eventually, NO.

Higher wages raise costs, and that translates into higher cost of living, and the government moves the threshold yet again.

As a lib, you can’t seem to see past your own nose. Short-term changes don’t stay that way.

Entry-level workers get minimum wages for a reason. It always will be that way. Improve your skills and move to a better position. Government mandate can’t change that.

Guvnah · 2018-10-05T17:15:43.551Z

tnt:

Life is tough that way.

Correct. Get better skills if you want better pay.

tnt · 2018-10-05T17:23:26.438Z

Guvnah:

Eventually, NO.

Higher wages raise costs, and that translates into higher cost of living, and the government moves the threshold yet again.

As a lib, you can’t seem to see past your own nose. Short-term changes don’t stay that way.

Entry-level workers get minimum wages for a reason. It always will be that way. Improve your skills and move to a better position. Government mandate can’t change that.

Ok - even though you haven’t provided proof that the government frequently raises SNAP threshold, and my searches turn up nothing, let’s consider that fear, then discuss the alternative.

Certainly it’s reasonable to assume SNAP threshold goes up over time, with inflation. Makes perfectt sense. but what we are discussing is a large boost in income to the lower wage earning americans - not just an inflation adjustment. We’re talking about a 30% or more increase in income.

Why would anyone - even a crazy lib - vote to raise the SNAP threshold 30% or more? I don’t believe that would happen.

I would argue strongly against it. I can’t think of a reason to support that.

So you are arguing for the stars quo. We both recognize that SNAP and other safety net entitlements aren’t going anywhere.

I know you arne’t happy about that. but to throw int eh towel and accept it - or, as I believe you have, argue simply they should be eliminated - while realizing that won’t happen, is to accept the status quo.

Accept that you and I will pay to keep Walmart’s work force clothed, fed and sheltered, even if we are not customers of Walmart.

Why do you prefer that to Walmart paying a wage high enough to allow their workers to cross the current threshold?

tnt · 2018-10-05T17:24:21.554Z

Guvnah:

Correct. Get better skills if you want better pay.

So you are content paying to keep McDonald’s work force fed and sheltered, even if you are not a customer of McDonalds?

Not a very conservative position.

Guvnah · 2018-10-05T19:12:04.868Z

tnt:

Why do you prefer that to Walmart paying a wage high enough to allow their workers to cross the current threshold?

Why write this lie?

I never said anything like that. Earlier I challenged you to be honest. You asserted you were.

Crap like this is why I have no tolerance for your trollish posts.

Guvnah · 2018-10-05T19:12:45.313Z

tnt:

So you are content paying to keep McDonald’s work force fed and sheltered, even if you are not a customer of McDonalds?

Troll.

…

tnt · 2018-10-05T19:34:24.924Z

Stop being such a baby. Jesus H Christ. Have a conversation like an adult.

If I took your meaning or post wrong, it’s not some indication I’m involved with the ■■■■■■■ deep state.

From your posts, I see you supporting the status quo re: wages which results in tax payer subsidizing large low cost work forces.

I know you would prefer to limit entitlements and that you claim this would drive prices up.

You have also said you realize that is not going to happen.

So…if that is true - your preferred solution is not gonna happen, and you refuse to consider another option…you are content with the stars quo.

At least that’s how I see it.

Now I am sure you will parse this pot and insult me further, but jeez, don’t you get tired of that? Try having a real grown up conversation maybe.

Guvnah · 2018-10-05T19:36:35.350Z

tnt:

At least that’s how I see it.

That’s the entirety of the problem.

Your vision is warped. I find very little truth or sincerity in most of your posts.

TheRedComet · 2018-10-05T19:41:31.730Z

I think both of you have a point.

Guvnah is correct in that ultimately the responsibility falls upon the worker to improve his lot in life. It’s not the company’s responsibility to take care of you. Many people are idiots when it comes to managing what little money they bring in. I work in a parts store. You would be surprised what people are doing with their money. Complaining about a 30 dollar coolant sensor when their truck has a four inch lift kit and 35 inch tires on it. Begging you for discounts because they are “broke.”

TNT is correct in that companies do take advantage welfare state to increase profit margins by paying their employees at or underneath what qualifies a family for government assistance so that the worker will feel “content” on survival rather than fighting for higher wages.

TheRedComet · 2018-10-05T19:43:04.529Z

The solution? I have no earthly idea. Personally I feel that worker organization ultimately benefits everyone; labor and management included. But the labor movement is on its way out and people are just going to learn to adjust.

tnt · 2018-10-05T19:48:51.033Z

Guvnah:

That’s the entirety of the problem.

Your vision is warped. I find very little truth or sincerity in most of your posts.

Says the guy that parses posts and only responds to parts of them.

You are among the most conceited and intellectually dishonest posters here.