De Blasio: Walmart unwelcome in New York City | Newsday

Quote:

---

De Blasio, who has previously denounced the company as a killer of good jobs that ultimately cost the government money to subsidize a low-paid workforce, took no position on whether the charities should accept the philanthropy.

---

Show me your link where they didn't want a tax break and paid a wage that takes employees off the government dole. Why do you keep shilling for the rich guys and their slave labor?

If you are going to call yourself a job creator then can't you create a GOOD job?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

If you are going to call yourself a job creator then can't you create a GOOD job?

---

What a great question !!

The plutocratic oligarchs (yeah, a mouthful, but it fits) don't get together in some mountain fastness and devise all sorts of schemes to keep the masses down. There's no need to. They possess a de facto mutual understanding that the preferable employment picture always has subsistence at the base. Naturally, workers fear falling into that morass so, in a pinch, any job will do that keeps the wolf from the door.

The primary weapon of workers is a de jure approach to the problem. For a start, legislated minimum wage increases are necessary to avoid what DeBlasio correctly sees as government (taxpayers) indirectly subsidizing Walmart because of its refusal to enter the 21st century and pay a living wage.

Walmart and others are beginning to see this, and beginning to understand that the success of their enterprises depends on ALL earning a living wage.

Main point is, not all jobs are destined for career status... many really are nothing more than entry level which is meant as a way-point to other better jobs with more pay as more work skills are learned.

I don't care how many years a persons works washing pots and pans... its never going to be worth what a cook, cashier or Waiter/waitress earns. And except in some certain rare cases... THe only career level jobs in the restaurant business are Manager and Owner, Chef in the higher end places and even a cook in most of the others, but not all.

If you can train someone of the street in an afternoon or less with everything they need to know... the job just isn't worth much money.

If the person isn't motivated to periodically look for something better and be willing to move to it...they really don't deserve the right to whine about it.

My first two part time jobs were in a restaurant..when I was in college, then worked in an auto auction as a driver before I gradated with my degree and got my first REAL job. I've had to stay on the ball, look around and make a number of career moves, and several relocation's (Two were international moves)..even some maneuvering and horsetrading in the one I'm in now to get a better position when no actual opening existed.

You can't sit back on your butt and expect everything to be handed to you....good things come to those willing to make the effort and put in the work...and take the risks that go with it. Overnight success is rare..its going to take years of work to bear any fruit most times.


And as you all are well aware of....nobody with no work experience and no specialized skills are worth $40k a year (or more)...anyplace. Not even the Army. You have to work up to those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Main point is, not all jobs are destined for career status... many really are nothing more than entry level which is meant as a way-point to other better jobs with more pay as more work skills are learned.

<snip>

If you can train someone of the street in an afternoon or less with everything they need to know... the job just isn't worth much money.

---

There used to be muscle jobs - construction work learned in an afternoon and well-paying. But jobs for the 16-year-old living at home who wants some pocket change or savings for college or something else are a problem. I don't say these should be living wage jobs, but the society needs to figure something out about these. An obvious solution is to pass laws making exceptions, but that creates a whole set of other problems.

There are men and women, who, through no fault of their own and sometimes with children, can only get the lowest paying jobs. Some adults are challenged mentally, some are language-deficient (immigrants), some are victims of the periodic economic downturns so common in capitalism. - yet all may be responsible for families. Better they get a living wage, than be forced to abandon their families so government assistance can apply - in the long run, rarely a good solution.

I don't claim to have a perfect answer, but I DO say the society should put the discussion on the table. We're smart enough and rich enough and, if we can get past our crippling ideologies, I'm sure all concerned will profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Better they get a living wage, than be forced to abandon their families so government assistance can apply -

I don't claim to have a perfect answer, but I DO say the society should put the discussion on the table. We're smart enough and rich enough and, if we can get past our crippling ideologies, I'm sure all concerned will profit.

