Whole Foods Cuts Workers' Hours after Amazon Introduces Minimum Wage

WorldExclusive

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
11,413
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.

OK I'll give you that. School helped me become well connected, that's all I really cared about. Didn't finish but became an alumnus and I used my school network to build my business.
I got much more from college that way than finishing. I stopped because of debt. I didn't want another 40K on my credit and another 2 years wasted.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,869
People really need to go back to the 70-80s and the transition to 90s and 2000s. Its not about rich getting richer. But when you see the shift it shows clearly that it went from worker to shareholder. I think Delta and some other companies still do profit sharing and bonuses with workers but it's very rare.

Its fairly simple and it doesn't have to socialism. I know some of older workers who initially started in the 80s retire and how massive their pensions were lol. Some of them got million+ payouts. But those were the good old days and they got locked in to older plans. Now pension is shit compared to what they got lol. That's all it takes to make people happy. It was a total migration from worker to shareholders. Find that balance and everyone will be happy. Serisously I would love to retire with million+ lump sum payment when I am 55.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,909
People really need to go back to the 70-80s and the transition to 90s and 2000s. Its not about rich getting richer. But when you see the shift it shows clearly that it went from worker to shareholder. I think Delta and some other companies still do profit sharing and bonuses with workers but it's very rare.

Its fairly simple and it doesn't have to socialism. I know some of older workers who initially started in the 80s retire and how massive their pensions were lol. Some of them got million+ payouts. But those were the good old days and they got locked in to older plans. Now pension is shit compared to what they got lol. That's all it takes to make people happy. It was a total migration from worker to shareholders. Find that balance and everyone will be happy. Serisously I would love to retire with million+ lump sum payment when I am 55.

Here's the problem though; the richest 10% of the population controls ~85% of all stocks. So it's quite correct to say that wealth has been moved to a smaller segment of the population.

Honestly, the biggest problem is most of our taxation is now regressive in nature, with those who make income mainly on stocks paying lower relative rates then people who make "normal" income. Likewise, many taxes (payroll comes to mind) have caps on them, which means that for people making upper six figures or higher, they pay taxes on only a fraction of their income.

For example, if you did nothing but remove the upper limit on payroll taxes, the Social Security trust fund immediately starts to run a surplus. Alternatively, you could instead reduce payroll taxes down to 2% and get the same relative income that you do today, while giving ~98% of the population an instant 10.4% tax cut on their first $118,500 of income earned (The Social Security payroll tax is currently 12.4% on the first $118,500 earned).

And people wonder why fewer people control more money; it's not sustainable.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,869
Here's the problem though; the richest 10% of the population controls ~85% of all stocks. So it's quite correct to say that wealth has been moved to a smaller segment of the population.

Honestly, the biggest problem is most of our taxation is now regressive in nature, with those who make income mainly on stocks paying lower relative rates then people who make "normal" income. Likewise, many taxes (payroll comes to mind) have caps on them, which means that for people making upper six figures or higher, they pay taxes on only a fraction of their income.

For example, if you did nothing but remove the upper limit on payroll taxes, the Social Security trust fund immediately starts to run a surplus. Alternatively, you could instead reduce payroll taxes down to 2% and get the same relative income that you do today, while giving ~98% of the population an instant 10.4% tax cut on their first $118,500 of income earned (The Social Security payroll tax is currently 12.4% on the first $118,500 earned).

And people wonder why fewer people control more money; it's not sustainable.

Honestly, I question myself why I pay into social security. I feel like its money I may never get back or used cuz my ass isn't guaranteed to live lol. I wish it was something that was killed and my money was refunded so I could use that shit now to invest instead of throwing into a fund that I may never get to enjoy. I am not sure how it was ever approved. My wife would get more if I die then I would if I continued to work the same amount and retired at 67. So I am worth more if I die. Sons of bitches. lol
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Here's the problem though; the richest 10% of the population controls ~85% of all stocks. So it's quite correct to say that wealth has been moved to a smaller segment of the population.

