$8 hr new Breadwinner Benchmark for U.S. & No Insurance

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Zombie

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
They should have gone to college.

dude are you freakin retarded? What difference would college degree do in a lousy economy? Nobody is hiring college grads thus they end-up working low pay jobs like walmart and therefore no insurance.

alot of it depends on what major is chosen, someone with studies in IT technology is more apt to get a job than say a specialist in medeival poetic writings.

benefits cost money, and increased operational costs are passed to the consumer in increased prices, so it is not the employers who "pay" by themselves, it is you the consumer. and it does not take long for a raise to be negated by inflation.

 

[Corn]

That is not an accurate statement.

No, that quote is not an accurate statement. Walmart does offer benefits to every employee. Just because the majority do not take them up on the offer does not mean Walmart does not offer them.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Corn

That is not an accurate statement.

No, that quote is not an accurate statement. Walmart does offer benefits to every employee. Just because the majority do not take them up on the offer does not mean Walmart does not offer them.

But you neglect the obvious problem - the average WalMart employee simply cannot afford the benefits being offered at the wages they earn. Somewhere around 38% of actual WalMart employees participate. Huge deductibles and large employee premium payments are the issue.

 

[nowareman]

May I ask a simple question?

To those of you who seem by your posts to be against higher pay and employee benefits. Why would you oppose paying people a decent wage and providing health care benefits for employees from companies who can easily afford these?

What is your rationale for turning the American worker into a third world peasant?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Zombie

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
They should have gone to college.

dude are you freakin retarded? What difference would college degree do in a lousy economy? Nobody is hiring college grads thus they end-up working low pay jobs like walmart and therefore no insurance.

Cool. Nobody is paying my paycheck. Oh well, as long as the direct deposit keeps flowing in. I started my job 1 year ago. It was my first job out of college. I have medical and dental coverage. No vision, tho. No free spouse/child coverage either, but I don't need to worry about that stuff quite yet.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman
May I ask a simple question?

To those of you who seem by your posts to be against higher pay and employee benefits. Why would you oppose paying people a decent wage and providing health care benefits for employees from companies who can easily afford these?

What is your rationale for turning the American worker into a third world peasant?

Ah - that is where you are wrong. Nobody is AGAINST paying them a higher wage or more of their benefits - it's just that if the company doesn't want to(or have to) then it won't. The market drives commerce and wages. If Walmart can hire people cheaper - it will. Why? because people are willing to do a job that Walmart says they'll pay X dollars/hour for. If people don't think it's enough then they can look elsewhere...but that's where the market comes into play. If there is a weak job market then wages suffer, but when there is a strong job market - wages soar because people are willing to leave their $8 job to take a $10 job doing the same thing.

When I first moved to DesMoines - I took a job pulling communication wire and such(I helped wire the Newport News(Virginia BestBuy) I was hired at $10/hr but yet my brother who had been working there for over a year and had worked into a foreman position - was only making $9.50/hr (he got a raise the day I started because they figured i'd tell him what I made). Now why would I get more per hour than him when he has seniority and experience and I had none? Job market - They couldn't find good help. Infact a couple inexperienced guys got hired on at $12/hr right before I quit. Yep - job market

Your angle is wrong.

CkG

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: nowareman
May I ask a simple question?

To those of you who seem by your posts to be against higher pay and employee benefits. Why would you oppose paying people a decent wage and providing health care benefits for employees from companies who can easily afford these?

What is your rationale for turning the American worker into a third world peasant?

I never realized that Walmart employees are starving to death and don't have anywhere to live or more than one set of rags to wear. Why do you think that we are the ones who didn't offer them benefits? Should we be paying for their medical coverage just because we got jobs that offer coverage? How do you think we got these jobs? (and don't give me that propaganda about only the rich getting jobs) What makes you think a company can easily afford to provide benefits to their employees? Are you the CFO? Do you know the financial situation of the company? What gives you the right to demand that they spend their money in one way or another? Are you on their board of directors? Why don't you pay for their coverage if you think it's such a noble cause?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

But you neglect the obvious problem - the average WalMart employee simply cannot afford the benefits being offered at the wages they earn. Somewhere around 38% of actual WalMart employees participate. Huge deductibles and large employee premium payments are the issue.

Or spouses whose companies offer better plans... Yeah, the horror. Walmart's health plans aren't the best in the world. Maybe you can donate some of your hard-earned cash to improve them. I'm sure not paying extra for my deodorant and razor blades; I have to work for a living.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ZaneNBK
Hmm.. This article seems HEAVILY biased and it's facts seem questionable.

