BF2S Forums Minimum wage laws

paying someone below minimum wage should be illegal. it is exploitation. wal mart make their fortune off working people's income. why are they "fuming"? aren't they shitting where they eat? it's just greed. it's part of the rules of doing business in x-nation's markets: you accept their labour laws, their minimum wage, their health and safety, their economic regulations and, yes, their fucking tax requirements (if only!). western advanced nations have a high cost of living and like to promote at least the pretense of a high quality of life. pay the fucking minimum wage. trying to use some 'new store openings' to blackmail the process is laughable and despicable. poor neighbourhoods in need of "economic development" are precisely in need of jobs that will give their workers a decent wage-- not a large corporation pitching up to exploit some more people, because they've got no other choice. fuck walmart. my heart bleeds for their execs.

i don't know about large corporations having to pay a larger minimum wage... though that reasoning works quite well in scandinavian states. over there they enforce it so that the pay-gap between shelf-stacker and chief exec is not that big. it works a lot better.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-17 04:12:54)

i do agree with the principle, though, even though it is 'unfair' in a business-sense. large corporations should trickle down a little bit of their wealth. especially considering the effects that large stores like this have on local economies. walmart (like the uk's tesco) is gutting local community wealth redistribution (i.e. local stores and produce) and sucking it all upwards into a corporate structure. if they insist on paying their workers dead-minimum wage, i suppose that's their prerogative... but it's right for the government to ask what 'good' does it do.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

paying someone below minimum wage should be illegal. it is exploitation. wal mart make their fortune off working people's income. why are they "fuming"? aren't they shitting where they eat? it's just greed. it's part of the rules of doing business in x-nation's markets: you accept their labour laws, their minimum wage, their health and safety, their economic regulations and, yes, their fucking tax requirements (if only!). western advanced nations have a high cost of living and like to promote at least the pretense of a high quality of life. pay the fucking minimum wage. trying to use some 'new store openings' to blackmail the process is laughable and despicable. poor neighbourhoods in need of "economic development" are precisely in need of jobs that will give their workers a decent wage-- not a large corporation pitching up to exploit some more people, because they've got no other choice. fuck walmart. my heart bleeds for their execs.

i don't know about large corporations having to pay a larger minimum wage... though that reasoning works quite well in scandinavian states. over there they enforce it so that the pay-gap between shelf-stacker and chief exec is not that big. it works a lot better.

Walmart isn't paying below minimum wage. The DC law wants walmart to pay 50% more than the minimum wage compared to other retailers.

Jay wrote:

It's revenge for fighting union organization efforts.

they should secede and start a confederacy

Jaekus wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i do agree with the principle, though, even though it is 'unfair' in a business-sense. large corporations should trickle down a little bit of their wealth. especially considering the effects that large stores like this have on local economies. walmart (like the uk's tesco) is gutting local community wealth redistribution (i.e. local stores and produce) and sucking it all upwards into a corporate structure. if they insist on paying their workers dead-minimum wage, i suppose that's their prerogative... but it's right for the government to ask what 'good' does it do.

B-b-but right wing governments always preach how the wealthy "trickle down" their wealth to every one else.

Oh yeah, that's a myth.

i love how people like gina rhinehart complains about the minimum wage in this country

makes 600 dollars a second, bitches about a 15 dollar an hour min wage.

good on you for trickling down the wealth gina.

Cybargs wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i do agree with the principle, though, even though it is 'unfair' in a business-sense. large corporations should trickle down a little bit of their wealth. especially considering the effects that large stores like this have on local economies. walmart (like the uk's tesco) is gutting local community wealth redistribution (i.e. local stores and produce) and sucking it all upwards into a corporate structure. if they insist on paying their workers dead-minimum wage, i suppose that's their prerogative... but it's right for the government to ask what 'good' does it do.

B-b-but right wing governments always preach how the wealthy "trickle down" their wealth to every one else.

Oh yeah, that's a myth.

i love how people like gina rhinehart complains about the minimum wage in this country

makes 600 dollars a second, bitches about a 15 dollar an hour min wage.

good on you for trickling down the wealth gina.