Honestly, the biggest problem is most of our taxation is now regressive in nature, with those who make income mainly on stocks paying lower relative rates then people who make "normal" income. Likewise, many taxes (payroll comes to mind) have caps on them, which means that for people making upper six figures or higher, they pay taxes on only a fraction of their income.

For example, if you did nothing but remove the upper limit on payroll taxes, the Social Security trust fund immediately starts to run a surplus. Alternatively, you could instead reduce payroll taxes down to 2% and get the same relative income that you do today, while giving ~98% of the population an instant 10.4% tax cut on their first $118,500 of income earned (The Social Security payroll tax is currently 12.4% on the first $118,500 earned).

And people wonder why fewer people control more money; it's not sustainable.
Hmm.
Top 10% for earners is roughly 120K+ per year. Top 10% for wealth is 950K. So you're basically saying that people with enough money to invest.....are likely to invest in stocks. It would not take an economic wizard to determine that people earning 30K a year or sittng on $152 in their accounts and renting are not likely to invest in stocks. Using numbers to say things like "Top 10% owns 85% of all stocks" is misleading without context. 950K isn't some huge unattainable sum for most educated and hard-working people who have been in the workforce a good number of years. Are homes included in that wealth number? Top 10% of wealthiest in the workforce or top 10% of wealthiest individuals?

Also, let's be realistic. We know there are an extremely small number of people in the US that help throw a number like that totally out of whack. Not the 10%, the 1%, or even the .5%.

Without looking at the study, I am willing to bet that the headline could have been "Old(er) individuals with at least a bachelor's degree in anything not related to grievance studies who've worked steadily for 30+ years and own their homes...and a bunch of actors/athletes/musicians...and people so rich they've never worked a day... also own 85% of stocks". I guess that is a bit wordy though. It doesn't sound scary either.

I'm not attacking you here though it may seem like it. It's not my intent. I get very suspicious when scary sounding numbers get tossed around as it is my experience that they're most often used to drive an agenda instead of addressing an issue honestly.

I don't have access to the study those scary sounding numbers came from. If you have a link to the actual study that's not behind a paywall, kindly post it.
 
Last edited:

Staples

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
7,978
So much hate here.
A lot of people at Whole Foods were making near $15 an hour anyway because they used to be one of the better places to work.

So what really happened?
Some got a slight pay bump but Amazon is Amazon and wanted to screw their employed.

Sorry guys trying to make the association between higher wages and hours cut. That isn't what happened.

Amazon being Amazon is what happened.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Sorry guys trying to make the association between higher wages and hours cut. That isn't what happened..
That's literally what happened.

At their warehouses, bonuses went *poof* as did stock awards. Here, hours were cut.
There is no free lunch.

Amazon wanted to kiss the ass of the left by pretending to be "progressive" and going to 15. That cost money. Spending was cut to alleviate that. The left has been against massive corporations for a long time. The corporations figured out how to play them. This is only one way.
 
Last edited:

Staples

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
7,978
That's literally what happened.

At their warehouses, bonuses went *poof* as did stock awards. Here, hours were cut.
There is no free lunch.

Amazon wanted to kiss the ass of the left by pretending to be "progressive" and going to 15. That cost money. Spending was cut to alleviate that. The left has been against massive corporations for a long time. The corporations figured out how to play them. This is only one way.
An alternative hypothesis is that turnover at their warehouses is high and they had to raise compensation to keep people. But they cut hours and benefits but people stay because all they see is $15 an hour and no other factors. Look. People are stupid. How many people drive for Uber or Amazon and get less than $8/hr after factoring in costs? Tons. People are dumb.

I think they played this game well actually.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
An alternative hypothesis is that turnover at their warehouses is high and they had to raise compensation to keep people. But they cut hours and benefits but people stay because all they see is $15 an hour and no other factors. Look. People are stupid. How many people drive for Uber or Amazon and get less than $8/hr after factoring in costs? Tons. People are dumb.

