Chicago to force retailers to pay $13/hour

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: pontifex
why only retailers?

doesn't quite make sense.
although it is good for the employees. i don't know how anyone can live off of minimum wage.

It's pretty much impossible. Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days show had an episode based on living off of minimum wage. It couldn't be done.

You're not supposed to live off of a minimum wage. For a grown adult to be paid minimum wage, there has to be something very wrong with the situation.

Get a job in a warehouse moving boxes and you'll make way more than national minimum wage.

Retail pays way more than minimum wage.

Only industry I can think of that would actually pay minimum wage would be fast food at the lowest level, maybe some carwash/landscaping places too.

I know people who work in warehouses and make $17/hr. I know people who work in air conditioner factories and make $16/hr. I know people who work in grocery stores and make $24/hr (after a $15/hr raise following a review). And then I work in IT... Previously $6.75, now $9. *shrug*

You should work in the air conditioner factory or something then. Hell, I would.

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
I'm in favor of anything that stunts the expansion of a sweatshop like Walmart.

Nothing like cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

And if Walmart wasn't a decent employer, they wouldn't be able to staff their stores. Employement is not slavery. It is a mutual agreement.

I think their turnover rate would paint a picture in stark contrast to the rose-colored drivel you're trying to push on me.

Again, no one is forced to work at Walmart. They are there because they want to be.

That's such a cop out answer, it's ridiculous. What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative. Not everyone can afford a college education. Not everyone has what it takes to create their own enterprise. Should they have to suffer for that? I don't think so.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: pontifex
why only retailers?

doesn't quite make sense.
although it is good for the employees. i don't know how anyone can live off of minimum wage.

It's pretty much impossible. Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days show had an episode based on living off of minimum wage. It couldn't be done.

You're not supposed to live off of a minimum wage. For a grown adult to be paid minimum wage, there has to be something very wrong with the situation.

The point of it being the MINIMUM wage is it's the MINIMUM that you can be paid for survival. It's just fortunate that minimum wage jobs are somewhat rare.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
I'm in favor of anything that stunts the expansion of a sweatshop like Walmart.

Nothing like cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

And if Walmart wasn't a decent employer, they wouldn't be able to staff their stores. Employement is not slavery. It is a mutual agreement.

I think their turnover rate would paint a picture in stark contrast to the rose-colored drivel you're trying to push on me.

Again, no one is forced to work at Walmart. They are there because they want to be.

That's such a cop out answer, it's ridiculous. What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative. Not everyone can afford a college education. Not everyone has what it takes to create their own enterprise. Should they have to suffer for that? I don't think so.

Starving third world ethiopians are there because they want to be.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: pontifex
why only retailers?

doesn't quite make sense.
although it is good for the employees. i don't know how anyone can live off of minimum wage.

It's pretty much impossible. Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days show had an episode based on living off of minimum wage. It couldn't be done.

You're not supposed to live off of a minimum wage. For a grown adult to be paid minimum wage, there has to be something very wrong with the situation.

The point of it being the MINIMUM wage is it's the MINIMUM that you can be paid for survival. It's just fortunate that minimum wage jobs are somewhat rare.

You could not be more wrong.

The point of it being a minimum wage is to reduce the exploitation of low wage workers.

Now what that may mean in terms of survival ability, is a completely different story.

 

[OutHouse]

i wonder how much of a price hike the store will have to impliment to make up for the profit loss.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
I'm in favor of anything that stunts the expansion of a sweatshop like Walmart.

Nothing like cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

And if Walmart wasn't a decent employer, they wouldn't be able to staff their stores. Employement is not slavery. It is a mutual agreement.

I think their turnover rate would paint a picture in stark contrast to the rose-colored drivel you're trying to push on me.

Again, no one is forced to work at Walmart. They are there because they want to be.

That's such a cop out answer, it's ridiculous. What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative. Not everyone can afford a college education. Not everyone has what it takes to create their own enterprise. Should they have to suffer for that? I don't think so.

No, that's a fact of life. There are plenty of alternatives available.

Employment is not slavery. An employer owes you nothing more than what you agreed to at the time you BOTH agreed to trade labor for money.

Should people with the ambition and ability to produce be forced to inequitably support the lives of those who will not? No.