-- Wal-Mart likes to call its sales clerks "associates," but "serfs" would be more like it. The company paid its salespeople an average $8.23 an hour in 2001. At that wage, a full-time worker made only $13,861 a year. The poverty level for a family of three was $14,630. Only 38 percent of Wal-Mart's workers have health coverage. It should surprise no one that nearly half of Wal-Mart's employees quit every year. (Before the recession, the annual turnover rate was 70 percent.)

Ok, $8.23/hour * 40 hours (Full-time is 40 hours last I checked) = $329.20/week. $13,861/$329.20 = 42 weeks of work in a year. Last time I checked most people don't take 10 weeks of unpaid vacation and/or sick-time in a year. $8.23/hour FT is not below the poverty level as defined by them. It's still sucky pay but just points out that their facts are questionable.

I'm not saying that Wal-Mart isn't the Devil, I'm saying this article sucks.

From the wal-Mart thread:

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Corn
This "article" is a load of crap:

Wal-Mart likes to call its sales clerks "associates," but "serfs" would be more like it. The company paid its salespeople an average $8.23 an hour in 2001. At that wage, a full-time worker made only $13,861 a year.

Lesse for a moment: 8.23 * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $17,118, not $13,861.

Can I trust an article where creative multiplication is used to misrepresent its most basic premise. I dunno, but my sensibilities lead me to state that it is probably laced with a semblence of fact but spiced with bullshit.

Show me a walmart "sales associate" that works over 32 hours a week. Then I will listen to you. The keep employees under 32 hours a week so they do not have to pay benefits.

8.23 * 32 hours * 52 weeks = $13,695

 

[rjain]

If they're not a full-time employee, why are they being included in full-time wage stats?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: nowareman
May I ask a simple question?

To those of you who seem by your posts to be against higher pay and employee benefits. Why would you oppose paying people a decent wage and providing health care benefits for employees from companies who can easily afford these?

What is your rationale for turning the American worker into a third world peasant?

Originally posted by: rjainCool. Nobody is paying my paycheck. Oh well, as long as the direct deposit keeps flowing in. I started my job 1 year ago. It was my first job out of college. I have medical and dental coverage. No vision, tho. No free spouse/child coverage either, but I don't need to worry about that stuff quite yet.

Here's your answer, just as I suspected, this guy is not affected one bit by the U.S. fallout and apparently has no friends or family affected either. Not until his new job crashes will he realize.

 

[rjain]

Why would my new job crash? My company is facing a worker shortage. My parents have very stable, secure jobs, because they made career moves when they found better career paths. My friends who were serious about education and working all are doing quite well. Thanks for your concern. The few who aren't didn't care much, so didn't acquire skills that would be helpful in jobs. They don't run around blaming me for their decisions.

 

[rjain]

Oh, and since when was working a cash register (and not owning the store) a "breadwinner's" job. Those are jobs that people with little or no skills (who would otherwise be housewives or farting around on summer vacation) take just to make some spending money.

 

[Jadow]

The US will have "Socialized"(single payer/Government run) healthcare within 20 years.

God I hope not. There's too many damn hypochondriacs in this country. People going to the hospital for every damn thing. It would crush our country 10 times more than Al Queada would!

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

I'm also in agreement that we are heading for a healthcare collapse. I work at a firm of 17, of which 13 are enrolled on the insurance plan. The other 4 chose to be covered by their spouses insurance.

For the 13 of us the cost is approximately 100,000 USD a year. Outfukingrageous. $2000 deductible. It's a CPA firm in a town of about 80,000.

So they are having to cut back because that amount is simply too damn much. Nearly a 25% hike over last year's premiums. So they are moving to a $3000 deductible, limiting doctor visits to 2 a year (only 2 covered by the $30 copay, after that it's out of pocket until you reach the deductible. Before it was as many visits as you wanted at $15, lab work, etc. went towards the deductible), and no Rx coverage.

So what does that mean for me? Well I have Crohn's and some other stomach problems which I have to take medicine for, as well as regular doctor visits. So the costs I spend right now per month on Rx and doctor vists is approximately $190. After this change at the first of the year it will be over $1000 a month out of pocket, and only a couple of hundred is subject to the deductible. Most will be out of pocket. It's simply more than I can afford. Have a masters in accounting and work at the top firm in the area and will have to quit because of insurance reasons. So where am I supposed to find a job that has enough coverage that I can afford to work there? We are under 20 employees so I'm not covered under COBRA. Basically I have to find a job with good medical benefits in under 30 days (after 30 days, I can be denied coverage or have existing condition limitations).

