Whole Foods Cuts Workers' Hours after Amazon Introduces Minimum Wage

SamuraiInBlack

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
5,772
Well at one point Bezo's was just a schlub like the rest of us.

Then he got off his ass and invented Amazon.

That's what makes America amazing - unlimited potential.

1. Every Bezos needs fellow current-schlubs for a workforce, and millions more as customers. If the schlubs can't afford to be customers, or feel that Bezos isn't offering what they need, a Bezos goes back to being a schlub. If it doesn't pay to be a Bezos-schlub, people will eventually find a different Bezos to work for.
2. Unlimited potential also swings in an unfavorable direction.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
So it worked. Now they work less hours for the same pay.
Seriously? That's your take on this?
1. The intent was not to increase leisure time. Ever.
2. Losing a few hours per week could be the difference between being a full-time or part-time employee. Generally, there are other benefits offered full-time employees not granted to part-timers.
3. For some, their income has dropped, they're not working less hours for the same income.
4. Workers are being held accountable to the same goals as pre-15 but with reduced time allocated to achieve said goals, according to the article. Who is that a win for? Certainly not the employee!
“Just about every person on our team has complained about their hours being cut. Some have had to look for other jobs as they can’t make ends meet,”
It sure worked! Well done, leftists. Pat yourselves on the back!
 

Aioeyu

Weaksauce
Joined
May 24, 2017
Messages
71
All corporations have legally binding fiduciary relationships with their shareholders. This means that if corporations do anything intentionally that does not maximize shareholder profits (within the confines of the law), they are violating the law and can and will be sued by their shareholders.

Corproations exist for one reason and one reason only, to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. You cannot rationally expect them to do anything else.

You're technically incorrect. There are different types of corporations. I believe what you're referring to are C corporations. I run an S corporation, we have no publicly traded shares, and therefore no fiduciary responsibly to share holders. The wide world of business is MUCH more complicated and nuanced than most people seem to think or understand.

I've been running businesses to some degree my whole adult life, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't know even close to everything. The business world is similar to the programming world in that things are always changing and the competition will eat your lunch if you aren't constantly evolving and growing.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
They will always cut the hours . Be it 1$ an hour or 15$. It would not make a difference.
Amazon did the salary thing internally, but let say they only did it becuase of the state, and some states said.. no no no, pay 7.25.. in those states they would have waited for the news cycle to end, then cut the hours.
Later would have been articles about how a
Amazon 'took advantage' of low pay, but still cut hours.
And the comment fight would be about those saying Amazon is abusive and those saying it is Amazon's job to keep the business working efficiency, regardless of pay rate ( same people here saying hours were cut because if salary increase, ironically)
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,409
You're technically incorrect. There are different types of corporations. I believe what you're referring to are C corporations. I run an S corporation, we have no publicly traded shares, and therefore no fiduciary responsibly to share holders. The wide world of business is MUCH more complicated and nuanced than most people seem to think or understand.

I've been running businesses to some degree my whole adult life, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't know even close to everything. The business world is similar to the programming world in that things are always changing and the competition will eat your lunch if you aren't constantly evolving and growing.


Fair comment, but colloquially when people say "corporation" they are referring to C corporations , not S corprostions.
 

Skull_Angel

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,664
All corporations have legally binding fiduciary relationships with their shareholders. This means that if corporations do anything intentionally that does not maximize shareholder profits (within the confines of the law), they are violating the law and can and will be sued by their shareholders.

Corproations exist for one reason and one reason only, to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. You cannot rationally expect them to do anything else.

Which, again, is a problem with the corporate mentality. It incentivizes and rewards maximum revenue growth to the point where a company needs to reside in the morally grey area of operation (and cross the line of legality at times) to be considered successful.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,033
Here's a serious question - how is the existence of "megacorps" directly effecting you? You personally. Not some empty rhetoric, but a specific example out of how, let's say Amazon's mere existence is personally coming down into your existence and negatively effecting your economics or personal freedom?

Quite a bit; by putting local business out of work (via undercutting them) creates significant local unemployment. In addition, the (relatively) high wages of their employees significantly raises cost of living in the regions where they set up shop (Seattle is a perfect example of this, as is San Fran). There's also the loss of competition, which undercuts one of the most important tenants of Capitalism.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,033
Which, again, is a problem with the corporate mentality. It incentivizes and rewards maximum revenue growth to the point where a company needs to reside in the morally grey area of operation (and cross the line of legality at times) to be considered successful.

