$8.23/h?
WHAT?
Thats the AVERAGE (not the minimum) wage for a wall-mart employee.
How on earth can anyone survive on that?
Even if counting in company paid health care and stuff like that it is ridicules below the absolute minimum hourly pay anyone should get.
A super marked employee would get as the absolut minimum $16,5 and even when taxes and vat has been subtracted it would still be more than the AVERAGE wall mart pay before tax. I even think unemployment benefits would bring more home.
"Yeah yeah. Typical Anders rant like so many times before". Yes you might be right but I just read this and I was very surprised.
Thats the AVERAGE (not the minimum) wage for a wall-mart employee.
How on earth can anyone survive on that?
Even if counting in company paid health care and stuff like that it is ridicules below the absolute minimum hourly pay anyone should get.
A super marked employee would get as the absolut minimum $16,5 and even when taxes and vat has been subtracted it would still be more than the AVERAGE wall mart pay before tax. I even think unemployment benefits would bring more home.
"Yeah yeah. Typical Anders rant like so many times before". Yes you might be right but I just read this and I was very surprised.
Comments
You assume too much.
I have a good friend that manages the deli in a Wal Mart here and he's pulling $30,000/year in "Iowa" money. I imagine that's fairly standard rate for full-time (40+hrs/week) employees, of which most Wal Marts have very few.
Jeff
Allow me to inject a bit of my own bitterness on the topic. While it may be pathetic that $8.23/hr is the average for a non-union Walmart, I do work at a union employed company at a paltry $10.51/hr. Unions don't necessarily look after "joe average"'s a$$, either (though that may have been the original intent). It's still much about the bigger fish preying on the smaller fish, and unions have simply become one of the "fish" somewhere along the chain, and the working man remains the smallest fish. There is a myraid array of issues at hand in how a union interacts with a host company. Amongst those 2, there are no clear examples of the "good guy" and the "bad guy".
Unions may keep you from getting unfairly fired, but they also fight to keep some truly unworthy, lazy, frighteningly ignorant, and generally horrid people employed, as well.
Unions may fight for better wages, but they also may sell out/sacrifice later generations of employees to get the quick cash-in on a contract. When the union has settled a contract that results in your starting pay ending up in the sub-$9.00 range (where the previous contract would have had starting pay at $12.00+), that $200 union initiation fee can really feel like a burn. (Thanks Mr. Union. I'm sure that $200 will go to good use...)
Unions may champion the accessibility of comprehensive medical coverage for employees, but they also can go too far and hold a company captive to pay for unlimited increases in insurance premiums, when the real source of the problem is the insurance and medical industry. Insurance and medical care have become a fire-breathing beast. Feeding them further will only make them stronger and demand more later on. Coercing the host company to pay the premiums, no matter how high they become, will only make the company weaker. Subsequently, less employees can be budgetted and thus less can be hired. The existing employees may enjoy continued medical benefits (for the short term, at least), but they will pay for it anyway as they are worked to the bone when the company has clearly become understaffed to handle the targetted workload.
Those are just a few examples where priorities have become such a mish-mosh of endless power struggles, making one wonder about unions, "Just whose side are you on, anyway?"
Originally posted by Rick1138
That is about what I make in my job, without health benefits. True, you can't live on that, that is why I have two jobs.
What sort of work do you do Rick1138?
Fellows
By the way, anders. . . the amount of unemployment welfare you get has a lot to do with your previous job. So you can't quit your job and do better on welfare. . . at least that's how it's supposed to work.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
If there's ample supply of labor at 8.23/hr, there's no reason to increase the wages.
Surely, it is sound business justification, but is it ethically justified? I think that is the disconnect problem that many face here. This affects human beings not "beans" (as in those things that "bean counters" count). I can also see the other side in that if you don't cut it close to the bone wherever possible, it will be difficult to be competitive in your shared market. The best solution for all involved lies somewhere in the middle, IMO (wrt to being fiscally lean vs. enabling a reasonable standard of living for the life blood of your company).
Originally posted by Anders
WHAT?
Thats the AVERAGE (not the minimum) wage for a wall-mart employee.
How on earth can anyone survive on that?
Even if counting in company paid health care and stuff like that it is ridicules below the absolute minimum hourly pay anyone should get.
