Higher Wages, Higher Prices

[WinePusher]

[youtube][/youtube]

This video succinctly demonstrates how many people (liberals in particular) are willing to talk the talk, but unwilling to walk the walk when it comes to issues like higher wages and poverty.

Questions:

1) Would you be willing to pay 15% more when you go shopping in order for the workers to received a 15% pay increase?

2) Would you be willing to pay 15% more in taxes if it meant that all this money would go to help the poor?

[DanieltheDragon]

As a conservative, I feel I must point out that by having a low threshold on the minimum wage, encourages a nanny state. Point being Walmart, because they refuse to pay their workers anything close resembling a living wage and healthcare it shifts that burden onto the state. This does two things, increase taxes and increase the dependence on welfare. The burden of paying your employees resides with the employer not the state. Competing with foreign workers is a poor argument as states can apply taxes and/or tariffs to compensate for wage discrepencies between nations.

One could make an argument that raising the minimum wage to a living wage can be done in tiers* and simultaneously reducing the amount of welfare/Medicaid that is doled out to the poor. This can also help reduce the tax burden working Americans face. It is no more your or my responsibility to provide a livable income to save the employer. Low minimum wages do nothing but to increase a corporate edge vs small businesses and entrepreneurs. The minimum wage should not be set in stone and it should fluxate with inflation and deflation.



*Tiers

I would suggest making a tiered system based off of the size of the business so as to not adversely effect a small business that could not otherwise compete

<10 employees
<20
<30
<40
etc

[WinePusher]

As a conservative, I feel I must point out that by having a low threshold on the minimum wage, encourages a nanny state. Point being Walmart, because they refuse to pay their workers anything close resembling a living wage and healthcare it shifts that burden onto the state. This does two things, increase taxes and increase the dependence on welfare. The burden of paying your employees resides with the employer not the state. Competing with foreign workers is a poor argument as states can apply taxes and/or tariffs to compensate for wage discrepencies between nations.

How do you think wages are determined in the first place? The company CEO just randomly decides to pay his workers whatever amount of money he deems appropriate? Workers are paid according to their output, productivity and skill level. All the economic literature has shown that there are literally no businesses and companies that pay their workers below what they're actually worth. If anything, most companies pay out efficiency wages that exceed the workers marginal productivity and worth. And do I really need to remind everybody here that literally anybody off the street can get a job at walmart? There is probably an endless supply of people who are willing to work at walmart and from what I understand there are very few qualifications that walmart requires from potential employees. When all you take of this into account, there's no wonder why walmart pays its workers low wages.

Well, nobody has to work at Walmart if he feels underpaid or underappreciated. He can always seek another job. So why do 1.4 million Americans choose to work at Walmart, many for well under $12 per hour? Source

[WinePusher]

Frankly, I'm getting tired of people comparing costco with walmart. They are two completely different stores and anyone who has shopped at either of these stores can attest to this. Costco is a membership based store and has much higher prices than walmart due to the fact that they tend to sell higher quality goods. Also, costco shoppers tend to have more money then walmart shoppers due to the fact that costco is member based and sells products that cost more. Walmart touts itself as a provider of low prices, and obviously there are going to be consequences for workers because of this. Costco on the other hand doesn't. There prices are more expensive and their customers generally are more wealthier.

In that case you should realize how utterly silly the video is that you had posted in the OP.

You have just confessed here that the people who shop at Walmart are poor people and they shop at Walmart precisely because of the low prices.

So basically your video is asking the poor people to give to the poor people.

The people who shop at Walmart probably aren't any financially better-off that the people who work there. So the whole idea of that video is absurd.

It tries to make out like the shoppers at Walmart are somehow better off than the workers. That may not be true at all. That's the faulty assumption right there.

This video is basically trying to make poor people feel guilty about other poor people. It's a circular philosophy.

Where is there any justification in the premise that the shoppers at Walmart are any better-off than the people who work there?

Actually, you're proving my point with everything you wrote here. Walmart, and fast food restaurants in general, are meant to provide goods and services to poor people. Poor people rely on walmart and fast food restaurants in order to get the essential things they need. Artificially increasing the wages of walmart and fast food workers would undoubtedly cause them to increase prices (or lay off workers) in order to offset these new expenses. The point of the video is that a government imposed minimum wage might help workers, but it will harm consumers because consumers will be forced to pay higher prices for what they buy. As you can see in the video, many people enjoy the low prices provided by walmart and would rather not pay more money for what they buy, even if its going to help walmart employees.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 12 by WinePusher]

Well see this is the fundamental difference between a corporation and a small business. What is worth and how do we decide this. Your right anyone can get a job at Walmart and there is very little qualification to maintain this job. However, there is a problem when the wage becomes so small that one cannot maintain support of ones life outside of government assistance.

