• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Near minimum wage workers 1, Victoria's Secret 0

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
JM Aggie08 said:
I'm sure she needs that iPhone that she probably has, or that internet/cable package in her apartment that is probably far beyond her means.

But hey, she works for Victoria's Secret. It's their fault she can't have the lavish lifestyle she feels she deserves.

🙄
Click to expand...

Just so you could reread.

I'd be more than willing to be that she's living well outside of her means. That's what I'm saying.
 
I think the discussion is more about the definition of "fair" is than "living wage." One of you is arguing fair is what ever labor economics dictates a marginally cute unskilled retail worker is worth. The other is arguing fair is whatever amount is required to subsist on regardless of labor market demands.
 
Just so you understand, I'm referring to the situation as a whole, not the fiscally irresponsible person made example of. At no point did I refer to her, or anyone, as an example. I speak in the general sense of the situation.

What do I believe a fair or deserved wage is in NYC? I don't know. What is it in MiddleOfNoWhere KS? I don't know. But I DO know that it's considerably higher in NYC than KS.

It's moot to discuss a single individual when discussing a topic like this. But as you've submitted no reasoning for your arguments, I'll consider your argument ad hominem...
 
GoodRevrnd said:
I think the discussion is more about the definition of "fair" is than "living wage." One of you is arguing fair is what ever labor economics dictates a marginally cute unskilled retail worker is worth. The other is arguing fair is whatever amount is required to subsist on regardless of labor market demands.
Click to expand...

Is that not the definition of fair wage? That's what my entire argument focused on.
 
I agree that it does cost much more to live in NYC than 99% of all America. But move away if you can't afford it. If they don't have the mental capacity to get a better job maybe that area isn't for them. If people continue working at these places then the wage is probably fair. If they paid 2 dollars and hour no one would work there.

Aggie is probably right that they have internet and a cell phone with cable package. That stuff costs a lot of money. People need to get a grip in general that not everything can be had in this lifetime. If I suddenly declared that owning a GTR was a basic life need people would laugh at me or tell me to get a better job. It all falls on the individual to make things happen. Unless of course there is a real medical handicap then the standard rules don't apply.
 
GoodRevrnd said:
That's the capitalist definition of a fair wage. My point was merely that you two have a different definition of what "fair" is.
Click to expand...

I understand, and was not trying to argue. Just wanted to make sure what I was saying made sense to someone other than myself lol.
 
mugs said:
This Victoria's Secret store has 700 employees? Isn't that more than a typical Walmart?
Click to expand...

wtf 700 employees at one VS store? im sorry im calling shens in a badly written piece. No way in hell is ONE victoria secret store is going to have 700 employees.

most walmarts have less than 60 and thats pushing it.
 
OutHouse said:
wtf 700 employees at one VS store? im sorry im calling shens in a badly written piece. No way in hell is ONE victoria secret store is going to have 700 employees.

most walmarts have less than 60 and thats pushing it.
Click to expand...

I don't know, the petition says 700 people at one store too: https://www.change.org/petitions/victoria-s-secret-don-t-keep-workers-schedules-a-secret

I think 200 is more typical for a Walmart. 60 would only allow for about 20 people working at once assuming they all work full time (they don't) and there are two shifts per day.

With 700 working at Victoria's Secret, even if everyone only worked one shift a week they'd have 50 employees there at a time.

Which brings up one of their other complaints - people getting vastly different hours each week; one week 30, the next week 8. I've heard that complaint a lot from retail employees in the last few years. When I worked retail 10+ years ago, all of the jobs I had hired you for a certain number of shifts a week; your hours would only vary if those shifts were 7 or 9 hours instead of 8. If they took a shift away from you and gave it to someone else, it was because you screwed up. That was the case at all 4 retail jobs I had.

So when I hear people complaining that their employer won't give them hours, I wonder if something has changed in the way employers are acting, or if the employees that are complaining are just the worthless type of retail employee who don't care to do a good job and don't care to show up if they have something better to do.