Because Corporations are responsible to the Shareholder, first and foremost.

Case in point, if the options are "cut worker hours" versus "lose a few hundred million of our multi-billion dollar profits", then cutting worker hours "wins" every time. [Hence why I support UBIs over increased minimum wages, which doesn't really solve the underlying problems progressives are attempting to fix.]
 

Skull_Angel

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,664
Because Corporations are responsible to the Shareholder, first and foremost.

Case in point, if the options are "cut worker hours" versus "lose a few hundred million of our multi-billion dollar profits", then cutting worker hours "wins" every time. [Hence why I support UBIs over increased minimum wages, which doesn't really solve the underlying problems progressives are attempting to fix.]


I've only heard basic concepts of UBIs, but I do agree it's more appealing than a minimum wage.

The biggest problem with minimum wage (from a worker's stand point) is that there's no assurance tied to it; your hours determine your pay and your employer determines your hours. There are no regulations that state an employer must give you hours you request, "promote" you to full-time if you currently work part-time, or not reduce your hours; it's my opinion that workers should have legal leverage over that. I worked retail for longer than I should have, but most companies I worked for ran skeleton crews with many employees that constantly requested more hours for various reasons and rarely acquired them, and that's just not right.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
31,856
I've only heard basic concepts of UBIs, but I do agree it's more appealing than a minimum wage.

The biggest problem with minimum wage (from a worker's stand point) is that there's no assurance tied to it; your hours determine your pay and your employer determines your hours. There are no regulations that state an employer must give you hours you request, "promote" you to full-time if you currently work part-time, or not reduce your hours; it's my opinion that workers should have legal leverage over that. I worked retail for longer than I should have, but most companies I worked for ran skeleton crews with many employees that constantly requested more hours for various reasons and rarely acquired them, and that's just not right.

negative, if you are unsatisfied with your employment, take it upon yourself to improve your employment typically by had work so your employer likes you and gives you more hours or by getting a better job,
 

WorldExclusive

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
11,513
Exactly what I would do if I were Amazon. Hours will go up when sales go up, and the opposite.

negative, if you are unsatisfied with your employment, take it upon yourself to improve your employment typically by had work so your employer likes you and gives you more hours or by getting a better job,

Bingo, a part-time job is temporary easy money that requires low brain power. It's not a professional career that's a long-term asset to the organization.
If the person is not an asset, they're very unlikely to receive more hours.
 
Last edited:

Skull_Angel

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,664
negative, if you are unsatisfied with your employment, take it upon yourself to improve your employment typically by had work so your employer likes you and gives you more hours or by getting a better job,


Negative way of thinking. When you're part of a corporate work force your department is only allotted so many hours (and likely wages), when you place yourself above other workers by gaining favor and being granted more hours you're taking away from your co-workers' hours, many of your coworkers that have gotten past their probationary period have proven themselves competent workers (unless the department manager is incompetent themself) and losing hours is a detriment to morale which causes a multitude of adverse effects that span from the worker to the department.

Getting a "better job" is the only real option, but it's not a simple one if it's available. The "basic workforce" is still the driving power in society, in our current state there would be nothing without them; they deserve just treatment.
 

buttons

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
2,164
I fail to see why so many people are against a "fair" minimum wage and employee benefits. Yes, lets all go back to the days when we had to work all day in the fields for a loaf of bread. Individuals have little power on their own to negotiate a decent standard of living against big business. I can't just uproot my whole family and move across the country looking for greener pastures everytime i need to put food on the table. why cant we just work hard and be paid fair ? Oh i forgot, to busy giving $131,000,000 golden parachutes to CEOs who come in and fire half the staff. Personally, i am jealous of the military pay grades. You made this rank, you get that salary. seems fair and transparent to me.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
31,856
Negative way of thinking. When you're part of a corporate work force your department is only allotted so many hours (and likely wages), when you place yourself above other workers by gaining favor and being granted more hours you're taking away from your co-workers' hours, many of your coworkers that have gotten past their probationary period have proven themselves competent workers (unless the department manager is incompetent themself) and losing hours is a detriment to morale which causes a multitude of adverse effects that span from the worker to the department.