I think they played this game well actually.
I don't disagree with what you've said here. We could argue about turnover being the cause or not but I think we both know better. It wasn't $13.50 or $16.25, it's not hard to figure out why.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,518
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.

When the lower income people were working a day in the fields for a loaf of bread, the upper class people were enjoying a life that's mostly around today's middle class.

Raising the minimum wage is not the answer to leveling out wealth distribution. A total revamp of our tax and economic infrastructure is the only way to accomplish that.
 

stolikat

n00b
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
54
Not sure there is a game being played here. It appears that this has been done on a region to region basis. My girlfriend works full time for Whole foods and has for a year now. No cut hours and is currently making $17 hour after being started at $16. The store currently has a labor shortage and her department is understaffed because the jobs market is so strong here. Then again I live in Seattle and the $15 hour minimum has been in effect for a couple of years now. It has driven up wages across the board without question and has had zero negative effects on the jobs market here.
 

Staples

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
7,978
The older I get, the more respect I have for people who work in hard labor. Sure many are unskilled (a word I hate because most white collar jobs can be learned in a week, hardly what I'd call skilled). I have no problem with a $15 minimum for these jobs. If we get rid of all the illegal immigration, farms, slaughterhouses and will need to pay at least $25 an hour to attract labor. Many are now paying 20$ an hour since they have huge labor shortages and are still unable to attract many US citizens.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,909
Honestly, I question myself why I pay into social security. I feel like its money I may never get back or used cuz my ass isn't guaranteed to live lol. I wish it was something that was killed and my money was refunded so I could use that shit now to invest instead of throwing into a fund that I may never get to enjoy. I am not sure how it was ever approved. My wife would get more if I die then I would if I continued to work the same amount and retired at 67. So I am worth more if I die. Sons of bitches. lol

To be fair, at the end of the day SS is really just an age-locked UBI that is paid for via payroll taxes. The intent was twofold: First to keep the elderly population out of abject poverty (elder care is expensive and an economic drag), but also to help them get out of the workforce indirectly creating job opportunities for everyone else.

The main reason why the fund is having problems is due to it being raided for years on end, as well as declining population growth reducing the number of people paying into it. [Boy, if only there were some mechanism that could quickly increase the population paying payroll taxes...]

Regardless, as I noted, it isn't necessarily *hard* to fully fund the thing. It's just politically unachievable. All you need to do is remove the cap in incomes that are taxed, and the fund gets funded well into the 22nd century.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,909
Hmm.
Top 10% for earners is roughly 120K+ per year. Top 10% for wealth is 950K. So you're basically saying that people with enough money to invest.....are likely to invest in stocks. It would not take an economic wizard to determine that people earning 30K a year or sittng on $152 in their accounts and renting are not likely to invest in stocks. Using numbers to say things like "Top 10% owns 85% of all stocks" is misleading without context. 950K isn't some huge unattainable sum for most educated and hard-working people who have been in the workforce a good number of years. Are homes included in that wealth number? Top 10% of wealthiest in the workforce or top 10% of wealthiest individuals?

Also, let's be realistic. We know there are an extremely small number of people in the US that help throw a number like that totally out of whack. Not the 10%, the 1%, or even the .5%.

Without looking at the study, I am willing to bet that the headline could have been "Old(er) individuals with at least a bachelor's degree in anything not related to grievance studies who've worked steadily for 30+ years and own their homes...and a bunch of actors/athletes/musicians...and people so rich they've never worked a day... also own 85% of stocks". I guess that is a bit wordy though. It doesn't sound scary either.

I'm not attacking you here though it may seem like it. It's not my intent. I get very suspicious when scary sounding numbers get tossed around as it is my experience that they're most often used to drive an agenda instead of addressing an issue honestly.

I don't have access to the study those scary sounding numbers came from. If you have a link to the actual study that's not behind a paywall, kindly post it.

I agree that of that 85% the majority is likely held by an even smaller percentage. Still highlights the problem though: The majority of stock ownership is held by just a few hundred people, and those people are paying disproportionately low taxes as a result.

