News How many people actually earn the minimum wage?

[Economist]

As I indicated in my first reaction to this quote. His 7,500 arguments are flawed. How many of those 7,500 already had jobs and were looking for better ones. Without that piece of information, the article fails to make its own point.

I think this is a matter of opinion. I would argue that it really doesn't make a difference. Either way, people see Wal-Mart as their best option. Not to mention, if they really treat employees so bad (as many people claim) then why do 7,500 people apply for 300 - 400 positions?

Furthermore, it seems to me that he was mainly trying to claim that they don't exploit workers. I think those numbers prove that.

So once again, can you explain to me why are you so caught up on whether they already had a job? Do you deny that this is their best option and that this job will make them better off?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Do you deny that this is their best option and that this job will make them better off?

Do you claim it?

 

[drankin]

Do you claim it?

?

I think the applicants are claiming it.

 

[Economist]

Do you claim it?

Yes I do. Ever heard of revealed preference?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Yes I do. Ever heard of revealed preference?

No, but I addressed it anyway in post #47. I am not for or against Wal-Mart, but you have left me with the feeling that you form your opinion based on that article. In my opinion it is deficient for the purpose to which it is being put. You ought to post a better one. Millions of people smoke tobacco. I can't see that as an argument that tobacco is good.

 

[mheslep]

... Millions of people smoke tobacco. I can't see that as an argument that tobacco is good.

A good analogy for both views. Agreed, one can't use the 'millions' to say tobacco is good, but on the other hand the 'millions' should give pause to those who smugly want to ban it everywhere (city streets in a Ca town) out of a smug conviction by the 'enlightened' that's it is ok to decide for the other millions. Same goes for Walmart.

 

[BobG]

I think this is a matter of opinion. I would argue that it really doesn't make a difference. Either way, people see Wal-Mart as their best option. Not to mention, if they really treat employees so bad (as many people claim) then why do 7,500 people apply for 300 - 400 positions?

Furthermore, it seems to me that he was mainly trying to claim that they don't exploit workers. I think those numbers prove that.

So once again, can you explain to me why are you so caught up on whether they already had a job? Do you deny that this is their best option and that this job will make them better off?

In other words, did Walmart add 300-400 jobs or did they trade which 300-400 people were without jobs? And if they did trade which 300-400 people were without jobs, were the Walmart jobs at least better than the 300-400 jobs that were lost?

As is, the article doesn't really give a good picture of whether Walmart brought more good jobs to town or whether the town just has a horribly depressed economy. And I agree bringing any kind of jobs is a good thing if it's really adding new jobs.

 

[turbo]

As is, the article doesn't really give a good picture of whether Walmart brought more good jobs to town or whether the town just has a horribly depressed economy. And I agree bringing any kind of jobs is a good thing if it's really adding new jobs.

This is a really good point, Bob. Wal Mart didn't bring any net gain of jobs in my old home-town, as far as I could tell, because they killed a lot of little businesses in the process, some of them several towns away. You can argue that new jobs were created, but when Wal Mart kills small businesses, there may be a net loss of jobs. This is hard to gauge because little businesses with a few employees don't make much of a splash when they fold. There is a little tire business in our old home town that has managed to hold on. They special-order tires with a 1-2 day turn-around and they offer free tire rotation and low-cost conversions from summer to winter tires to customers who bought the tires from them. Wal Mart does not do this.

Wal Mart offers some pretty competitive prices at their pharmacy because they know that they can stall people while their prescriptions are being filled, and in the meantime, they will wander around and buy stuff that they don't need. Luckily, in our old home-town, the pharmacy in the downtown offers special services like delivery, and they can beat Wal Mart and Rite-Aid with their service. Other, more traditional pharmacies in outlying towns don't fare so well.

I realize that this thread is about the minimum wage, but it is important to show that small businesses can offer much more competitive wages and still beat Wal Mart and other chains by giving their customers value and establishing long-term relationships. When I was planning a canoe trip to the back-country or northern Maine with my buddy (former chief of the Maine warden service), he recommended that I bring 2 spare tires. I stopped in at this little tire shop and told the proprietor that I'd like to set up a 2nd spare, and he grabbed a used 15" rim and a really good used all-terrain tire, mounted and balanced it and asked me for 10 bucks. That couldn't happen at Wal Mart, VIP, or any of the other chains that do auto-service.

