Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Los Angeles Kings
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:42 pm
 


No one's crapping on Costco for paying their workers more than the industry average, but let's not pretend Costco supports a minimum wage hike for altruistic reasons. He wants to raise his competitor's operating costs.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:52 pm
 


Instead of people congratulating this guy, they want to pick on him. Do you know how much the Walmart way of doing things costs you, Dan? In direct tax costs for food stamps and other govt subsidies for low income workers, while Walmart rakes in the profits. Never mind the health and judicial system costs of kids growing up in stressed households where there's never enough, or the parents work 3 jobs and neglect the kids. And there's the non-monetary social costs of living in a society like that.





PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:24 pm
 


andyt andyt:
Instead of people congratulating this guy, they want to pick on him. Do you know how much the Walmart way of doing things costs you, Dan? In direct tax costs for food stamps and other govt subsidies for low income workers, while Walmart rakes in the profits. Never mind the health and judicial system costs of kids growing up in stressed households where there's never enough, or the parents work 3 jobs and neglect the kids. And there's the non-monetary social costs of living in a society like that.



All that because of Walmart 8O R=UP

You sound like one of those jackasses that posts on the CBC and blames everything on Harper and the oil sands.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11152
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:21 pm
 


Yeah Andy. Put the blame where it belongs: on our eviscerated Labour Standards that lets them pull shit like they do off and people like jj who think that's a good thing for society...


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2372
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:53 pm
 


stratos stratos:
I don't claim to be an expert but these people are considered to be.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... troy-jobs/


Nice link. Saves a lot of writing to point out basic economics and even has hard real world outcomes of raising minimum wage to confirm it.

Not to take the thread off topic but this debate is nearly as ridiculous as the "Each year you should tip a higher % of your service bills" debate. I tip a % of the bill, each year they raise the price of the meals so the server gets a higher tip, without raising the % from 15 to 16.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2742
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:23 pm
 


andyt andyt:
Instead of people congratulating this guy, they want to pick on him. Do you know how much the Walmart way of doing things costs you, Dan? In direct tax costs for food stamps and other govt subsidies for low income workers, while Walmart rakes in the profits. Never mind the health and judicial system costs of kids growing up in stressed households where there's never enough, or the parents work 3 jobs and neglect the kids. And there's the non-monetary social costs of living in a society like that.


Walmart is only cashing in on stupid!! It's a smart business plan and is working well for them. I think the sucker born every minute should be changed to every second.

Kids grow up in stressed households or any of the other stuff you mentioned is not Walmart's fault. It's got more to do with a consumer driven desposible econimy and bitches being crazy than Walmart. Everything is desposible these days marriages, families, people in general. If Walmart were not cashing in on it someone else would be.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22738
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:41 pm
 


PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Yeah, cuz COSTCO is so generous with what looks like an average hourly wage of around $12.00/hr.


Starting wages are relatively low (only a few bucks above minimum wage depending on location), but are higher than Wal-Mart's starting wages, which are AT minimum wage.

The difference is in the fact that after you've been at Costco for a year, your wage is substantially higher, while at Wal-Mart you're lucky to get a raise that matches inflation.

Tack on the raises Costco gave its employees during the recession, health care and other benefits and workers at Costco are vastly better off than those at any store owned by the Walton clan.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22738
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:44 pm
 


jj2424 jj2424:
Costco and Walmart are two different animals. How many Costco locations are there compared to Walmart?

Costco is a pain in the ass to shop at and employs a fraction of what Walmart does.

Jackup the Walmart wage and close 90 % of the locations...yeah that's good for the economy.


Actually, the article compares Costco and Sam's Club (owned by Wal-Mart) not Wal-Mart stores themselves;

Centre Centre:
Costco is known for paying its workers wages that are generally above average for the retail industry. An average Costco worker made about $45,000 in 2011, according to Fortune. That’s compared to an average of about $17,486 per year for a worker at comparable Walmart-owned Sam’s Club.


If Wikipedia is close to correct, the number is almost identical - 648 Costco stores versus 612 Sam's Club stores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam's_Club

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco

So much for that theory...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:02 pm
 


housewife housewife:
Walmart is only cashing in on stupid!! It's a smart business plan and is working well for them. I think the sucker born every minute should be changed to every second.

Kids grow up in stressed households or any of the other stuff you mentioned is not Walmart's fault. It's got more to do with a consumer driven desposible econimy and bitches being crazy than Walmart. Everything is desposible these days marriages, families, people in general. If Walmart were not cashing in on it someone else would be.


What does disponsible mean?


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2742
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:05 pm
 


andyt andyt:
housewife housewife:
Walmart is only cashing in on stupid!! It's a smart business plan and is working well for them. I think the sucker born every minute should be changed to every second.