To me, Income is Income, and should be taxed at the same rate. The problem is the US tax code has been a mechanism to fulfill other policy objectives, as that's the one area where Congress has more or less no Constitutional restrictions. For example, Congress can't mandate home ownership, but they can pay you for owning a home. As a result, the US tax code is a mess, as it's the simplest and most surefire way to encourage people to act in the manner the Federal government wants, by way of economic rewards.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
I agree that of that 85% the majority is likely held by an even smaller percentage. Still highlights the problem though: The majority of stock ownership is held by just a few hundred people, and those people are paying disproportionately low taxes as a result.

To me, Income is Income, and should be taxed at the same rate. The problem is the US tax code has been a mechanism to fulfill other policy objectives, as that's the one area where Congress has more or less no Constitutional restrictions. For example, Congress can't mandate home ownership, but they can pay you for owning a home. As a result, the US tax code is a mess, as it's the simplest and most surefire way to encourage people to act in the manner the Federal government wants, by way of economic rewards.
I don't disagree with the need to change things from what they currently are. Step one would be to simplify the tax code starting from scratch. The tax code should be simple and clear enough that anyone with a high school education can figure things out.
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
So it worked. Now they work less hours for the same pay.

It didn't work, well, not how those pushing for it wanted, they wanted higher pay and nothing else to change. They have the same total pay and less hours worked, but much higher demand on that work, if you read the link they have less hours to do the same work: “We just have to work faster to meet the same goals in less time,”. Meaning those who work there now that can't keep up with the demand, be it from physical ability or lack or work ethic will be the first to go, and more capable workers who would have been making the $15/hr anyway somewhere else, will now be filling these positions soon.

Low skilled jobs with low demand, pay little, raise that pay and it will attract people of higher skill levels who can do more work, and since the company has a budget and wants as much value out of the arrangement as possible, they will hire those people over the ones they would have hired at lower rates. What people don't understand is things like this don't help the poorest of the poor, or the people looking for their first jobs etc, all it does is price them out of the market and moves the job positions to other workers of higher value.
 

buttons

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
2,091
When the lower income people were working a day in the fields for a loaf of bread, the upper class people were enjoying a life that's mostly around today's middle class.

Raising the minimum wage is not the answer to leveling out wealth distribution. A total revamp of our tax and economic infrastructure is the only way to accomplish that.

Wow, a well thought out civil reply without name calling ? Pinch me, i must be dreaming. I do not understand why we even have a minimum wage if its not going to do its job "The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees."

The value of our money is absolute garbage. When you made $2.35 an hour in 1976 you had a lot more "buying" power then we do now with $7.25 an hour. Minimum wage should be set to create a minimum standard of living and THEN FOLLOW INFLATION. It should also be unique by county -- living in west michigan is obviously cheaper then around seattle.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Minimum wage should be set to create a minimum standard of living and THEN FOLLOW INFLATION. It should also be unique by county -- living in west michigan is obviously cheaper then around seattle.
Counties can make their own minimum wage laws/restrictions, many do.
You don't need much new regulation to get what you want. I think it would be far more problematic than you imagine though.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,396
Amazon employs 613,000 people.

Let's assume that 90% of them are wage-workers.
613,000 * 0.9 = 552,000 rounded up.


PART TIME
Now let's assume that 30% of them are part time workers.
552,000 * 0.3 = 166,000 rounded up.

For part time workers that were working 30 hrs a week, let's assume that they were making $11/hr average before the pay raise.
30 * 11 = $330 weekly
$330 * 52 = $17,160 annually
$17160 * 166,000 = $2.85B annual wages paid.

Reduced hours to 21 weekly after the pay raise to $15.
21 * 15 = $315
$315 * 52 = $16,380 annually
$16380 * 166,000 = $2.72B annual wages paid.



FULL TIME
Assuming the remaining 70% wage-workers are full time:
552,000 * 0.7 = 386,000 rounded slightly down.