A super marked employee would get as the absolut minimum $16,5 and even when taxes and vat has been subtracted it would still be more than the AVERAGE wall mart pay before tax. I even think unemployment benefits would bring more home.
"Yeah yeah. Typical Anders rant like so many times before". Yes you might be right but I just read this and I was very surprised.
Minimum wage is $5.15. Sounds like they have a good deal. Gee, if they want to earn more, DON'T WORK THERE.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Surely, it is sound business justification, but is it ethically justified? I think that is the disconnect problem that many face here. This affects human beings not "beans" (as in those things that "bean counters" count). I can also see the other side in that if you don't cut it close to the bone wherever possible, it will be difficult to be competitive in your shared market. The best solution for all involved lies somewhere in the middle, IMO (wrt to being fiscally lean vs. enabling a reasonable standard of living for the life blood of your company).
Increasing the lowest wages across the board only will result in inflation and more of the middle class being destroyed.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Surely, it is sound business justification, but is it ethically justified? I think that is the disconnect problem that many face here. This affects human beings not "beans" (as in those things that "bean counters" count). I can also see the other side in that if you don't cut it close to the bone wherever possible, it will be difficult to be competitive in your shared market. The best solution for all involved lies somewhere in the middle, IMO (wrt to being fiscally lean vs. enabling a reasonable standard of living for the life blood of your company).
It's pretty simple. How many people want flexible full/part-time work that requires no special skills, no education, no real manual labor, heck not even working outside of air conditioning?
That is why it pays what it does. Change any of those variables, and watch the pay rate start to change. Require something that some stiff off the street doesn't know and can't be trained by watching a video in 20 minutes, pay goes up, etc.
The supply of people who can and will do this job is too large.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
It's pretty simple. How many people want flexible full/part-time work that requires no special skills, no education, no real manual labor, heck not even working outside of air conditioning?
That is why it pays what it does. Change any of those variables, and watch the pay rate start to change. Require something that some stiff off the street doesn't know and can't be trained by watching a video in 20 minutes, pay goes up, etc.
The supply of people who can and will do this job is too large.
Nick
To be honest the core of my main student job require two weeks of training and not much more. I´m given a desk, a computer and lunch every day and my salary is $25/h. After tax its still double the amount of the AVERAGE (<-remember that) wal mart worker before tax.
Originally posted by Anders
To be honest the core of my main student job require two weeks of training and not much more. I´m given a desk, a computer and lunch every day and my salary is $25/h. After tax its still double the amount of the AVERAGE (<-remember that) wal mart worker before tax.
Supply and demand. If they weren't able to get workers willing to accept 8 bucks an hour, they'd have to increase the wages.
Guess what? They have plenty of workers and not a single union has formed either.
In my summer job I work for my uncle in our supermarkets. I was a grocery stock boy for 3-4 years (starting at 14) making minimum wage, then $6 then $7.50 and finally when I was 17 I hit $8. The next year started in the deli. Since by then I was really helping out a lot I started making $10. Last year I started to really get the hang of the deli and moved to the meat department... in addition to ferrying my brother and my two cousins to work with me every day... my brother and cousin are 3 years behind me and they are making $6 I believe... my little cousin is only 13 so he is making $4.75, the training wage. All of us started at the minimum wage.
We work 40 hours a week over the summer so we make pretty good checks... at least for us... most people working at the supermarkets--at least the ones who are close to our age--are making a bit less then us, but that is usually because they didn't start to work until they are 16 and because they usually work less hours then we do. AFAIK they start at minimum wage and after a year, depending on how well they work get a raise to $6 or $6.50. I believe the standard "union" pay increase is 50¢ every 6 months... up to a certain cap... I'm not sure what the details of it are, but anyone under 25 or so usually isn't going to make their main job working in a supermarket. All of the people I met working over the summers have had bigger goals then that. So I think they feel the wages they get are fair... If they didn't they would quit.
But I'm sure the average salary, including everyone that is working at the office, is probably close to $8.50. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. If anything it should be a bit lower...
Originally posted by BR
They have plenty of workers and not a single union has formed either.
Bingo. This is the problem. Wal-Mart supposedly does fight this every way they can too. Bring in a Union and the wages will go up.
Long live the union!