Wal-Mart is an efficient machine a darn good one at that but the wages paid to its employees really blurs the line between slavery and employment. If an employee works 39.99 hours a week and cannot afford shelter, food, and clothing we have an issue. Let alone if some medical condition came up. All of this burden of life is shifted from the employer to the tax payer. In the form of food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare. The low prices you pay is just an illusion to the hidden costs associated with having a Wal-Mart in your town.

In the state of Georgia for example in subsidies Wal-mart received

$19.5 million

Americus, GA : $1.9 million
Carrollton, GA : about $500,000
Douglas, GA : more than $10 million
Fitzgerald, GA : $1.52 million
LaGrange, GA : more than $1 million
Monroe, GA : $1.2 million
Statesboro, GA : about $2 million
Walton, GA : $1.365 million

with 10,000 Walmart employees and their children on Medicaid because health insurance was not provided cost the state of Georgia $96.2 million dollars

you are looking at a total tax-payer burden of $115 million dollars in the state of Georgia alone

That is a hefty price to pay and an unfair edge that Wal-Mart receives vs small business. By increasing the minimum wage to a living wage you can cut the largest chunk of that cost which is SNAP* and Medicaid. The amount of money you can save tax payers and the state of Georgia would be huge. And this is just Walmart alone this doesn't include other retailers but Walmart by far is the worst offender.

*SNAP is not included in the $115 Million dollar figure.


Aside from the economic impact and the unfair competitive edge Wal-Mart receives via subsidies. There is the moral consideration as well. Why is slavery wrong? Why do we have a minimum wage? There is something to be considered here and that is at the wages Walmart would pay you, you could not survive without assistance you simply couldn't. If you cant survive off of the wages being paid to you your not being paid enough.

[McCulloch]

Again, like I was saying to Goat, CEO's earn their income in a variety of different ways so it's incorrect to compare the wages of workers with the general income of CEO's. A more accurate comparison would be to compare worker's wages with the annual salary that the company pays the CEO's because this excludes the CEO's personal financial investments that are completely unrelated to the company.

It is entirely accurate to compare the total compensation of the CEO to the total compensation of the average worker, including all benefits accrued to the individual by virtue of his employment with the firm. I agree that the CEO's unsubsidized private investment in the company should not count. It has not been demonstrated that CEO's actually earn over four hundred times the wages of the average worker so let's just say that they are paid that amount.

But regardless, all of this is off track from my question in the topic. If you are personally arguing for higher wages for workers, would you personally be willing to contribute to this by paying higher prices?

Yes. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, even though they have invaded our neighborhood.

It seems that liberals are only generous when it comes to other people's money.

Is this a generalization based on a single example?

Look at Michael Moore, the biggest (no pun intended) liberal of them all. He makes a fortune off of the Capitalist system and criticizes other millionaires and billionaries for not paying enough, yet he hoards his millions and hasn't given it all away. He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

I don't know how Michael Moore spends his money, where he shops and what he donates. Do you?

[olavisjo]

.

I don't know how Michael Moore spends his money, where he shops and what he donates. Do you?

• He describes in rather minute detail what he did with the $3 million he made when he sold the rights of Roger & Me to Warner Bros.
  
  He says:
  
  1. I would first pay all my taxes. I told the guy who did my 1040 not to declare any deductions other than the mortgage and to pay the full federal, state and city tax rate. I proudly contributed nearly 1 million dollars for the privilege of being a citizen of this great country.
  
  2. Of the remaining $2 million, I decided to divide it up the way I once heard the folksinger/activist Harry Chapin tell me how he lived: "One for me, one for the other guy." So I took half the money -- $1 million -- and established a foundation to give it all away.
  
  3. The remaining million went like this: I paid off all my debts, paid off the debts of some friends and family members, bought my parents a new refrigerator, set up college funds for our nieces and nephews, helped rebuild a black church that had been burned down in Flint, gave out a thousand turkeys at Thanksgiving, bought filmmaking equipment to send to the Vietnamese (my own personal reparations for a country we had ravaged), annually bought 10,000 toys to give to Toys for Tots at Christmas, got myself a new American-made Honda, and took out a mortgage on an apartment above a Baby Gap in New York City.
  
  4. What remained went into a simple, low-interest savings account. I made the decision that I would never buy a share of stock (I didn't understand the casino known as the New York Stock Exchange and I did not believe in investing in a system I did not agree with).

http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/28/micha ... -my-millio

[bluethread]

Point being Walmart, because they refuse to pay their workers anything close resembling a living wage and healthcare it shifts that burden onto the state.