For full time workers that were working 37.5 hrs a week, let's assume that they were making the same $11/hr before the pay raise.
37.5 * 11 = $413 weekly
$413 * 52 = $21,450 annually
$21,450 * 386,000 = $8.28B annual wages paid.

Reduced hours to 34.5 weekly after pay raise to $15.
15 * 34.5 = $518 weekly
$518 * 52 = $26,936 annually
$26936 * 386,000 = $10.4B annual wages paid.


SUMMARY
Before pay raise = $11.13B annual wages paid.
After pay raise = $13.1B annual wages paid.
Assuming any of this is ballpark accurate, that means Amazon is already spending $2B more in annual wages with the raise and cut hours.
All of this does NOT include the added cost to the employer for other per-worker expenses, such as benefits, insurance, complimentaries,


*IF* Amazon had not cut hours, here is what the new annual wage costs would be at $15:
Part time = $23,400 per worker annually, which equates to an annual part time workforce cost of $3.9B.
Full time = $29,250 per worker annually, which equates to an annual full me workforce cost of $11.3B.
Total annual workforce cost = $15.2B.
Total annual increased cost from pervious lower wage = $4.2B.

Amazon's profit on earnings, per year:
2018 = $11B
2017 = $5.4B
2016 = $4.5B
2015 = $2.0B
2014 = $0.2B
2013 = $0.7B
2012 = $0.9B
2011 = $0.6B

CONSCLUSION
Amazon may very well be in a position to afford their new higher wage at the previous higher weekly hours, but that hasn't always been the case...especially when all this clamoring for a $15 hour min wage started back in the late 2000s/early 2010s. Seattle instituted a plan to incrementally increase the min wage to $15/hr back in 2014 (didn't do so well, and has the same effects as Amazon workers: higher wage = less hours).
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,909
I don't disagree with the need to change things from what they currently are. Step one would be to simplify the tax code starting from scratch. The tax code should be simple and clear enough that anyone with a high school education can figure things out.

The issue with that then is you have to suddenly give up a lot of things people support. The tax code is literally the only vehicle for programs like Social Security to be considered constitutional; the end result is a highly complex tax code.

If you want a simple tax code, it's going to require a couple of Constitutional Amendments to remove a lot of the other barriers that prevent many acts of Congress from being considered Constitutional; the Taxing and Spending clause is a major catchall, and many many things are unconstitutional without it.
 

BloodyIron

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
3,439
Except now those employees have time to get a second job. They're earning the same, by spending less time. That's not actually a problem, that's actually an improvement to standard of living.

Enjoying your $15/hr now?
This is what you get!


Worse, they keep the price the same and try to sneak the contents down. Bloody piss me off mid to late 2000s when you had stuff like ice cream going from 2qrts down to 1.5qrts for the same price.
I much rather see a price increase than quantity change. At least Blue Bell didn't pull that crap.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,518
Wow, a well thought out civil reply without name calling ? Pinch me, i must be dreaming. I do not understand why we even have a minimum wage if its not going to do its job "The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees."

The value of our money is absolute garbage. When you made $2.35 an hour in 1976 you had a lot more "buying" power then we do now with $7.25 an hour. Minimum wage should be set to create a minimum standard of living and THEN FOLLOW INFLATION. It should also be unique by county -- living in west michigan is obviously cheaper then around seattle.

Who defines minimum standard of living though? All the Democrats and progressives demand a minimum wage that allows a parent (or both parents) to raise two children in a home. In my opinion, minimum wage should be enough for one person to not starve in a one bedroom apartment with little in terms of extras like TV and whatnot. One of the problems is many welfare systems, particularly in California, give a higher standard of living than working minimum wage if children are involved.
 

