Wal-mart Defends Controversial Food Drive For Employees

[Slappo]

example: putting up a christmas tree, any liquids aside from water, electronic devices aside from basic needs (something to cook with, maybe a prepaid cell phone for emergencies since they are cheaper than landlines), storage space...

 

all of those are not required for living. I'm not even talking ipod's, im talking things we take for granted as Americans. Use a bus pass or a bike not a car, you don't actually need to eat meat, so don't buy it, or only buy it in ways where it will go far = ie a whole chicken which you can then use to make soup as well.

[blazeingstar]

example: putting up a christmas tree, any liquids aside from water, electronic devices aside from basic needs (something to cook with, maybe a prepaid cell phone for emergencies since they are cheaper than landlines), storage space...

 

all of those are not required for living. I'm not even talking ipod's, im talking things we take for granted as Americans. Use a bus pass or a bike not a car, you don't actually need to eat meat, so don't buy it, or only buy it in ways where it will go far = ie a whole chicken which you can then use to make soup as well.

 

Can we prop you out of eternity?  Whilst looking for a house with my fiancée for our post marriage life together we hope for around 1400-1800sq foot with 2 bathrooms and a dining room.  For most people this would be a starter home pre-kids (if they ever have any).  The Realtor only lists homes above 1800 sqft as "family homes"

 

When WW2 ended most of the prefab's which had families of 4-12 were 900-1500sq ft with one bathroom  and an eat in kitchen and 3 teeny bedrooms.  That WAS the family home.

 

Now, we have different considerations like the need to work from home and homeschooling but from a historical perspective we are insanely selfish.

[beatitude]

No one here is saying that minimum wage should entitle everyone to $50 an hour. That's a strawman, designed to deflect attention from the real issue - the fact that there are Wal-Mart employees who do not earn enough money to put food on the table for their families at Thanksgiving or even meet basic living costs (food, shelter, warmth). And here we have people whose response to that is to launch into some philosophical debate on what actually constitutes a 'basic need'. It's interesting how 'basic needs' become this complex concept that defies definition when you're talking about other people's lives, and not your own.

 

Claiming that people who believe in the principle of a fair living wage are just passing the buck because they don't want to donate to 'the poor' is another strawman. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can advocate for just working conditions and salaries and still be generous. Generosity extends far beyond what you do with your money - sniping against a stranger on the Internet and assuming hypocrisy on their part isn't a generous act. Nor is asking people what they donate, which Jesus prohibited us from doing anyway.

 

Questions about how much shelf-stacking is 'worth' are irrelevant. How much is any job worth? How do you determine that? Professional athletes in popular sports get paid a small fortune, far more than nurses or firefighters, yet it's people in the latter roles who do the essential lifesaving skilled work. Salaries are obviously not just determined by skill, so you can't pretend that it is so when talking about the livelihoods of Wal-Mart workers. The determining criteria for salaries in entry-level 'unskilled' roles should be based on living costs (this can be adjusted by area - jobs in and around London in the UK carry an extra London weighting, as prices are higher in the capital). This is not such an abstruse impossible concept as people are making out. Plenty of other companies manage it, so why not Wal-Mart?

 

As for the analogy about finding it 'unfair' that someone else got your grade in a test when you studied harder, it's not comparable. Many Wal-Mart employees work as hard as I do, if not harder; their job is often more physically demanding; and because of the negative stereotypes attached to it (and to them as people), they get far less respect than a doctor or a pilot does. I am not going to feel all angry and indignant and unappreciated if the people working there start to get a decent salary that they can live on without having to depend on gifts from others. My achievements will not be in any way diminished if these people, like me, actually have a regular dependable income instead of having to worry whether someone will make a donation to them in time of need. What else am I supposed to think? "It's only right that Wal-Mart workers should have a canned goods drive to be sure that they have things to eat on Thanksgiving, because it's only with that gap between me and them that everyone can see how hard I worked and just how deserving I am!" This is essentially what that would boil down to - making it all about me and my sense of entitlement.

Edited November 20, 2013 by beatitude

[BG45]

So it would be swell if you all could be polite while discussing.  Due to at least two of the mods thinking this would do better in Debate Table, given the strength of the emotions involved, I'm just going to move it over there before heading to conference for a few days.

[4588686]

It never surprises me that those who are so quick to be generous with other people's money never actually want to give any of their own.  

I give money to the poor all the time.  Your argument is dumb.  

[4588686]

It's obvious that the only moral thing to do is to have a national ammendment to set minimum wage at $50/hour.  That way everyone can afford to live a decent life.   It's only corporate greed that's stopping that from happening.  I mean, there aren't any rational arguments against it.

How about a large amount of statistical evidence that the growth of inequality in the American economy has seriously exacerbated rent seeking behavior in that economy and further disadvantaged low income workers?

[4588686]

I have a 501k and make a fair amount more than many of my peers because I work hard but have also had a number of advantaged and luck breaks that my fellow recent grads didn't I'm such hot poo.

