Unintended Consequence of Wal-Mart's Raise: Unhappy Workers

[piasabird]

It is a part time job with limited hours. It will never pay you enough money.

Either be happy or find another job that pays more or go to school to improve yourself and your career opportunities.

My daughter found a better job just by taking the federal pharmacy assistant exam while working a Wal-Mart. Now she works for blue cross blue shield.

 

[Jhhnn]

Democrats make life harder.

It is hard to be happy about a job that Wal-mart only lets you work for 20 hours a week in fear of having to pay for your Obama care. This is the reality that was created by full government control of your health care. There is more pain and suffering to come.

Not really. Walmart holds people to part time over UI, workmen's comp & other issues, has for a long time. And if you're only getting 20 hrs/wk at Walmart you likely qualify forMedicaid or the Medicaid extension... well, except in some backwards red states.

Dems didn't create that backwardness.

 

[piasabird]

If you dont like your job do something to find better employment.

The obamacare regulations forces employers to pay anyone that works over 30 hours insurance benefits. So employers just cut everyone's hours. That is a direct result of the ACA passed by an all democrat house and senate. Unless you are stupid you have to at least admit that. This is what the idiots voted for.

They could have voted for Romney.

 

[cubby1223]

Can you show us where walmart employees are unhappy with their raise? Or is the only thing you can show us is that they are unhappy that others didn't get a raise. There is a difference, do you understand that difference?

Do you ever turn off troll mode?

One of the leading cause of job dissatisfaction and retention problems are workers who don't feel the company is appreciative of the efforts the employee puts forth.

The senior employees who are unhappy are not so because others got raises, they are unhappy because they feel the company is not appreciative of what effort they individually are putting into the company.


Simplify the situation a bit, two employees, one accomplishes twice as many tasks than the other (let's assume the tasks are each of equal weight), and are paid equal dollar amounts each pay period, yes it absolutely does send a message that causes the harder-working employee to be dissatisfied with his/her job feeling the company is not appreciative of the extra effort.


It's the same base situation as the pay-gap argument. The low-level workers are dissatisfied because they feel their efforts are not appreciated given the massive level of rewards going to the CEO. In the thread we're not putting out charts of wage level increases/decreases over the years, it's CEO wage levels over the years.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I think that's one of the things that people who are in favor of unilaterally increasing minimum wage by a large amount fail to take into account. Just because minimum wage increases doesn't mean the people who were making more than minimum wage beforehand are also going to get bumped. If I'm making $15 an hour and some lesser-skilled co-workers are making $10, I feel OK with my position. If they all get bumped to $15, that doesn't mean I'm moving up to $20. Suddenly the additional skills and experience I have don't actually translate to increased salary, and that's not going to leave me satisfied.

I think increasing minimum wage is ultimately a good thing, but sometimes good intentions have unintended consequences. You're not mandating a 30% increase in salaries across the board for anyone earning under a certain amount, you're just raising the absolute bottom up to people who are slightly above the bottom. It's a nice gesture, but if your concern is the vast disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, maybe you should focus some of your attention on the people at the top.

While it would be unwise to not also give your more experienced workers a bump in pay, the goal of this movement is to create a livable wage for those at the bottom. That wage floor should be there for everyone, and after that market forces should take over. Does a forklift driver that makes $15/hr suddenly become underpaid if a burger flipper gets raised to $15/hr? Does one need to see others suffer financial hardship in order to feel adequately compensated themselves? I fully understand the human psychology behind these kinds of impulses, but you have to recognize that these impulses are irrational. Our response should be to lift everyone up the income ladder instead of drag everyone down, which is what many conservatives seem to advocate.

 

[cubby1223]

Hell, it's why unions negotiate their fixed pay scale based on seniority, not on equality of paycheck values.

You'll be tough pressed to locate a liberal Democrat who doesn't believe in union workforces, and in the union workforces, I've been here longer than you, I deserve the salary I've earned, you do not until you match my own current commitment.

 

[cabri]

While it would be unwise to not also give your more experienced workers a bump in pay, the goal of this movement is to create a livable wage for those at the bottom. That wage floor should be there for everyone, and after that market forces should take over. Does a forklift driver that makes $15/hr suddenly become underpaid if a burger flipper gets raised to $15/hr? Does one need to see others suffer financial hardship in order to feel adequately compensated themselves? I fully understand the human psychology behind these kinds of impulses, but you have to recognize that these impulses are irrational. Our response should be to lift everyone up the income ladder instead of drag everyone down, which is what many conservatives seem to advocate.

so you lift everyone up the ladder; and what does it accomplish.