Staples

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
7,978
Gone for 24 hours and now back to find that the majority of posts are angry people complaining about $15 being too high a minimum wage.
Why in the world does this make people so mad? I can only think of one reason. Because it is nearly as much as you get with your "skilled" jobs. Well boys, time to learn a new skill that is more in demand. After all, that is what you keep saying to others who have minimum wage jobs. Time to take your own advice.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Gone for 24 hours and now back to find that the majority of posts are angry people complaining about $15 being too high a minimum wage.
Why in the world does this make people so mad? I can only think of one reason. Because it is nearly as much as you get with your "skilled" jobs. Well boys, time to learn a new skill that is more in demand. After all, that is what you keep saying to others who have minimum wage jobs. Time to take your own advice.
Who is mad?
Not only are you projecting emotion onto text, you are assuming motives.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,518
Gone for 24 hours and now back to find that the majority of posts are angry people complaining about $15 being too high a minimum wage.
Why in the world does this make people so mad? I can only think of one reason. Because it is nearly as much as you get with your "skilled" jobs. Well boys, time to learn a new skill that is more in demand. After all, that is what you keep saying to others who have minimum wage jobs. Time to take your own advice.

And it is attitudes like this that allows the minimum wage to go out of control. Global companies are slow to respond to wage increases. Even with an in demand skill, the only way to realistically get large wage increases is to jump to another company, or at least have an offer from another company that you can take back to your current company to negotiate with. That is not something one can feasibly do every year.
 

os2wiz

Gawd
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
643
The greedy imperialists needing to cover basic costs in order to pay their enlightened workers. Welcome to the progressive dream!
That is why capitalism can't be reformed, it must be smashed with a massive egalitarian communist revolution. These billionaire bastards like Bezos control the state apparatus including the politicians, the courts, etc. So he is speeding up the workforce to make up for the raise he had to give them due to public pressure. Typical of the capitalists. These parasites have no legitimacy in the eyes of the working class.
 

os2wiz

Gawd
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
643
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!
It sure worked! Well done, leftists. Pat yourselves on the back!

I am never satisfied with "reforming" the system. I am no liberal, I am a communist revolutionary. That is what I organized around for 45 years of my working life. You are so myopic in your thought processes. You can not conceive a different system where the working class is empowered to run all enterprise and where we smash wage slavery and abolish money and distribute what we produce equally for the common good. I can taste it and I breath it like oxygen. 45 years in the trenches of class struggle has convinced me and millions of others around the globe that a society based on collectivity is the ONLY way to bring full employment with a shorter work week, end racist and sexist oppression, and abolish the wars driven by capitalist greed. My life experience is vast, my scars from the class struggle are badges of honor for me. My only wish as my 70th birthday approaches is that my children and grand children will see the inevitable change in their lifetime. I have every confidence they will.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
And it is attitudes like this that allows the minimum wage to go out of control. Global companies are slow to respond to wage increases. Even with an in demand skill, the only way to realistically get large wage increases is to jump to another company, or at least have an offer from another company that you can take back to your current company to negotiate with. That is not something one can feasibly do every year.
" Out of control" and minimum wage in a sentence... I'm just...
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,518
I am never satisfied with "reforming" the system. I am no liberal, I am a communist revolutionary. That is what I organized around for 45 years of my working life. You are so myopic in your thought processes. You can not conceive a different system where the working class is empowered to run all enterprise and where we smash wage slavery and abolish money and distribute what we produce equally for the common good. I can taste it and I breath it like oxygen. 45 years in the trenches of class struggle has convinced me and millions of others around the globe that a society based on collectivity is the ONLY way to bring full employment with a shorter work week, end racist and sexist oppression, and abolish the wars driven by capitalist greed. My life experience is vast, my scars from the class struggle are badges of honor for me. My only wish as my 70th birthday approaches is that my children and grand children will see the inevitable change in their lifetime. I have every confidence they will.

And I can only see the dystopic future your vision would lead us to. My parents experienced communism at both ends of the spectrum; my dad part of the elite on the wrong side, and my mom part of the average poor. Both had nothing good to say.

" Out of control" and minimum wage in a sentence... I'm just...