 

sorry, I'm working on becoming a Republican

[CrossCuT]

I have a 501k and make a fair amount more than many of my peers because I work hard but have also had a number of advantaged and luck breaks that my fellow recent grads didn't I'm such hot poo.

 

sorry, I'm working on becoming a Republican

 

:hehe2:

[CatholicsAreKewl]

How about a large amount of statistical evidence that the growth of inequality in the American economy has seriously exacerbated rent seeking behavior in that economy and further disadvantaged low income workers?

What?

 

I have a 501k and make a fair amount more than many of my peers because I work hard but have also had a number of advantaged and luck breaks that my fellow recent grads didn't I'm such hot poo.

 

sorry, I'm working on becoming a Republican

 

YOU NERD
 

I didn't know what point Afrink was trying to convey because he just posted a link to that particular  passage without explaining the purpose behind doing so. I did attempt to do so in the previous post I had made before posting the The Parable of the Talents. That we are paid justly when our pay is equal to that of the service we provide for the employer.

 

What doesn't shock me is that you have yet again twisted something I said into something I did not say. The answers to all 3 questions is, no.

 

1) No, not really, that is a stawman, unjust wages is depriving the worker of what is rightly his, and that is wicked and unjust.

 

2) No, they are not wasting their talents simply by working at Walmart. They should be paid what they deserve based on the work they provide, but the pay they deserve for the work they provide may not be enough to live on.

 

3) Another strawman, I never assumed any such thing. Many students work at Walmart to help pay for school, and many others work there to help pay for other things. The trouble that I have is the reality that some jobs like Walmart jobs are never going to be the kind of jobs that one can really live on.

 

I agree that there should be a minimum wage, but there are always going to be jobs that people cannot live on and depend on as a form of livelihood.

LOL I DONT UNDERSTAND YOU, NERD!!!!

 

I am a PhD candidate on a full scholarship, now able to earn some extra money through academic teaching, and while I might be better educated that WalMart employees, I just want to say that I certainly don't consider myself more highly skilled or more hardworking. They do a job that I could never do because my disabilities make it impossible, and they often work far longer hours as well. They look pretty skilled to me. Providing patient and helpful customer service after being on your feet for ten hours straight is very much a skill. I dislike this snobbishness where ability and worth are defined by educational attainment. The lack of respect begins here, not with that inhumane low wage.

 

The idea that all people living on an inhumane wage must be somehow choosing it because you or your next-door neighbour went from working in a chewing gum factory to being the CEO of the world is fallacious. I am also the first person in my family to go to university. My mother's parents worked in a shop, while my grandma on my dad's side became a housemaid at the age of fourteen. Her husband-to-be was a farmhand. Both my parents grew up with very little, especially my dad. People love to read stories about kids who were born into difficult situations growing up and doing well for themselves, but it's wrong to treat these stories as descriptive of what millions of people could do if only they just put their minds to it, for the simple reason that it ignores the luck involved (I am where I am because I had teachers who believed I was worth teaching and who were prepared to fight for my right to a mainstream education - not everyone in my position has that) and the simple fact that someone has to sweep the floor in Wal-Mart. There will always be a demand for that work; we should be grateful for the people who do it and ask that they be paid a living wage instead of expecting them to make ends meet through the unpredictable and fluctuating charity of people on the street (many of whom view them as lazy and lacking in aspiration, and are therefore probably not going to be overly generous).

PHD IN NERDOLOGY!!!!! LOL

[NotreDame]

How about a large amount of statistical evidence that the growth of inequality in the American economy has seriously exacerbated rent seeking behavior in that economy and further disadvantaged low income workers?

 

Strangely, I agree with this (not being sarcastic either)...  but maybe you are being sarcastic and trying to trick me... hmm...

[NotreDame]

No one here is saying that minimum wage should entitle everyone to $50 an hour. That's a strawman, designed to deflect attention from the real issue - the fact that there are Wal-Mart employees who do not earn enough money to put food on the table for their families at Thanksgiving or even meet basic living costs (food, shelter, warmth). And here we have people whose response to that is to launch into some philosophical debate on what actually constitutes a 'basic need'. It's interesting how 'basic needs' become this complex concept that defies definition when you're talking about other people's lives, and not your own.

 

Claiming that people who believe in the principle of a fair living wage are just passing the buck because they don't want to donate to 'the poor' is another strawman. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can advocate for just working conditions and salaries and still be generous. Generosity extends far beyond what you do with your money - sniping against a stranger on the Internet and assuming hypocrisy on their part isn't a generous act. Nor is asking people what they donate, which Jesus prohibited us from doing anyway.