---

The serious issue here is what is a living wage as opposed to a minimum wage? A minimum wage exists to prevent workers from being exploited, it is not intended to meet all needs. What you are suggesting is that welfare is the responsibility of the employers not the government. Such ideas are highly socialist, just as maternity and paternity leave is socialistic. It is forgotten that this cost must be passed on, but more usually it results in automation and less jobs. The jobs didn't go overseas because of the wage rate it went overseas because of all the added costs demanded by unions. those unions whose jobs can't yet be outsourced, ie teachers and police still seek to use union muscle but their day will come too

The thing is only the employers are rich enough to pay a living wage and they haven't shown any intention of sharing

I worked minimum wage when I had no skill set. If an employee doesn't make the effort to improve then they will forever be stuck at the bottom of the wage ladder .Everyone knows that this minimum wage is a canard designed to drive up the wages for the skilled workers above the lowest rungs .So stop all these pretentions that the concern is for the low wage worker .They will lose out if the business owners are compelled to pay them more than their value to the employer . The biggest losers will be the unskilled youth who are trying to enter the job market . But the advocates don't give a flying focker about them .

You talk of the unskilled youth, but what of unskilled workers who have families? What of the middle age guys who worked 20 years and lost everything when the rich guy closed his only livelihood? This is no canard you can just dismiss!

Time to bail out main street, and bolster the social safety net would be the logical conclusion given the events of the last few decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I worked minimum wage when I had no skill set. If an employee doesn't make the effort to improve then they will forever be stuck at the bottom of the wage ladder .Everyone knows that this minimum wage is a canard designed to drive up the wages for the skilled workers above the lowest rungs .So stop all these pretentions that the concern is for the low wage worker .They will lose out if the business owners are compelled to pay them more than their value to the employer . The biggest losers will be the unskilled youth who are trying to enter the job market . But the advocates don't give a flying focker about them .

---

Tom unions only care about their members they have no charter to be concerned for those who are not their members

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You talk of the unskilled youth, but what of unskilled workers who have families? What of the middle age guys who worked 20 years and lost everything when the rich guy closed his only livelihood? This is no canard you can just dismiss!

Time to bail out main street, and bolster the social safety net would be the logical conclusion given the events of the last few decades.

---

Tal the only way to do what you suggest is to follow Finland and pay everyone in the economy a minimum income, irrespective of employment. This does away with welfare and may destroy incentive. It's only money after all, you just print it, how does this differ from what the Fed has been doing? I'll tell you the money doesn't flow into the stock market making rich people richer although they will find a way to get more than their fair share so for a time walmart will be saved. I know this isn't the american way but a drowning man doesn't care who threw him the rope

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

What you are suggesting is that welfare is the responsibility of the employers not the government. Such ideas are highly socialist, just as maternity and paternity leave is socialistic.

---

[/QUOTE]It is forgotten that this cost must be passed on, but more usually it results in automation and less jobs. The jobs didn't go overseas because of the wage rate it went overseas because of all the added costs demanded by unions.

The thing is only the employers are rich enough to pay a living wage and they haven't shown any intention of sharing[/QUOTE]


Ah, a discussion. Good.

Your read that I'm suggesting welfare is the responsibility of the employer, not the government, is interesting. I hadn't looked at it that way. I see it as more a responsibility of the society which is composed of both - employee and employer.

"Highly socialist" ideas include maternity (and paternity) leave. Should mother have the baby in the office, at the factory?

You complain about automation causing less jobs. In almost the same breath, it's wage rates caused by unions causing less jobs. Which is it?

True that employers haven't shown any intention of sharing. Let's move this one from the legal arena and start again with four thousand years of an emerging Judeo-Christian MORALITY.


Some "socialistic" ideas already incorporated in our (USA) modified socialist-capitalist society. Which ones do you want to go back on?

The 40-hour week
The 8-hour work day
The end to child labor
Workmen's Compensation
Food and drug safety laws
OSHA
Voting rights for women
Civil rights for minorities
Direct election of US Senators
Social Security
Medicare/medicaid

That's the short list. And they were often a joint effort. Even capitalists recognized their value.