It'd be nice if one of you can solve that problem.

 

[rjain]

BrunoPuntzJones: yeah, small companies just can't afford to give good coverage because it's so expensive. large companies can't afford it because they're based on making profits based on small margins on large volumes. more expenses eat into that already small margin. you're probably best off at big pharma like Merck or Aventis.

Edit: actually, considering the action in the stock market today (and the regulations the gov't is considering for the sake of healthcare), big pharma looks like it'll be suffering soon, too. go figure, the gov't tries to improve healthcare coverage and the result is that the one solid opportunity you have for healthcare coverage goes away. :frown:

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
"Wal-Mart offers benefits to every employee, even part timers"

The union on strike against Von's (Safeway) and locked out of Ralph's and Albertson's also provided health benefits fully paid along with a livable wage of up to around 18$ an hour ~ $37,000 a year. There are over 70,000 folks involved in So. Cal. in this strike/lock out. The main issue is Health benefits and shift differential pay. The stores will not negotiate on the issues.
Look at what has occured. Walmart under prices the other stores by reducing the labor cost component of their structure. The wage level is going down in this and other industries. It is accepted employment by many because there is no alternative for them. They usually hire folks who've used up their UI and need work.
If Walmart was to be unionized or Costco then we'd see wages climb. Would costs climb.. at Walmart and Costco, yup! At Von's and the others, Nope!
We do it to our self. We do it to others by always looking for the cheapest price and forgetting that down the road we'll be faced with the reality too. It must reach equilibrium and it will.. slowly but surely in every industry until we are on par with the rest of the world.. we will be a one car two bike society... and don't get sick.

Actually just one point I'll take issue with. If Walmart or Costco raise their prices - you can bet your @ss the other stores will raise their prices - been there done that I was constantly on top of pricing category competitveness - You'd be amazed the games that industy plays...well maybe not because I'm the other ones do it too, but most people think of grocery stores as where they get their food - not a multi billion dollar industry.

CkG

My wife was talking to Al and his wife Andrea awhile back..( (the Marasca's) You know from that club you belong to..) who used to head up Ralph's until, I think, Kroeger bought them out. His greatest concern at that time was two fold: The first being the volume purchases in food products that Costco not only could make but also sell.. like 90 lb jars of peanut butter. The second being the labor cost structure at Costco and the locked in union scale at Ralph's. Ralph's moved to diversity of product and price among the demographic competition as well as coupon leaders etc. It was a losing battle. They needed larger buying power to stay profitable. Hence the merger. Today folks will seemingly drive 15 or more miles to shop and save 5$. Normal demographic analysis indicates a 3 mile preference.
Me... if they don't sell good n plenty... I just don't shop there!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rjain
BrunoPuntzJones: yeah, small companies just can't afford to give good coverage because it's so expensive. large companies can't afford it because they're based on making profits based on small margins on large volumes. more expenses eat into that already small margin. you're probably best off at big pharma like Merck or Aventis.

Edit: actually, considering the action in the stock market today (and the regulations the gov't is considering for the sake of healthcare), big pharma looks like it'll be suffering soon, too. go figure, the gov't tries to improve healthcare coverage and the result is that the one solid opportunity you have for healthcare coverage goes away. :frown:

So sorry to hear what you are having to go through Bruno.

What happened rjain , all of a sudden you don't have all the answers and everything is not fine huh?

Perhaps Bruno the answer is a hard pill to swallow but it certainly looks like the answer for now is to pack up and leave this Country where the dollar is more important than life itself.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: rjain go figure, the gov't tries to improve healthcare coverage and the result is that the one solid opportunity you have for healthcare coverage goes away. :frown:

What happened rjain , all of a sudden you don't have all the answers and everything is not fine huh?

It's because of "reforms" to the system to make healthcare "cheaper" and more "accessible", promoted by people like you, who think that punishing companies and increasing their expenses will somehow make them reduce prices or spend more on their employees.

Perhaps Bruno the answer is a hard pill to swallow but it certainly looks like the answer for now is to pack up and leave this Country where the dollar is more important than life itself.

I'd rather you left this country and didn't try to subvert our economic systems and put religious propaganda in government buildings. Oh well.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Today folks will seemingly drive 15 or more miles to shop and save 5$. Normal demographic analysis indicates a 3 mile preference.

Sheesh. I prefer 100 yards away, myself, but I'm willing to go 1/4 mile.

 

[djNickb]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: rjain go figure, the gov't tries to improve healthcare coverage and the result is that the one solid opportunity you have for healthcare coverage goes away. :frown:

What happened rjain , all of a sudden you don't have all the answers and everything is not fine huh?