The common response I hear is that employers don't want to give people full time hours so they don't have to give benefits. That doesn't make sense, because employers set their own requirements for benefits (I think the Affordable Care Act has some changes there, but I've been hearing the same thing since before that passed and the employer mandate hasn't even taken effect yet). Also, even if you don't want an employee to be "full time" you can consistently give them three shifts a week.

The other reason I've heard for why employers like part-time employees is that it gives them scheduling flexibility. You can easily achieve that without ever having to give someone one shift a week.
 
JEDI said:
the diff is that Victoria's Secret isnt competing on ultra-low pricing.
a bra/panty set for my gf at the time costs $70 😱
Click to expand...

lol, that's cheap as hell. You do realize that Victoria's Secret is basically the Wal-mart equivalent of the lingerie world, right?
 
fair wage vs living wage:

a fair wage for a full time job has to pay at least the living cost of the person doing the work, as otherwise that person cannot do the work, as they cannot live.

This is pretty basic logic.
 
JEDI said:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/11/news/companies/victorias-secret-workers/index.html?source=cnn_bin

Debbra Alexis and a group of Victoria's Secret employees won the fight for higher pay and better hours.
from $9.93/hr to 11.90/hr at the flagship store in NYC.

Their success comes as workers at Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500), Macy's (M, Fortune 500) and fast food chains have yet to see a major change.


and you're not going to see changes at Walmart/McD.

the diff is that Victoria's Secret isnt competing on ultra-low pricing.
a bra/panty set for my gf at the time costs $70 😱
Click to expand...

Sigh, what sad times these must be for the forums. This thread was up all afternoon and not one person asked the obligatory "Pics?!"
 
jdoggg12 said:
You seem to fail to understand economics. The cost of living in a city like NY is extreme. A "living wage" there is very likely 2x what it is in most anywhere else. As an educated person that, at one point, had to take a minimum wage position to pull myself out of unemployment, I've seen first hand that it's NOT possible to be self sufficient on the federal minimum wage in an area like SF or NY. And saying "then just move" or "just find a better job" is asinine. People deserve a fair wage, regardless if it's a skilled or menial job. If they don't get it from their employer, they're going to get it from society...
Click to expand...


You seem to fail to understand my post completely. Let me make it simple for you. I choose not to live in London because the slight wage bump wouldn't cover the increased living expenses and my quality of life would go down. If you choose to live in NY and earn a crappy wage that is your own fault, nobody is forced to live there and if all the cheap labour moved away companies would be forced to pay more to attract workers.

I am not saying people should emigrate, just move out of what must be one of the most expensive places in America to live. If they choose not to I choose not to give a damn about them.

A lot of the time we aren't even talking about people who have grown up in these expensive cities, they move there knowing full well that wages for the jobs they are qualified for don't cover living expenses. Then they get a crappy job and bitch about how their wage doesn't cover there living expenses. I don't see how anyone can have any sympathy for them in the slightest.
 
_Rick_ said:
fair wage vs living wage:

a fair wage for a full time job has to pay at least the living cost of the person doing the work, as otherwise that person cannot do the work, as they cannot live.

This is pretty basic logic.
Click to expand...

If 10,000 unskilled workers are vying for 5,000 unskilled jobs that "fair" rate is going to go down. This is also pretty basic logic.
 
JM Aggie08 said:
I'm sure she needs that iPhone that she probably has, or that internet/cable package in her apartment that is probably far beyond her means.

But hey, she works for Victoria's Secret. It's their fault she can't have the lavish lifestyle she feels she deserves.

🙄
Click to expand...

An iPhone plus some internet = "lavish lifestyle"? Really?
 
I'm usually one to say "get a better job" but no one, I repeat, no one should be paid $10/hour in NYC. Those are slave wages. $10/hour in Des Moines? Sure. Not in NYC.

Typical self righteous ATOT responses on here though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top