Feel good and then inflation.
If one can pay $500/month rent before, then increase it to $600/month.

After all, the yard workers are asking /needing/getting more, why should the landlord not get a raise also; they may have increased costs. 😕

 

[MongGrel]

Oh the ones getting the raise are happy. The ones that were already at that level previous from having worked their time, and improved their skillset and experience level are now at the "bottom" with those that got a free raise up. Those employee in that position are going to be upset if they don't get a raise as well to differentiate their improved marketability over those at the bottom.

Corporate Globalization and Overpopulation is just continuing it's march.

Give it another decade and there will be WalMarts all over the middle of Central Africa and you can plug anyone in to work and increase profits.

It is what it is.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

While it would be unwise to not also give your more experienced workers a bump in pay, the goal of this movement is to create a livable wage for those at the bottom. That wage floor should be there for everyone, and after that market forces should take over. Does a forklift driver that makes $15/hr suddenly become underpaid if a burger flipper gets raised to $15/hr? Does one need to see others suffer financial hardship in order to feel adequately compensated themselves? I fully understand the human psychology behind these kinds of impulses, but you have to recognize that these impulses are irrational. Our response should be to lift everyone up the income ladder instead of drag everyone down, which is what many conservatives seem to advocate.

Flip that around though; if there's no financial incentive to take on the additional training required for a skilled position over an unskilled position, then why would anyone do it? If I need to devote extra time and effort to learn the skills needed to operate a forklift rather than mop the floor, I would reasonably expect an increase in salary to do so. Arbitrarily setting the wage floor higher for the absolute minimum salary without a corresponding increase in my pay devalues the additional experience I've worked to achieve.

"Lifting everyone up the income ladder" is a meaningless phrase; we could set everyone's salary to $1,000,000 tomorrow, and they've moved up the income ladder. What matters is purchasing power, and that's negatively impacted by the enormous disparity in wealth between the extremely wealthy and the poor, not the poor and the slightly less poor. The minimum wage attempts to tackle income inequality from one end while completely ignoring the concentration of wealth in the upper 0.01%, and you're not going to fix the problem that way.

 

[cubby1223]

Does a forklift driver that makes $15/hr suddenly become underpaid if a burger flipper gets raised to $15/hr?

Yes. For three reasons.

Skilled workers are paid more because there are fewer of them in the workforce, it is more difficult and costlier for a company to replace a skilled worker who leaves than an unskilled worker. They are paid more as an incentive to stay where they are.

Skilled workers often have to put themselves through greater training and take on greater responsibilities, and greater liabilities. Higher pay is necessary to motivate people to seek out and obtain the higher skills.

It takes a while for inflation to kick in, but it will, and adjust the prices of goods and services higher, causing life to be more expensive for the skilled worker to afford. Things will be more expensive for the unskilled force, but their bump in salary puts them ahead of the inflation curve. Skilled workers without a bump fall behind the curve.

 

[ivwshane]

So what you are saying is that the more senior employees (and presumably lower management) were already unhappy about their pay, therefore walmart raising the minimum pay for their entry level employees didn't cause unhappiness. So basically you think the OP's title is wrong and so are the conclusion of the article?

Great! That's what I said as well!

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37611147&postcount=14

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37611154&postcount=15

Do you ever turn off troll mode?

One of the leading cause of job dissatisfaction and retention problems are workers who don't feel the company is appreciative of the efforts the employee puts forth.

The senior employees who are unhappy are not so because others got raises, they are unhappy because they feel the company is not appreciative of what effort they individually are putting into the company.


Simplify the situation a bit, two employees, one accomplishes twice as many tasks than the other (let's assume the tasks are each of equal weight), and are paid equal dollar amounts each pay period, yes it absolutely does send a message that causes the harder-working employee to be dissatisfied with his/her job feeling the company is not appreciative of the extra effort.


It's the same base situation as the pay-gap argument. The low-level workers are dissatisfied because they feel their efforts are not appreciated given the massive level of rewards going to the CEO. In the thread we're not putting out charts of wage level increases/decreases over the years, it's CEO wage levels over the years.