Getting a "better job" is the only real option, but it's not a simple one if it's available. The "basic workforce" is still the driving power in society, in our current state there would be nothing without them; they deserve just treatment.

lol you are confused. it is upon you to improve your circumstances, not the company. You are free to change jobs as you see fit. How you think it is up to someone else to provide all you need is beyond me.

I like so many others here started at a minimum wage of 2.35 an hour... needless to say I did not stay there long.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
I fail to see why so many people are against a "fair" minimum wage and employee benefits. Yes, lets all go back to the days when we had to work all day in the fields for a loaf of bread. Individuals have little power on their own to negotiate a decent standard of living against big business. I can't just uproot my whole family and move across the country looking for greener pastures everytime i need to put food on the table. why cant we just work hard and be paid fair ? Oh i forgot, to busy giving $131,000,000 golden parachutes to CEOs who come in and fire half the staff. Personally, i am jealous of the military pay grades. You made this rank, you get that salary. seems fair and transparent to me.
I was typing out a reply to you, but it dawned on me that your post reeks of so much ignorance I'd be wasting my time.
So instead, I'll leave you with a dad joke....

So what did communists use for light before candles?
....
....
Electricity!!11!!
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
lol you are confused. it is upon you to improve your circumstances, not the company. You are free to change jobs as you see fit. How you think it is up to someone else to provide all you need is beyond me.

I like so many others here started at a minimum wage of 2.35 an hour... needless to say I did not stay there long.
This! A thousand times, this!
The only thing worse than expecting somebody else to take care of you is expecting the gov't to do so.
 

WorldExclusive

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
11,513
I fail to see why so many people are against a "fair" minimum wage and employee benefits. Yes, lets all go back to the days when we had to work all day in the fields for a loaf of bread. Individuals have little power on their own to negotiate a decent standard of living against big business. I can't just uproot my whole family and move across the country looking for greener pastures everytime i need to put food on the table. why cant we just work hard and be paid fair ? Oh i forgot, to busy giving $131,000,000 golden parachutes to CEOs who come in and fire half the staff. Personally, i am jealous of the military pay grades. You made this rank, you get that salary. seems fair and transparent to me.

We fail to see it because it was never meant for us to work for corporations. Call it a career or whatever, it's all categorized as labor, that's why employees get the short end of the stick.

You're mad at the CEO tax benefits? Become one yourself. The problem is, Americans have so much debt that a job is the thing they need right now, with no time to work on something they can build for themselves.
 

Skull_Angel

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,664
lol you are confused. it is upon you to improve your circumstances, not the company. You are free to change jobs as you see fit. How you think it is up to someone else to provide all you need is beyond me.

I like so many others here started at a minimum wage of 2.35 an hour... needless to say I did not stay there long.

By your logic, companies should already be paying better wages to keep employees from getting into "better jobs", but here we are in a time where people with masters degrees in engineering and computer sciences are flipping burgers because they can't find work in their fields :rolleyes:
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,213
The CDN province I live in increased the minimum wage nearly a year ago. 6 months after the hike unemployment hit an 18 year low.

The belief in trickle down economics needs to stop. It has never worked; be it horse and sparrow theory, Reaganomics, and now trickle down economics. Rather, if you pay the low and middle class more they end up making the purchases that drive the economy. Increased demand for goods and services = increased employment and the very wealthy are still raking it in.

Now this is just an anecdote but the only two people I have heard complaining about the minimum wage hike are the extremely wealthy: my brother in law and a guy I went to high school with:

The guy I went to highschool with was your stereotypical rich kid. Lived off his fathers wealth and never accomplished anything himself. He opened a restaurant, using his dads local celebrity status. The guy barely works, lives in a mansion and has a full time, live-in nanny to take care of his kids ... and he complains about his employees making 14$ an hour.

My brother in law, at least, built his business himself. Now he just sits in a giant truck at the job site and rakes it in. The guy owns 20+ properties in multiple countries, lives in a mansion by himself and has every toy you could think of ... and he complains about his employees making 14$hr while they do backbreaking ( literally, last year an employee actually broke his back) for 12+ hours a day, 6-7 days a week.

Now I know these are just anecdotes ... but something is very wrong with the above.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
By your logic, companies should already be paying better wages to keep employees from getting into "better jobs", but here we are in a time where people with masters degrees in engineering and computer sciences are flipping burgers because they can't find work in their fields :rolleyes:
Part of that problem is that people think..... a degree = a job
They've been sold a lie by their parents and school admissions.
 