It is out of control in the hands of radicals in California. The middle class in the Bay Area keeps getting kicked into higher income brackets relative to the rest of the country because everything is forced to be expensive here.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
I am never satisfied with "reforming" the system. I am no liberal, I am a communist revolutionary. That is what I organized around for 45 years of my working life. You are so myopic in your thought processes. You can not conceive a different system where the working class is empowered to run all enterprise and where we smash wage slavery and abolish money and distribute what we produce equally for the common good. I can taste it and I breath it like oxygen. 45 years in the trenches of class struggle has convinced me and millions of others around the globe that a society based on collectivity is the ONLY way to bring full employment with a shorter work week, end racist and sexist oppression, and abolish the wars driven by capitalist greed. My life experience is vast, my scars from the class struggle are badges of honor for me. My only wish as my 70th birthday approaches is that my children and grand children will see the inevitable change in their lifetime. I have every confidence they will.
Did you get Early Access to Workers & Resources or something? Nice troll.
I've been tooling around in Tropico 5 to get my pinko on.
 

The Mad Atheist

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
1,314
Except now those employees have time to get a second job. They're earning the same, by spending less time. That's not actually a problem, that's actually an improvement to standard of living.
Not really, been there, done than in my younger days. If you were a 40hr/week full time with benefits, now down to part time hours that don't qualify you for benefits. Now you have to get 2 part time jobs, work more than 40 hrs to compensate for the lost benefits. You also have to balanced both jobs so scheduling doesn't conflict with each other, and waste more time getting ready for them.
It's just one big cluster fuck.
 

BloodyIron

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
3,439
Statistically speaking most jobs like this never give you 40hrs/w because of the cost of benefits. It'll be like 30, 35 max, and they hire more resources, because that's cheaper than dealing with benefits.

I hear what you're saying, but the example is the exception, not the norm. And even still, that doesn't detract from the value of my point. Even if you get benefits, that doesn't offset the earning power you can now gain by getting 2x20hr/w jobs (40hr/w) at $15/hr vs 40hrx$7.5/hr + benefits. No way does benefits make up for the hourly rate difference over a year. We're talking about a earning change of like from $15k-$20k/yr, to $30k/yr+. Benefits for sure isn't the $10k-$15k difference.

The scheduling and logistics around that is a valid point, but lots of people are already doing that, now they have a high per-hour earning power than before. This is, mathematically, a net-win for employees at the bottom rungs.

Not really, been there, done than in my younger days. If you were a 40hr/week full time with benefits, now down to part time hours that don't qualify you for benefits. Now you have to get 2 part time jobs, work more than 40 hrs to compensate for the lost benefits. You also have to balanced both jobs so scheduling doesn't conflict with each other, and waste more time getting ready for them.
It's just one big cluster fuck.
 

Nausicaa

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
123
Not really, been there, done than in my younger days. If you were a 40hr/week full time with benefits, now down to part time hours that don't qualify you for benefits. Now you have to get 2 part time jobs, work more than 40 hrs to compensate for the lost benefits. You also have to balanced both jobs so scheduling doesn't conflict with each other, and waste more time getting ready for them.
It's just one big cluster fuck.
I hate how the benefits works. I think its an extra tax on the poor.
 

The Mad Atheist

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
1,314
I hate how the benefits works. I think its an extra tax on the poor.
Vacation time pretty nice along with the paid holidays. Full timers usaully get multiple weeks depending how long they were with companies while part timers only get 1 per year, it's all depends on who you work for tho.
 

wrangler

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
3,929
Why should he? I'm not a fan of Bezos, but he took all the risks involved in starting a company, so he's due the rewards. Employees accept a stable hourly wage or salary without taking in any of those risks. Big risk = big reward OR big failure.


Whoa whoa whoa.
You've got me all wrong.
I'm pure capitalist/market guy.
You're talking big risk = big reward, I say it's even simpler than that.
If you can talk a lot of people into making you the richest person on the planet while they work for beans then you need to get paid. Period.
 