 

Questions about how much shelf-stacking is 'worth' are irrelevant. How much is any job worth? How do you determine that? Professional athletes in popular sports get paid a small fortune, far more than nurses or firefighters, yet it's people in the latter roles who do the essential lifesaving skilled work. Salaries are obviously not just determined by skill, so you can't pretend that it is so when talking about the livelihoods of Wal-Mart workers. The determining criteria for salaries in entry-level 'unskilled' roles should be based on living costs (this can be adjusted by area - jobs in and around London in the UK carry an extra London weighting, as prices are higher in the capital). This is not such an abstruse impossible concept as people are making out. Plenty of other companies manage it, so why not Wal-Mart?

 

As for the analogy about finding it 'unfair' that someone else got your grade in a test when you studied harder, it's not comparable. Many Wal-Mart employees work as hard as I do, if not harder; their job is often more physically demanding; and because of the negative stereotypes attached to it (and to them as people), they get far less respect than a doctor or a pilot does. I am not going to feel all angry and indignant and unappreciated if the people working there start to get a decent salary that they can live on without having to depend on gifts from others. My achievements will not be in any way diminished if these people, like me, actually have a regular dependable income instead of having to worry whether someone will make a donation to them in time of need. What else am I supposed to think? "It's only right that Wal-Mart workers should have a canned goods drive to be sure that they have things to eat on Thanksgiving, because it's only with that gap between me and them that everyone can see how hard I worked and just how deserving I am!" This is essentially what that would boil down to - making it all about me and my sense of entitlement.

 

Hey, you can't just jump in on page 4 of a thread and start being reasonable.  You'll make the rest of us look bad.
 

[Gabriela]

So myself, my friends and many "first gen" college students which I was and I help are all anomalies?  

Sorry, not buying it.  With the free aid and low interest loans to students who go to College....much of it grants (which used wisely can get you through atleast an associates) there is no excuse for not making yourself better.

 

Is working hard different?  Yes.  But it's still hard work.  People now adays just aren't as willing to do it.

 

Your language is accusatory, very much along the lines of, "If you're poor, it's your fault." How compassionate is that?

 

You clearly made it through college. I have students who will not. There are people who will never do well in an information-based economy regardless of how much loan money they throw at their futures. We have eliminated most jobs in the US that required manual labor. Now what do we expect of the physically but not cognitively proficient? That they go to college? College won't solve your problem if you can't get through it. And that is not to mention that our economy is so saturated with college degrees at this point that they are becoming next to worthless.

 

Even if a person could make it through college, it takes a good deal of the good life just to get to the point that one is able to consider that an option. If you've been told all your life that you're not bright, that you'll never go to college, that Wal-Mart is the best you can do, and you don't have any friends of family members who can help you navigate the behemoth college loan and college application processes, then going to college looks mighty hopeless to you. Many Americans are in that situation. Maybe they could go to college, but they have no idea how.

 

And I reiterate: College is not the solution to all of our problems. If we keep pushing it as such, it will quickly become completely worthless for the job market.

 

Oh, and BTW: I am also a first-generation college student. Now a PhD student. And dirt poor. And I work my butt off. The difference between me and the poor schmuck who works down at Wal-Mart is that I have hope of rising out of poverty once I graduate. S/he does not.

 

Our country's a lot more complicated than you make it sound.

[4588686]

Strangely, I agree with this (not being sarcastic either)...  but maybe you are being sarcastic and trying to trick me... hmm...

 

I'm not being sarcastic at all.  

[add]

bahumbug

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sr2ow_ZH9w

[blazeingstar]

Your language is accusatory, very much along the lines of, "If you're poor, it's your fault." How compassionate is that?

 

You clearly made it through college. I have students who will not. There are people who will never do well in an information-based economy regardless of how much loan money they throw at their futures. We have eliminated most jobs in the US that required manual labor. Now what do we expect of the physically but not cognitively proficient? That they go to college? College won't solve your problem if you can't get through it. And that is not to mention that our economy is so saturated with college degrees at this point that they are becoming next to worthless.

 

Even if a person could make it through college, it takes a good deal of the good life just to get to the point that one is able to consider that an option. If you've been told all your life that you're not bright, that you'll never go to college, that Wal-Mart is the best you can do, and you don't have any friends of family members who can help you navigate the behemoth college loan and college application processes, then going to college looks mighty hopeless to you. Many Americans are in that situation. Maybe they could go to college, but they have no idea how.

 

And I reiterate: College is not the solution to all of our problems. If we keep pushing it as such, it will quickly become completely worthless for the job market.

 

Oh, and BTW: I am also a first-generation college student. Now a PhD student. And dirt poor. And I work my butt off. The difference between me and the poor schmuck who works down at Wal-Mart is that I have hope of rising out of poverty once I graduate. S/he does not.

 

Our country's a lot more complicated than you make it sound.

 

 

All that would be well and great if America wasn't a laggard in education.  As a global power we barley make the top 20.  Thats one of the worst scores for a developed nation.

 

That and we may not always need manual jobs as heavily as we do now.  If we were to tariff China to get them to pay their employees minimum wage, the cost of goods would rise enough for US manufactures to outfit their factories with robots and hire an estimated 1/10 to 1/30 of the manpower needed in China, Indonesia, or other countries.