WorldExclusive

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
11,513
By your logic, companies should already be paying better wages to keep employees from getting into "better jobs", but here we are in a time where people with masters degrees in engineering and computer sciences are flipping burgers because they can't find work in their fields :rolleyes:

The irony is, the people without the degree actually posses the needed skills to be an engineer and programmer. 8-24 week programming boot camps are popping up everywhere.
Again, we are back to Americans trading student loan debt for salary. They're flipping burgers to pay their student loans, when they never had the talent for what they went to school for.
 

Skull_Angel

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,664
Part of that problem is that people think,,,,,,,, a degree = a job

Yes, and another part of that problem is that job availability is determined by timing. You can get a degree and wait for a position to open for a chance to get it or try to get a degree for what you perceive as available, but it isn't as simple as "get a better job if you want more". After getting into the trades I have much more respect and appreciation for how an apprenticeship works and think it's a one of the best models for how careers should be cultivated.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
The CDN province I live in increased the minimum wage nearly a year ago. 6 months after the hike unemployment hit an 18 year low.

The belief in trickle down economics needs to stop. It has never worked; be it horse and sparrow theory, Reaganomics, and now trickle down economics. Rather, if you pay the low and middle class more they end up making the purchases that drive the economy. Increased demand for goods and services = increased employment and the very wealthy are still raking it in.

Now this is just an anecdote but the only two people I have heard complaining about the minimum wage hike are the extremely wealthy: my brother in law and a guy I went to high school with:

The guy I went to highschool with was your stereotypical rich kid. Lived off his fathers wealth and never accomplished anything himself. He opened a restaurant, using his dads local celebrity status. The guy barely works, lives in a mansion and has a full time, live-in nanny to take care of his kids ... and he complains about his employees making 14$ an hour.

My brother in law, at least, built his business himself. Now he just sits in a giant truck at the job site and rakes it in. The guy owns 20+ properties in multiple countries, lives in a mansion by himself and has every toy you could think of ... and he complains about his employees making 14$hr while they do backbreaking ( literally, last year an employee actually broke his back) for 12+ hours a day, 6-7 days a week.

Now I know these are just anecdotes ... but something is very wrong with the above.
What was the rate of under-employment? I'd like to look into the stats if they're available, which province are we talking about?

I am not sure why you brought up all sorts of economic theories. One does not have to be a proponent of any of the theories you mentioned to be against a minimum wage. One can also be in favor of low income/middle income earners actually earning more (who is against that?) but against a minimum wage.
 

Skull_Angel

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,664
The irony is, the people without the degree actually posses the needed skills to be an engineer and programmer. 8-24 week programming boot camps are popping up everywhere.
Again, we are back to Americans trading student loan debt for salary. They're flipping burgers to pay their student loans, when they never had the talent for what they went to school for.

I agree and disagree with that statement because there are talented people that still resort to flipping burgers to make ends meet while playing the waiting game. A lot of people that go to graduate schools don't understand that the most important part of that experience is networking, and that's what usually fails these people.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Yes, and another part of that problem is that job availability is determined by timing. You can get a degree and wait for a position to open for a chance to get it or try to get a degree for what you perceive as available, but it isn't as simple as "get a better job if you want more". After getting into the trades I have much more respect and appreciation for how an apprenticeship works and think it's a one of the best models for how careers should be cultivated.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about apprenticeship.
https://hardforum.com/threads/contr...m-after-outcry.1978662/reply?quote=1044116899
I learned the hard way that getting a degree for the wrong reasons is arguably worse than not getting a degree at all. I got my degree because I thought the field had a lot of growth (and it did) and that I could make a lot of money (and I didn't). I didn't earn a lot because it wasn't something I was passionate about or really that interested in so I didn't put in the required effort to succeed. Many others have done the same. I put in enough effort to sit in the middle and collect a reasonable and safe salary from somebody else. Now I work for myself and am far more successful than I could have been otherwise.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
31,856
By your logic, companies should already be paying better wages to keep employees from getting into "better jobs", but here we are in a time where people with masters degrees in engineering and computer sciences are flipping burgers because they can't find work in their fields :rolleyes:

if you are worth it, yes companies will tend to keep you, if not they replace you with someone else when you leave... I do not expect my company to give me all of my wants....
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
689
Come to BC Canada where highest cost of living and min here is 12.65 an hour. Making ends meet is far more difficult. Getting 15 they are ahead of curve. Just work 2 jobs to keep up.