BTW, the guy who operated that tire store back then is retired due a medical disability. He needed some money, so he brought me a wonderful antique Winchester Low-Wall rifle to inspect. I researched the gun, found comparable sales values, and gave him an estimate of value and recommended some outlets to sell it for the best return. All for free, because I appreciate the consideration that he showed to his customers, even before Wal Mart was trying to drive him out.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A good analogy for both views. Agreed, one can't use the 'millions' to say tobacco is good, but on the other hand the 'millions' should give pause to those who smugly want to ban it everywhere (city streets in a Ca town) out of a smug conviction by the 'enlightened' that's it is ok to decide for the other millions. Same goes for Walmart.

I wouldn't ban Wal-Mart. But neither would I advance the argument that a thing which has any positive aspect no matter how inconsequential is good, regardless of any further investigation. The article claims 7500 arguments in favor of Wal-Mart, but that argument is flawed. Are there better employers who might bring better jobs than these? How many would sign up if an employer came to town with jobs good enough to entice those who already have a steady gig? Or did most of the applicants already have jobs? In my opinion, the article is worthless for reasoned judgment.

 

[mheslep]

I wouldn't ban Wal-Mart.

Yes, understood, but its clear that there are many who would.

But neither would I advance the argument that a thing which has any positive aspect no matter how inconsequential is good, regardless of any further investigation.

Agreed.

The article claims 7500 arguments in favor of Wal-Mart, but that argument is flawed. Are there better employers who might bring better jobs than these? How many would sign up if an employer came to town with jobs good enough to entice those who already have a steady gig? Or did most of the applicants already have jobs? In my opinion, the article is worthless for reasoned judgment.

Good points, the 7500 is not a basis by itself to weigh the benefits for a given community. Heck I'd probably vote for you for city mayor and support a decision by you to hinder Walmart given your demonstrated desire to get to the facts. However, there's a lot a populism that says in effect "Walmart is absolute an bad", wrecks the local buis., the jobs are worthless and only an idiot would want to work there. The 7500 is enough evidence to counter that line.

 

[Economist]

No, but I addressed it anyway in post #47. I am not for or against Wal-Mart, but you have left me with the feeling that you form your opinion based on that article. In my opinion it is deficient for the purpose to which it is being put. You ought to post a better one.

I don't think that "proves" Wal-Mart is "good." However, I honestly do think that Wal-Mart is a "good" company that's done more for poor people than any current politician has done or will do. But that's an not opinion that's based on this article. By the way, I don't wish to make this post mainly about Wal-Mart either.

Millions of people smoke tobacco. I can't see that as an argument that tobacco is good.

Tobacco is not "good," but that doesn't mean that smokers' don't get some sort of benefit from it. In other words, just because it's bad doesn't mean it's irrational. For example, alcohol is not good for me, but I enjoy drinking it and do so several times a week (and I imagine I am not alone). Likewise, I don't smoke marijuana but I imagine many people (probably even on this board) do. Marijuana is not good for you, but that doesn't mean that people who smoke it are irrational, because there is some personal enjoyment or satisfaction derived from using this substance. My point is, people do many unhealthy and dangerous things, probably because they derive some enjoyment from them, and they're willing to "pay the price" for that enjoyment.

 

[Economist]

In other words, did Walmart add 300-400 jobs or did they trade which 300-400 people were without jobs? And if they did trade which 300-400 people were without jobs, were the Walmart jobs at least better than the 300-400 jobs that were lost?

As is, the article doesn't really give a good picture of whether Walmart brought more good jobs to town or whether the town just has a horribly depressed economy. And I agree bringing any kind of jobs is a good thing if it's really adding new jobs.

The main argument for Wal-Mart being "good" is not about jobs. The main argument is that they are able to provide goods cheaply, which improves their shoppers standard of living (because they get "more bang for their buck").

I don't really have time to say anything more because I got to go, but I'll be back on later to discuss it.

 

[denverdoc]

Wal-Mart is an abomination-myriad studies demonstrate the same phenomenon--an increase in unempolyment rate, coupled with a loss of mom/pop biz-neses. Prices may drop for one particular shopper, but the community is left bereft. References to such abound, and WM likely spends more in PR and defense money to lawers than its next three or four competitors combined. Under threat of violence I will shop there, but just barelt

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Heck I'd probably vote for you for city mayor and support a decision by you to hinder Walmart given your demonstrated desire to get to the facts.

I hereby rescind all that I wrote. If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.

 

[denverdoc]

Wal-Mart is an abomination-myriad studies demonstrate the same phenomenon--an increase in unempolyment rate, coupled with a loss of mom/pop biz-neses. Prices may drop for one particular shopper, but the community is left bereft. References to such abound, and WM likely spends more in PR and defense money to lawyers than its next three or four competitors combined. Under threat of violence I will shop there, but just barely.

 

[mheslep]

I hereby rescind all that I wrote. If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.

Ok Tecumseh, but that's a loss for the country.