It's because of "reforms" to the system to make healthcare "cheaper" and more "accessible", promoted by people like you, who think that punishing companies and increasing their expenses will somehow make them reduce prices or spend more on their employees.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't reforms to the system to make healthcare "cheaper" and "more accessible" act to lower expenses all around for both the employee and the empoyeer offering the benefits?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: djNickb

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't reforms to the system to make healthcare "cheaper" and "more accessible" act to lower expenses all around for both the employee and the empoyeer offering the benefits?

Maybe if you ignore how markets and people really work. I have already explained how these "reforms" are actually hurting people in the same way they are trying to help.
For example, in Norway (or some Scandinavian country) there was a city where the cost of a cab was getting really high and getting a cab at night (after a movie or play or whatever) might take half and hour. The city decided to "fix" the situation by subsidizing one of the taxi companies, thinking that it would lower prices and provide more capital for the company to hire more taxi drivers. The taxi company did that for a while, but then all the competitors were driven out of business. Then they just hiked rates and reduced the number of taxis, making it even more expensive and even harder to get a cab home, while the owners of that company pocketed the subsidy.

 

[djNickb]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: djNickb

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't reforms to the system to make healthcare "cheaper" and "more accessible" act to lower expenses all around for both the employee and the empoyeer offering the benefits?

Maybe if you ignore how markets and people really work. I have already explained how these "reforms" are actually hurting people in the same way they are trying to help.
For example, in Norway (or some Scandinavian country) there was a city where the cost of a cab was getting really high and getting a cab at night (after a movie or play or whatever) might take half and hour. The city decided to "fix" the situation by subsidizing one of the taxi companies, thinking that it would lower prices and provide more capital for the company to hire more taxi drivers. The taxi company did that for a while, but then all the competitors were driven out of business. Then they just hiked rates and reduced the number of taxis, making it even more expensive and even harder to get a cab home, while the owners of that company pocketed the subsidy.

Perhaps I should have clarified - the 'reforms' I see working (IMO) would be ones with much stricter overall regulation on the healthcare machine that (in the current state) has snowballed itself into such a large bloated system that it's collapse is not a matter of if but when.
- To protect from flaming it must be noted that there is much corruption in the gov't that must be rectified first for this type of reform to work-

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: djNickb

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't reforms to the system to make healthcare "cheaper" and "more accessible" act to lower expenses all around for both the employee and the empoyeer offering the benefits?

Maybe if you ignore how markets and people really work. I have already explained how these "reforms" are actually hurting people in the same way they are trying to help.
For example, in Norway (or some Scandinavian country) there was a city where the cost of a cab was getting really high and getting a cab at night (after a movie or play or whatever) might take half and hour. The city decided to "fix" the situation by subsidizing one of the taxi companies, thinking that it would lower prices and provide more capital for the company to hire more taxi drivers. The taxi company did that for a while, but then all the competitors were driven out of business. Then they just hiked rates and reduced the number of taxis, making it even more expensive and even harder to get a cab home, while the owners of that company pocketed the subsidy.

Bingo, that is exactly what we have here now. That is why the Health system prices are INFLATED. No one is asking for the prices to be reduced, only to rid the insane INFLATION far beyond actual cost plus decent profit. But no people like you will continue to say and somehow try and justify insane through the roof prices that make no sense whatsoever.

Also the Health system is not alone in the corruption, it is combines with the Insurance Industry, they are CORRUPT together with the blessing and encouragment of our Government.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: rjain go figure, the gov't tries to improve healthcare coverage and the result is that the one solid opportunity you have for healthcare coverage goes away. :frown:

What happened rjain , all of a sudden you don't have all the answers and everything is not fine huh?

It's because of "reforms" to the system to make healthcare "cheaper" and more "accessible", promoted by people like you, who think that punishing companies and increasing their expenses will somehow make them reduce prices or spend more on their employees.

Perhaps Bruno the answer is a hard pill to swallow but it certainly looks like the answer for now is to pack up and leave this Country where the dollar is more important than life itself.

I'd rather you left this country and didn't try to subvert our economic systems and put religious propaganda in government buildings. Oh well.

Now you're getting closer to the truth, very good. Punishing the corrupt people will infact lower prices not by reducing any costs but ridding the insane artificial pocket lining CORRUPT INFLATION. Big difference between statements like you make about "increasing their expenses" and ridding corruption. Crime Boss Mobs are alive and well and perfectly legal these days and you obviously are one of them. The subversion is clearly on your shoulders.