Sorry, but "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" failed miserably.

Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others - misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement - failure is not a mortgage on success - suffering is not a claim check.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative.

They are there because working in a factory is a damn site better than starving in the hills or slaving in a cold wet field all day just barely producing enough to subsist.

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative.

They are there because working in a factory is a damn site better than starving in the hills or slaving in a cold wet field all day just barely producing enough to subsist.

So you find that acceptable then? Case closed? I don't find that acceptable. It's barbaric.

 

[trmiv]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
I'm in favor of anything that stunts the expansion of a sweatshop like Walmart.

Nothing like cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

And if Walmart wasn't a decent employer, they wouldn't be able to staff their stores. Employement is not slavery. It is a mutual agreement.

I think their turnover rate would paint a picture in stark contrast to the rose-colored drivel you're trying to push on me.

Again, no one is forced to work at Walmart. They are there because they want to be.

That's such a cop out answer, it's ridiculous. What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative. Not everyone can afford a college education. Not everyone has what it takes to create their own enterprise. Should they have to suffer for that? I don't think so.

No, that's a fact of life. There are plenty of alternatives available.

Employment is not slavery. An employer owes you nothing more than what you agreed to at the time you BOTH agreed to trade labor for money.

Should people with the ambition and ability to produce be forced to inequitably support the lives of those who will not? No.

Sorry, but "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" failed miserably.

Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others - misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement - failure is not a mortgage on success - suffering is not a claim check.

? Ayn Rand

Next time you should cite that.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative.

They are there because working in a factory is a damn site better than starving in the hills or slaving in a cold wet field all day just barely producing enough to subsist.

So you find that acceptable then? Case closed? I don't find that acceptable. It's barbaric.

Any decent economist will tell you that throwing money at underdeveloped countries is the exact wrong way to accomplish anything.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: trmiv

Originally posted by: Amused


Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others - misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement - failure is not a mortgage on success - suffering is not a claim check.

? Ayn Rand

Next time you should cite that.

Next time I publish something I will.

 

[dmcowen674]

Chicago and the Country should just cave to Corporate Greed pressures and meet China and India's price of $2.96 hr.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: pontifex
why only retailers?

doesn't quite make sense.
although it is good for the employees. i don't know how anyone can live off of minimum wage.

It's pretty much impossible. Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days show had an episode based on living off of minimum wage. It couldn't be done.

You're not supposed to live off of a minimum wage. For a grown adult to be paid minimum wage, there has to be something very wrong with the situation.

Get a job in a warehouse moving boxes and you'll make way more than national minimum wage.

Retail pays way more than minimum wage.

Only industry I can think of that would actually pay minimum wage would be fast food at the lowest level, maybe some carwash/landscaping places too.

I know people who work in warehouses and make $17/hr. I know people who work in air conditioner factories and make $16/hr. I know people who work in grocery stores and make $24/hr (after a $15/hr raise following a review). And then I work in IT... Previously $6.75, now $9. *shrug*

You should work in the air conditioner factory or something then. Hell, I would.

Hell no. I'm waiting for my girlfriend (above mentioned $24/hr at a grocery store) to get hiring power - they're in need of a good technician to keep their automation and POS gear in line (at present, the office people are dabbling in it - and it's really a full time position, especially with those ridiculous self-scan things, which are broken 2-3 times a day)

That, and building air conditioners (at least in this plant) is a really, really crappy job. It's done assembly-line style with very little automation. So you do one thing, over and over and over and over all day.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative.

They are there because working in a factory is a damn site better than starving in the hills or slaving in a cold wet field all day just barely producing enough to subsist.

So you find that acceptable then? Case closed? I don't find that acceptable. It's barbaric.

then go to those regions of the world and do something about it then. i see a lot of talk from you and thats it.

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
I'm in favor of anything that stunts the expansion of a sweatshop like Walmart.

Nothing like cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

And if Walmart wasn't a decent employer, they wouldn't be able to staff their stores. Employement is not slavery. It is a mutual agreement.

I think their turnover rate would paint a picture in stark contrast to the rose-colored drivel you're trying to push on me.

Again, no one is forced to work at Walmart. They are there because they want to be.