She made $18.7 BILLION in personal wealth in ONE YEAR (2012) and this year complains because she can't bring in foreign workers and pay them $3 an hour ($6,000 per year), and instead has to pay normal miners wages of $100,000+ per year. She's a repugnant human.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

large corporations that obliterate local micro-economies and markets and suck all the money up to offshore bank accounts or CEO bonuses should not be allowed to pay someone dead-minimum wage. if they are generating so much wealth, why wouldn't they pay their workers a little more? it is pure greed, and nothing else. scandinavian societies operate much better when their CEO's are barely paid more than the lowest worker. the wealth disparity in those countries is much lower, and everyone seems happier and more content - less anxiety about status and having a nice house/car. seems like they have it right.

i read a story somewhere about an american company that makes ice-cream or biscuits or something, and everyone is literally paid the same. total cooperative model. workers on the production line packing up this food (whatever it is; i can't remember) make something like $100+ an hour).

edit: found it. guess i read about it when moore was publicizing his movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvarado_Street_Bakery

That reminds me of this story. Family coach company sells the business and surprises their workers with bonuses up to $100,000.

Small excerpt:

ELEANOR BELL: The corporation has been run by three generations of the Grenda family for over 66 years.

Ken Grenda's son, Scott, is the company's managing director. He says initially perplexed staff thought the bonus was a product of an accounting error.

SCOTT GRENDA: People were ringing banks and yeah there was all sorts of things, because our whole intention was to keep it quiet. We wanted this to be a surprise for the employees, so really our intention was to be something as a thank you gesture.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3420803.htm

companies that treat their lowest workers (i.e. those that shift all the actual units and do all the labour) with contempt of minimum wages are shit companies. must be a toxic environment to work in.

it's the paradox of choice - more exacerbated in america than any other country, because of its extremely lax approach to capitalism. if you give most people complete individual choice and freedom, they will seldom choose what is best for them. not in terms of entertainment/hobbies (a nation that spends on average 6 hours a day in front of the television); not in terms of consumption and what they do with their bodies (huge natural resources use per person, national obesity epidemic); and not in terms of long-term decision making or benefit (short-term deals and cost-cutting over all future longevity). walmart is a figure of this self-destructive 'freedom', in my opinion. everyone has the choice to shop between decently-priced local economies or local stores, or they have the choice to make some savings and go to walmart for a large weekly shop. they evidently normally choose the latter. the local economy collapses as everything gets outpriced by a walmart mega-store that increasingly seems to stock every product in existence under its warehouse-like roof (this is the same story in uk with tesco, again). the next thing you know, people are complaining the only local job opportunities they have in their hick-town is at the 10,000square metre walmart complex outside of town, in the sprawl. all the wealth leaves that community as people are no longer paying for their groceries from local families or stores, nor getting their clothes from local businesses.

i like france, in this regard. when you go to paris or a french city, every single few streets has their own pharmacy, tobacco shop, butcher, baker, confectionary shop, shoe-mender, café and bar, etc. the only places you'll find chain stores like a starbucks is in the metropolitan, international urban centres. everything is still kept in the local community. much better model - and much better quality produce, too.

Cybargs wrote:

everything is chain stores in america. everything. all restaurants are like arbys, tgi's all sorts of shit like that. rarely any individuality.

   please stop talking about america topics as if you lived here

arbys is fast food btw

Last edited by Macbeth (2013-07-17 05:49:31)

Macbeth wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

everything is chain stores in america. everything. all restaurants are like arbys, tgi's all sorts of shit like that. rarely any individuality.

   please stop talking about america topics as if you lived here

arbys is fast food btw

Been to enough places in the states to notice things.

er mah gerd you didnt live here you can't make observations.

Aussie is a mixed bunch. lots of non-franchised restaurants and cafes (starbucks failed hard here) but our grocery market is 80% owned by coles and woolworths. Kinda sucks though youre very limited to the choices at where you shop for food.

I try to buy from butchers as much as possible coz they get really really good meats usually.

Macbeth wrote:

it isn't just observations. you keep trying to explain to people how things in america works as if you know what you are talking about. like the 2nd amendment stuff and how college admissions work. it is annoying since you are wrong more often than not.

He is smarter than you, so I allow it.

Come to think of it, he's smarter than 99% of the people on this website.