I believe that the federal government basically should be ashamed to tax anyone who makes less than $20 grand a year, wether they have a family or not. And anyone who makes between $20 and $30 grand should be taxed next to nothing IMO. Above $30 grand they can start to have their fun, but the burden should very definitely be more squarely aimed at the very wealthy (people who pull in more than $200 grand a year). Essentially, I am much more in favor of luxury taxes than income taxes. I'd rather see Joe and Jane Millionaire pay a big(ger) tax on their gas-guzzling Lexus or ridiculously huge house (for three people), than pay it on their actual income.
Sort of a deal where you make or break your own tax burden based on your spending choices. I also think Capital gains taxes ought to be cut in a big way, and the majority should be taken on the sale of an investment. That way saving and investing is always rewarded to a greater degree. That way you're only taxed in a signicant way one time rather than every year.
Originally posted by BR
Supply and demand. If they weren't able to get workers willing to accept 8 bucks an hour, they'd have to increase the wages.
Guess what? They have plenty of workers and not a single union has formed either.
Thats because walmart would runoff an employee who even whispers the word...union. I wont shop at walmart for this and many other reasons.
I am not gonna go look for links to support this right now, but I assure you it has happened there, and many other shops/stores.
BTW I have been in a union for 20 years as a carpenter so maybe I am a little biased toward the labor issues. But then I believe that you get paid what a job is worth, as a few have described in this thread already.
and before someone starts off on the "lazy union worker" stereotype, let me say that the union tradesmen I work with have to deal with production quotas everyday, 8 hours a day. and if you dont cut it, the company cuts you... plain and simple.
If you need a higher paying job, be ready to produce the physical labor needed to earn more, or get yourself some education, it's that simple.
Have a nice day people, Randy
Originally posted by MagicFingers
Thats because walmart would runoff an employee who even whispers the word...union.
Hah. Yeah. Right. Any idea what kind of penalties that carries? If this was happening union lawyers would have been all over it long ago.
Originally posted by bunge
Bingo. This is the problem. Wal-Mart supposedly does fight this every way they can too. Bring in a Union and the wages will go up.
Long live the union!
Dumbass. The point is that the workers are pleased and don't feel the need to unionize.
One reason why Wal-Mart has happy workers is their medical benefits package. Wal-Mart covers 100% of all catastrophic medical expenses. Need a transplant? You're covered. Have a major car accident? You're covered. However, the tradeoff is that there is a higher copay for run of the mill doctor visits. Still, knowing that your family is covered in case of a severe accident helps keep peace of mind.
Work requiring education (engineer, architect, doctor etc) with up to 5 years of practice in tthe education field, and as fulltime - 500 $ a month if you are male, 300 $ if female (i've never heard of anyone taking that sexist devision to court .. i believe it would have no chance to win, as it's completely legal to pay women, non-italians, people with wrong skin color etc etc, less) .. anything less requiring, such as restaurants, can be 100 $ a week (6 long days, 11 to midnight), working .. That South-of-Rome Italy isn't exactly what you turists see on your 1 week high-culture-shopping-catwalk-high-cuisine-museum-sightsee-tourist around there. The 300 $ should be enough for living - this is partically why everyone milks their parents $$$ untill they are 40 (and suddenly get serious, maryr and get a home etc).
In Brazil then, 75 $ mo is about the minimum. Salary for a starting architect (same criteria as above) can be around 300 R$ = roughly 150 US $. In the big cities where a studio (single room) apartment downtown costs 1000 $ / month. Yeah, another nice equation.
After a few jobs with either or both these kind of salaries even the 8 $ / hour is more. I guess all is relative - after a personal history having had 25 $ / hour as the minimum, it won't be easy to survive on 8.
Dumbass. The point is that the workers are pleased and don't feel the need to unionize.
I guess you just know everything. Well have you ever been involved in an organizing campaign? Have you ever been physically threatened for trying to organize workers? Oh, yeah, but the mighty indestructible union lawyers will take care of it all. Those union bastards run this whole damned country and the rest of us are just their slaves. If you weren't such a stupid insufferable prick you might take a second to look back at American history and realize the period of our greatest prosperity and largest middle class coincided with our highest levels of union employment, but hey, that would take some thought instead of just a knee jerk reactionary, I'm so held down because I'm a white man who chose one of the lowest paying professional fields bullshit that you endlessly spew.