Doesn't help that BC protest any of the major money making businesses.

Oil pipelines? Nope, ship it rail or by old pipelines, LNG Pipelines, Nope, NIMBY!

But oddly have no issues mining and shipping coal where quite a lot blows off the barges into the ocean, or allowing massive cruise ships to dump their sewage in the ocean. I'm ashamed to admit I was born there, it's like saying you have a double digit IQ
 

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,450
If I got the same amount of money for working fewer hours I'd be ok with that.

yes, confused by all the other people's salty comments about this... I just checked, currently minimum wage is 8.25/hr so...
8.25 x 30 = 247.5
15 x 21 = 315

these people are still making more money, even with less hours
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
yes, confused by all the other people's salty comments about this... I just checked, currently minimum wage is 8.25/hr so...
8.25 x 30 = 247.5
15 x 21 = 315

these people are still making more money, even with less hours
You're confused because you didn't read this article or the one about Amazon warehouse workers.
Both articles had folks saying they lost money.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,409
Which, again, is a problem with the corporate mentality. It incentivizes and rewards maximum revenue growth to the point where a company needs to reside in the morally grey area of operation (and cross the line of legality at times) to be considered successful.

True.

That's why rather than shaming companies for needing to do what they need to do to survive, we should alter the legal framework to enforce them doing the right thing.
 

jnmunsey

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
336
I will say the Whole Foods workers at the stores I went to had solid customer service skills. Its probably better these people look for bigger/better things anyway.

Every Whole Foods I have shopped at had extremely slow cashiers, and I mean painfully slow. It was as if they deliberately went slow. When I called them out on it they look at me as if I am nuts. Apparently verbally complaining to their faces about their performance is shockingly offensive. Omg, the mean man criticized me.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,460
I would love to see the mega corps broken up. It's fairly obvious to anyone over 60 and not on the consumer path to glory and wealth, that the megacorps take wealth OUT of peoples hands. Things need to change or I will be supporting a hunting season on fat greedy corp executives. Bezos making in one minuite what I made in about 8 years -after taxes- is absurd and should be illegal. How's that for the joy of personal freedom?

Given that Bezos probably works more in a week than you or I do in three...pretty damn fair. I hate that fuckers guts and personally think hes a piece of shit but I will say hes worked his ass off to get where he is. He deserves every penny he earned. Every fucking cent. And you deserve NONE of his money.

You could always get off your ass and try to make it big also instead of just trying to take away what he made.

Well at one point Bezo's was just a schlub like the rest of us.

Then he got off his ass and invented Amazon.

That's what makes America amazing - unlimited potential.

Here's a serious question - how is the existence of "megacorps" directly effecting you? You personally. Not some empty rhetoric, but a specific example out of how, let's say Amazon's mere existence is personally coming down into your existence and negatively effecting your economics or personal freedom?

Largely they dont but its far easier to hate and bitch about it than to try to actually come up with a solution. I hear a lot of haters bitching about "megacorps" in this thread and not one solution being presented (setting aside for a moment that there may not even been a need for a solution).

I've lived in West Virginia before, this is more or less how a megacorp affected me while the time I was there:

View attachment 147257 View attachment 147258

This wasn't where I was specifically, but you get the idea, I definitely saw what mountaintop removal was doing to the region. It certainly wasn't helping the water quality either. Citi was one of the biggest funders of mountaintop removal in that region, I think they qualify as a megacorp. I have family that lives in Louisiana, if you look at what the BP spill has done to the coastline in the south, the ecosystem has been completely ravaged there and still hasn't recovered. To ONLY evaluate actions of a company by whether it immediately affects you in your backyard is a very narrow view.

As for Amazon, you should know better than to know it doesn't work exactly like that. It's more like they avoid taxes normal retailers have to pay for decades, thus have a significant competitive advantage, that causes local retailers to eventually close shop. This leads to lower wages from increased competition for the remaining job in the region. Moreover, this dries up tax dollars so then there's not as much or not enough money for schools, roads, police, libraries, etc. That ends up affect you in hundreds of small ways if you've ever lived in a region like that the way I have. It's kind of invisible force almost. It's not just Amazon, it has many causes, but a company like Amazon is one of them.