Nausicaa

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
123
Whoa whoa whoa.
You've got me all wrong.
I'm pure capitalist/market guy.
You're talking big risk = big reward, I say it's even simpler than that.
If you can talk a lot of people into making you the richest person on the planet while they work for beans then you need to get paid. Period.
Amazon adds value too. Lots of people I know use prime.
 

os2wiz

Gawd
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
643
And I can only see the dystopic future your vision would lead us to. My parents experienced communism at both ends of the spectrum; my dad part of the elite on the wrong side, and my mom part of the average poor. Both had nothing good to say.



It is out of control in the hands of radicals in California. The middle class in the Bay Area keeps getting kicked into higher income brackets relative to the rest of the country because everything is forced to be expensive here.

What your parents lived under is incorrectly called communism. If you bother to have studied Marx's Communist Manifesto and Capital volume 1 you would know that communism is a classless society where the monetary system is abolished and wealth is distributed equally to all who need. Privilege can not exist in a communist society. Both the Russian and Chinese Revolutions never abolished the monetary system. These were socialist regimes led by Communist Parties that had no guide book of how to build a classless society. They thought it would take centuries and they were wrong. Money is a tool of inequality. It decides who gets and who doesn't. It is a tool of scarcity for the working class and privilege for the capitalist class. While socialism was able to abolish unemployment, because it never abolished money it engendered corruption and division within the working class. Party officials and engineers, scientists, and factory managers were paid more than the average worker. Over time this inequality became the engine for capitalist restoration and capital formation that doomed those revolutions. Egalitarian communists have studied both the successes and failures of socialism and we understand that we can not repeat the errors of the old communist movement. We therefore advocate immediate abolition of wages after the working class seizes power. The workers will elect committees in every community and work place to assess the needs of the people and what and how much to produce. No manager or engineer will have greater access to wealth than the average worker. Party members can be removed by the workers of each enterprise or community if they determine corruption or abuse of power exists. Our goal is for every worker to be a leader and every worker a party member. That is why we will eliminate menial labor through automation and have every engineer help with cleanup and every worker be educated in physics, chemistry, biology, and math and calculus so as to break down the division of labor. This education will be conducted in schools as well as in the workplace itself. Knowledge is communal property not the privilege of a few. See www.plp.org .
 
Last edited:

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,518
What your parents loved under is incorrectly called communism. If you bother to have studied Marx's Communist Manifesto and Capital volume 1 you would know that communism is a classless society where the monetary system is abolished and wealth is distributed equally to all who need. Privilege can not exist in a communist society. Both the Russian and Chinese Revolutions never abolished the monetary system. These were socialist regimes led by Communist Parties that had no guide book of how to build a classless society. They thought it would take centuries and they were wrong. Money us a fool of inequality. It decides who gets and who doesn't. It is stool of scarcity for the working class and privilege for the capitalist class. While socialism was able to abolish unemployment, a cause it never abolished money it engendered corruption and division within the working class. Party officials and engineers, scientists, and factory managers were paid more than the average worker. Over time this inequality became the engine for capitalist restoration and capital formation that doomed those revolutions. Egalitarian communists have studied both the successes and failures of socialism and we understand that we can not repeat the errors of the old communist movement. We therefore advocate immediate abolition of wages after the working class seizes power. The workers will elect committees in every community and work place to assess the needs of the people and what and how much to produce. No manager or engineer will have greater access to wealth than the average worker. Party members can be removed by the workers of each enterprise or community if they determine corruption or abuse of power exists. Our goal is for every worker to be a leader and every worker a party member. That is why we will eliminate menial labor through automation and have every engineer help with cleanup and every worker be educated in physics, chemistry, biology, and math and calculus so as to break down the division of labor. This education will be conducted in schools as well as in the workplace itself. Knowledge is communal property not the privilege of a few. See www.plp.org .

I do not trust in humanity's inherent goodwill that such a system that you propose won't devolve into the communism we see around the world. There is a reason the saying "Locks are for keeping an honest man honest" exists.
 
Top