 

[soulcougher73]

Lol @ 10 year veteran

 

[ivwshane]

Flip that around though; if there's no financial incentive to take on the additional training required for a skilled position over an unskilled position, then why would anyone do it? If I need to devote extra time and effort to learn the skills needed to operate a forklift rather than mop the floor, I would reasonably expect an increase in salary to do so. Arbitrarily setting the wage floor higher for the absolute minimum salary without a corresponding increase in my pay devalues the additional experience I've worked to achieve.

"Lifting everyone up the income ladder" is a meaningless phrase; we could set everyone's salary to $1,000,000 tomorrow, and they've moved up the income ladder. What matters is purchasing power, and that's negatively impacted by the enormous disparity in wealth between the extremely wealthy and the poor, not the poor and the slightly less poor. The minimum wage attempts to tackle income inequality from one end while completely ignoring the concentration of wealth in the upper 0.01%, and you're not going to fix the problem that way.

I agree, minimum wage increases, while they feel good, don't address the problem in any meaningful way.

How do you feel about tax increases on business owners and businesses? What about tax cuts/increases based on a business' pay gap (using a formula to determine the pay gap between your average entry level workers and upper management level positions)? Or simply increase the effective tax rate on profits? One encourages spending on it's employees and the other gives a business an option to spend money on it's employees or forces it to invest it's money. One is direct, the other is indirect.

 

[BoberFett]

Flip that around though; if there's no financial incentive to take on the additional training required for a skilled position over an unskilled position, then why would anyone do it? If I need to devote extra time and effort to learn the skills needed to operate a forklift rather than mop the floor, I would reasonably expect an increase in salary to do so. Arbitrarily setting the wage floor higher for the absolute minimum salary without a corresponding increase in my pay devalues the additional experience I've worked to achieve.

Agreed. I addressed that in the comment I linked earlier.

"Lifting everyone up the income ladder" is a meaningless phrase; we could set everyone's salary to $1,000,000 tomorrow, and they've moved up the income ladder. What matters is purchasing power, and that's negatively impacted by the enormous disparity in wealth between the extremely wealthy and the poor, not the poor and the slightly less poor. The minimum wage attempts to tackle income inequality from one end while completely ignoring the concentration of wealth in the upper 0.01%, and you're not going to fix the problem that way.

Here I disagree. How exactly are the monetarily wealthy taking anything away from anybody?

Do the wealthy have garages full of 1,000 cars? Or do they have a couple of very expensive overpriced cars as status symbols, but which use about the same amount of raw materials as a Corolla?

Do the wealthy eat 1,000 meals at a sitting, or do they pay for massively overpriced meals to eat with other snooty rich people and talk about how great they are?

Or is it that old red herring about the wealthy and their gold plated yachts? If the wealthy couldn't afford yachts, would a bunch of people own 1/1,000th of a yacht? (If so, I call dibs on the life preserver.)

Until we invent the Star Trek replicator, this is still an economy based on scarcity. Until we're in that utopian post-scarcity economy, not everyone can have everything. What's making things worse right now is that it's no longer about US scarcity, it's global scarcity. The US has been sitting on top of the heap for a long time, but now the rest of the world wants to consume too. They aren't going to sit around and let us consume all of the goods this world creates.

So unless you think that the CONSUMER GOODS purchasing power of hundreds of millions of Americans is less than the purchasing power of a small number of wealthy people, increased wages won't change that. Keep in mind that this is about CONSUMER GOODS. Most of the money the wealthy have isn't used to purchase consumer goods, it's used to purchase ownership of companies. That's it's own problem, but mostly unrelated to the day-to-day American lifestyle.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Oh the ones getting the raise are happy. The ones that were already at that level previous from having worked their time, and improved their skillset and experience level are now at the "bottom" with those that got a free raise up. Those employee in that position are going to be upset if they don't get a raise as well to differentiate their improved marketability over those at the bottom.

They were happy earning what they were earning before this raise or they would have left elsewhere.

So if they are already happy with what they earn, why do they care if other people start earning what they earn? It does not change their financial situation?

 

[Hugo Drax]

If you dont like your job do something to find better employment.

The obamacare regulations forces employers to pay anyone that works over 30 hours insurance benefits. So employers just cut everyone's hours. That is a direct result of the ACA passed by an all democrat house and senate. Unless you are stupid you have to at least admit that. This is what the idiots voted for.

They could have voted for Romney.

Actually the part time under 30 hours has been going on for the last 15-20 years.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Here I disagree. How exactly are the monetarily wealthy taking anything away from anybody?

Do the wealthy have garages full of 1,000 cars? Or do they have a couple of very expensive overpriced cars as status symbols, but which use about the same amount of raw materials as a Corolla?