I don't actually put the onus for all that on Amazon. They're playing the game of business by the rules that exist. That's traditionally the point of government, to have it represent the people so it can address problems with the rules when they get utterly lopsided. But see, that's where megacorps come into play also. Amazon spent almost $15 million lobbying last year:
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000023883
That kind of money buys democracy. If every candidate running has been bought off, that's a pretty big blow to personal freedom also.

For one that kind of mining would also happen with smaller corps. That aside 15 million in lobbying is irrelevant. What matters more is this: why the fuck do you keep electing corrupt govt officials who are influenced by lobbyists? Dont blame the company, blame yourself for not taking action to get them out of office.
 

SvenBent

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
3,319
Well at one point Bezo's was just a schlub like the rest of us.

Then he got off his ass and invented Amazon.

That's what makes America amazing - unlimited potential.

Here's a serious question - how is the existence of "megacorps" directly effecting you? You personally. Not some empty rhetoric, but a specific example out of how, let's say Amazon's mere existence is personally coming down into your existence and negatively effecting your economics or personal freedom?

So one person making it is you claimg to fame for the system ?

you know one of the emtric of beeing able to break you social class is wher euse is pretty poor at? its just much harder to pull this off in the states than in other countries

don let you worldview be dominated by asimple guy. try red into the statistisk of usa vs other countries.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
31,856
You're confused because you didn't read this article or the one about Amazon warehouse workers.
Both articles had folks saying they lost money.
they lost money because they lost hours that is their reasoning behind their comments. They expected to keep their benefits and get a raise...nope
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,033
lol you are confused. it is upon you to improve your circumstances, not the company. You are free to change jobs as you see fit. How you think it is up to someone else to provide all you need is beyond me.

I like so many others here started at a minimum wage of 2.35 an hour... needless to say I did not stay there long.

Except it doesn't work like that; it's a two way street, another company has to WANT to hire you. And more often then not, the supply of workers is less then the demand for them. This in turn puts downward pressure on wages across the board, while also ensuring some percentage of the population will be underemployed if not outright out of work.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,033
What was the rate of under-employment? I'd like to look into the stats if they're available, which province are we talking about?

As a general rule, rising minimum wages does not have a long-term impact on job growth or job creation. There's typically a short-term increase in job losses, but nothing major.

I am not sure why you brought up all sorts of economic theories. One does not have to be a proponent of any of the theories you mentioned to be against a minimum wage. One can also be in favor of low income/middle income earners actually earning more (who is against that?) but against a minimum wage.

At the end of the day, the central argument here is wealth distribution. You really can't talk that without going into economic theories.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,033
The belief in trickle down economics needs to stop. It has never worked; be it horse and sparrow theory, Reaganomics, and now trickle down economics. Rather, if you pay the low and middle class more they end up making the purchases that drive the economy. Increased demand for goods and services = increased employment and the very wealthy are still raking it in.

Standard Keynes economic theory, and it tends to work when it's applied correctly. That being said, it typically requires an active and competent central government that is not blinded by ideology, and the willingness to accumulate short term debt to keep the economy going during economic slowdowns.

By contrast, Supply Side has never worked because it's anti-Capitalist in nature. The idea is that if you increase business profits they will hire more people "because they can afford to". But profits do not drive hiring decisions, sales does. If people are not purchasing more goods, business will not hire people to produce more of them because it is not economic justified to do so. It also tends to be much more expensive, as the loss in tax revenue often leads to significant budgetary problems years down the road.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Standard Keynes economic theory, and it tends to work when it's applied correctly. That being said, it typically requires an active and competent central government that is not blinded by ideology, and the willingness to accumulate short term debt to keep the economy going during economic slowdowns.

By contrast, Supply Side has never worked because it's anti-Capitalist in nature. The idea is that if you increase business profits they will hire more people "because they can afford to". But profits do not drive hiring decisions, sales does. If people are not purchasing more goods, business will not hire people to produce more of them because it is not economic justified to do so. It also tends to be much more expensive, as the loss in tax revenue often leads to significant budgetary problems years down the road.
Thank you putting it simple, I struggle trying to explain that.
But yeah, not one employee will be hired by shoveling money into companies with plenty of money already.. it is just basic bad business practice to 'hire' for what? fun?
Business hire when they need and have to, and sometimes not even.
 
Top