Sorry, businesses that do not provide a healthcare benefit are not shifting a burden to the government. That presumes that healthcare insurance is a natural obligation of an employer. One may as well say that the Walmart customer is shifting the healthcare burden to the state because (s)he does not provide Walmart with healthcare insurance when (s)he buys a product. Walmart provides a product or service to the customer and the customer pays cash. The employee provides a good or service and Walmart pays cash. What is the difference?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

Whether the state provides healthcare or not is irrelevant. Lets assume there is no state health-care what happens when an employer does not provide health benefits to their employees while simultaneously paying them a non-livable salary(Does not cover shelter, food, or clothes)

Employee A. is in this situation they get into a car accident an ambulance comes to pick them up a doctor gives them an X-ray etc. the bill is $10,000 dollars when its all said and done. Employee A. cannot pay this and defaults on the debt. The Health service that provided this care is out the cost of the bill it raises its prices to compensate for a lack of coverage you the consumer who can afford health coverage inevitably paying for the cost of Employee A.'s health bills. the Royal state meaning you and me the citizens the tax payers are out the cost of the health coverage.

This is just a simple example but you can infer what I am trying to say here. That while health coverage doesn't necessarily have to be required at a bare minimum a wage sufficient for the employee to cover their basic costs should be provided, because if it is not the burden of that individuals cost of living is shifted back on to us.

Simply put its a decision, Do you want the tax payers to cover the costs of living for its fellow citizens who are in poverty or should their employers be responsible. I personally feel it is not the states responsibility to provide welfare and healthcare to its citizens. As mentioned before C.E.O salaries have ballooned and a good chunk of profits companies make do not go to its employees or lowering costs for goods. I would suggest that many companies like Walmart can remain just as efficient with higher compensation to its employees if it trimmed in other areas like executive pay.

[McCulloch]

Look at Michael Moore, the biggest (no pun intended) liberal of them all. He makes a fortune off of the Capitalist system and criticizes other millionaires and billionaries for not paying enough, yet he hoards his millions and hasn't given it all away. He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

He describes in rather minute detail what he did with the $3 million he made when he sold the rights of Roger & Me to Warner Bros.

He says:

1. I would first pay all my taxes. I told the guy who did my 1040 not to declare any deductions other than the mortgage and to pay the full federal, state and city tax rate. I proudly contributed nearly 1 million dollars for the privilege of being a citizen of this great country.
2. Of the remaining $2 million, I decided to divide it up the way I once heard the folksinger/activist Harry Chapin tell me how he lived: "One for me, one for the other guy." So I took half the money -- $1 million -- and established a foundation to give it all away.
3. The remaining million went like this: I paid off all my debts, paid off the debts of some friends and family members, bought my parents a new refrigerator, set up college funds for our nieces and nephews, helped rebuild a black church that had been burned down in Flint, gave out a thousand turkeys at Thanksgiving, bought filmmaking equipment to send to the Vietnamese (my own personal reparations for a country we had ravaged), annually bought 10,000 toys to give to Toys for Tots at Christmas, got myself a new American-made Honda, and took out a mortgage on an apartment above a Baby Gap in New York City.
4. What remained went into a simple, low-interest savings account. I made the decision that I would never buy a share of stock (I didn't understand the casino known as the New York Stock Exchange and I did not believe in investing in a system I did not agree with).

http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/28/micha ... -my-millio

Here is a link to Moore's actual blog: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike- ... fe-among-1

It appears to me that we have two mutually exclusive claims. One, made by WinePusher and supported by no evidence whatsoever, that Michael Moore is a hypocrite and rich hoarder. The other, made by Olavisjo and supported by Michael Moore's own blog, that he is not so bad after all. These claims cannot be both true. Now, before deciding which of these claims is correct we should look at a few things:

1. It is possible that both claims are false and the truth lies somewhere else, or in between.
2. Moore is in the business of presenting only the facts that support his own viewpoint, and ignoring anything else. We might not want to take what he says entirely at face value.
3. Just because WinePusher provided no evidence or support for his claim, does not mean that his accusations against Michael Moore are untrue. He may have the evidence but neglected to post it. Let's wait for a response from WinePusher with his evidence before we assume that he is slanderous liar.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 19 by McCulloch]

It would also seem that all of Mr. Moore's claims could easily be verified via tax returns etc. Also it seems to me that this whole Mr. Moore non-sense is unrelated to the topic at hand and resembles something more akin to a straw man.... Not to mention the incendiary nature of the comment seems like a cheap shot.

Back to the subject at hand how do we increase the wages of the employees of Walmart while keeping costs down?

Walmart payed about $7billion dollars in taxes off of a 22 Billion dollar pretax income leaving $14,3 Billion dollars for shareholders.

lets say we cut their tax rate down to 15% instead of 32.4% that will free up roughly 3.5 billion dollars well we still need about another 4.5 billion dollars to give Walmart employees higher wages oh look over here 14.3 billion dollars in post tax income for Walmart.... its simple we lower the corporate tax rate increase the minimum wage and Walmart would still have roughly 9.8 Billion dollars remaining without raising the cost of goods. Of course If Walmart was spite full and raised prices anyways well lets just say companies like Costco who already pay something resembling a living wage would put them out of business.

The money is there we just need to act on it...

I would also like to point out that this video is intentionally dishonest as a 15% raise in prices at Walmart would only need to raise their prices by .02% to pay their workers $15 dollars an hour just saying.