Do the wealthy eat 1,000 meals at a sitting, or do they pay for massively overpriced meals to eat with other snooty rich people and talk about how great they are?

Or is it that old red herring about the wealthy and their gold plated yachts? If the wealthy couldn't afford yachts, would a bunch of people own 1/1,000th of a yacht? (If so, I call dibs on the life preserver.)

Until we invent the Star Trek replicator, this is still an economy based on scarcity. Until we're in that utopian post-scarcity economy, not everyone can have everything. What's making things worse right now is that it's no longer about US scarcity, it's global scarcity. The US has been sitting on top of the heap for a long time, but now the rest of the world wants to consume too. They aren't going to sit around and let us consume all of the goods this world creates.

So unless you think that the CONSUMER GOODS purchasing power of hundreds of millions of Americans is less than the purchasing power of a small number of wealthy people, increased wages won't change that. Keep in mind that this is about CONSUMER GOODS. Most of the money the wealthy have isn't used to purchase consumer goods, it's used to purchase ownership of companies. That's it's own problem, but mostly unrelated to the day-to-day American lifestyle.

It's not just consumer goods, it's real estate. I don't know if you're aware, but property values have increased on an exponential level when compared to wages, and it's not because people have decided that 1,000% of their annual net income is a fair price for a home. Look at rents in major metropolitan markets around the US; property developers are buying up all the land, putting up buildings, raising rents and pricing the "middle class" out of real estate ownership. Even cheap land is gobbled up by wealthy developers who can come in with cash offers 20% above the asking price without batting an eye.

So, yeah, the rich aren't buying 1,000s of cars. They're buying 1,000s of homes/apartments and renting them out to the rest of us. How is that ideal? Everybody glorifies the 1950s, that golden age where home ownership was within reach of middle class Americans. That's not the case anymore, and it has everything to do with the concentration of wealth at the top.

 

[BoberFett]

It's not just consumer goods, it's real estate. I don't know if you're aware, but property values have increased on an exponential level when compared to wages, and it's not because people have decided that 1,000% of their annual net income is a fair price for a home. Look at rents in major metropolitan markets around the US; property developers are buying up all the land, putting up buildings, raising rents and pricing the "middle class" out of real estate ownership. Even cheap land is gobbled up by wealthy developers who can come in with cash offers 20% above the asking price without batting an eye.

So, yeah, the rich aren't buying 1,000s of cars. They're buying 1,000s of homes/apartments and renting them out to the rest of us. How is that ideal? Everybody glorifies the 1950s, that golden age where home ownership was within reach of middle class Americans. That's not the case anymore, and it has everything to do with the concentration of wealth at the top.

Are you claiming that with ZERO demand, the wealthy tore down everything and put up luxury condos that NOBODY wanted? If nobody wants or can afford these homes, they're all vacant, right?

Or is it possible that the middle class demanded fancier homes?

 

[ivwshane]

Are you claiming that with ZERO demand, the wealthy tore down everything and put up luxury condos that NOBODY wanted? If nobody wants or can afford these homes, they're all vacant, right?

Or is it possible that the middle class demanded fancier homes?

Before and after the housing bubble, the rich and investors were/are buying up real estate and yes many properties are or were vacant for a long time.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/18/real_estate/florida_vacant_homes/

Hell! Investors were buying houses, sitting on them for a few months and then flipping them. Banks were are doing the same thing, sitting on foreclosed properties while they waited for the market to recover.

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2012...as-90-percent-of-foreclosed-properties-are-h/

 

[Meghan54]

You aren't that observant are you?

The problem isn't that new employees got more, it's that the walmart lifers didn't get their pay adjusted upwards as well.

iirc, the skilled positions at walmart & distributors actually pay decent.

What are you not understanding here? Oh, I guess all of it.

In interviews and in hundreds of comments on Facebook, Wal-Mart employees are calling the move unfair to senior workers who got no increase and now make the same or close to what newer, less experienced colleagues earn. New workers started making a minimum of $9 an hour in April and will get at least $10 an hour in February.

So, let's see, s0me0nesmind1, you call others wrong with their assessment of the article, that senior employees are bitching about the entry level employees having their wages increased but not theirs. Bock essentially restates this, and you criticize Bock for not understanding (?) the orig. article and then quote a passage that directly states what Bock paraphrased.....and then you say he has reading comprehension issues?

s0me0nesmind1...reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?