That's such a cop out answer, it's ridiculous. What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative. Not everyone can afford a college education. Not everyone has what it takes to create their own enterprise. Should they have to suffer for that? I don't think so.

No, that's a fact of life. There are plenty of alternatives available.

Employment is not slavery. An employer owes you nothing more than what you agreed to at the time you BOTH agreed to trade labor for money.

Should people with the ambition and ability to produce be forced to inequitably support the lives of those who will not? No.

Sorry, but "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" failed miserably.

Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others - misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement - failure is not a mortgage on success - suffering is not a claim check.

Amused, you seem to view this as black and white. I don't see how anyone can judge an issue like this in that light. What happened to humanity? You and eye will never see eye to eye on this. I believe everyone deserves a liveable wage.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative.

They are there because working in a factory is a damn site better than starving in the hills or slaving in a cold wet field all day just barely producing enough to subsist.

So you find that acceptable then? Case closed? I don't find that acceptable. It's barbaric.

So you have no rational argument as to why it is horrible, except that in relative terms it is worse than an American office job?

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative.

They are there because working in a factory is a damn site better than starving in the hills or slaving in a cold wet field all day just barely producing enough to subsist.

So you find that acceptable then? Case closed? I don't find that acceptable. It's barbaric.

Any decent economist will tell you that throwing money at underdeveloped countries is the exact wrong way to accomplish anything.

Not throw money at them, BigJ. That money will most likely never meet the people who need it the most. Helping countries develop a fair economic system, on the other hand, should always be strived for.

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative.

They are there because working in a factory is a damn site better than starving in the hills or slaving in a cold wet field all day just barely producing enough to subsist.

So you find that acceptable then? Case closed? I don't find that acceptable. It's barbaric.

then go to those regions of the world and do something about it then. i see a lot of talk from you and thats it.

It takes a joint effort, waggy. One person isn't going to change anything, unfortunately.

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative.

They are there because working in a factory is a damn site better than starving in the hills or slaving in a cold wet field all day just barely producing enough to subsist.

So you find that acceptable then? Case closed? I don't find that acceptable. It's barbaric.

So you have no rational argument as to why it is horrible, except that in relative terms it is worse than an American office job?

Are we still talking about sweatshops in other parts of the world? If so, what about hazardous working conditions, 16 hour workdays, horrible wages, and no benefits to speak of?

 

[Albatross]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
What about the sweatshops in the various regions of the world? Are people there because they want to be? No, it's because they don't see another viable alternative.

They are there because working in a factory is a damn site better than starving in the hills or slaving in a cold wet field all day just barely producing enough to subsist.

So you find that acceptable then? Case closed? I don't find that acceptable. It's barbaric.

Any decent economist will tell you that throwing money at underdeveloped countries is the exact wrong way to accomplish anything.

Not throw money at them, BigJ. That money will most likely never meet the people who need it the most. Helping countries develop a fair economic system, on the other hand, should always be strived for.

what is a fair economic system?

 

[Pikachu]

Not everyone has what it takes to create their own enterprise. Should they have to suffer for that? I don't think so.

Talk about drivel! :roll:

Yes, lets force employers to pay for charity. Maybe they should be forced to pay for our health care as well. Hell, maybe we should have them foot the bill for our home and car insurance while we're at it!

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: notfred
Meh, San Francisco has similar pay requirements and it hasn't collapsed in on itself due to economic problems.

SF also has one of the highest cost of living standards in the country.

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: Pikachu

Not everyone has what it takes to create their own enterprise. Should they have to suffer for that? I don't think so.

Talk about drivel! :roll:

Yes, lets force employers to pay for charity. Maybe they should be forced to pay for our health care as well. Hell, maybe we should have them foot the bill for our home and car insurance while we're at it!

It's already happened here in Massachusetts (in regards to healthcare).

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Pikachu

Not everyone has what it takes to create their own enterprise. Should they have to suffer for that? I don't think so.

Talk about drivel! :roll:

Yes, lets force employers to pay for charity. Maybe they should be forced to pay for our health care as well. Hell, maybe we should have them foot the bill for our home and car insurance while we're at it!

actuallyt his has been a argument on ATOT before. many feel that since walmart should be paying for the workers health care.

also there was an article about people wanting the company to pay for gas to get to/from work.