Kids grow up in stressed households or any of the other stuff you mentioned is not Walmart's fault. It's got more to do with a consumer driven desposible econimy and bitches being crazy than Walmart. Everything is desposible these days marriages, families, people in general. If Walmart were not cashing in on it someone else would be.


What does disponsible mean?


Oh goody you caught me!! I know this will be a shock to everyone but I can't spell! The word was to be disposable... I spelled economy wrong too!!! So now we all know I can't spell.


So what does my bad spelling and your belief that Walmart is the root of all evil have to do with minimum wage?


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 955
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:46 pm
 


andyt andyt:
As we know from all the xspurts on this forum,


I know this is a topic near to your heart, andyt, but that doesn't excuse you trying specifically to get a very negative response from the people who have disagreed with you, nor is it an excuse to ignore the dozens of juror'd articles I have provided you over the years. The experts who matter most are the hordes of economists who do not have reason to lie about their findings in response to minimum wage, those results of which some members of this site have taken the time to defend and explain in greater detail, inclusive of bootslegga, myself, and the user of the late Lemmy account. Further, in the past there were polls done by economists show they don't believe minimum wage can be used effectively in the majority.

Those who currently support it support the marginal increase, under the idea of minimum labour standards being a good thing. No one should rationally accept pay under a certain amount, even a teenager, so the market needs a correcting factor for that. They do not propose increasing the minimum wage to a living wage. They do no propose increasing it to even double what it currently is. They also support the methods I discussed over the ones you do, and would prefer my methods to yours. Keep this in mind, and do not mistakenly conflate your stance with that of economists willing to tolerate the hike. Frankly, they tolerate it because when the minimum wage is super low anyways, it's distortion effects are likely small as well -- ie, economists tolerate a bump because the bump increases it to an equally irrelevant small wage. Unfortunately, the topic is now politicized -- we don't deal with facts so much as hunches. If you are liberal or conservative, even as an economist, there's an expectation that you not take the literature fully into account when you take a position, and unfortunately it's the more politically minded that are now driving this discussion, not the experts of those fields.

The typically debate over it I read in the newspaper gets really sad once you get to the end, and realize that what started as what could have been a rousing argument over minimum wage was essentially more neoliberal economists stating "whatever, this is so small and still so low it won't even make a difference," while advocates admit "it won't make a difference, and we admit we aren't really changing anything for people here." For every Krugman who (fallaciously) argues there isn't any evidence of some of what we've posted, there's someone else who points out Krugman can't really provide evidence it will improve anything either. In fact, most newspapers go to opinion polls of Joe Blow off the street to try and fill out the article. It actually irritates me how much time we waste on this useless debate rather than actually implementing anti-poverty agreements everyone would support.

In the past, you and I have been in more than one argument over what is a valid source, and more than once you have been angry as a result. I even once pointed out your connection to the Fraser Institute on one topic while ignoring it on the other, when that other is actually supported by the economists of not just Canada, but the world. Recognize that when I provide you sources, and I mean that in plural because I often offer many sources at once, I am providing you with the best information I can to answer why, time and time again, minimum wage has not had a markedly positive effect on either the welfare, the buying power, or the strength of the lowest earners in the market, and time and time I have offered you alternatives.

The answer is welfare, not minimum wage. We can argue the specifics if you'd like, we've done it before. I have also offered you many, many times links to past disagreements where you left the thread after I called you on these patterns, and after I provided you a new set of links, or referenced you to an older set. I won't do it again; you can search the site yourself, and I admit to having gotten tired of linking people back to their own posts after a while.

andyt andyt:
raising the minimum wage will just cause inflation, leaving the workers who received the raise worse off than they were. Also it will cause massive job losses, causing the government to subsidize these workers - oh, wait, they're already doing that.


It's interesting, because that is exactly what most of the sources I have provided you with have stated, yes. There is nothing in your link that acts effectively as a counter-argument for any of it; just one man arguing about it. Now, I shouldn't have to remind you about those times both you and I were in agreement over how members of the business community have caused significant harm to the economy through pushing unfortunate forms of deregulation, or how others have come out in firm support of some pretty questionable economic and social ideas. I don't think I have to walk you down those times we were in agreement over the Tea Party. Nor should I have to explain the difference between dozens of trained economists and a business man.

What he is doing here with his workers isn't a problem. I think it's fine. It's rational and works in the assumed MPL. The workers are good people and highly dedicated as a result, and Costco isn't the only business that is doing the right thing in using wages to encourage their work force. His call for minimum wage is questionable. If the best you have is the internet version of rolling your eyes and snarling out some sarcasm while repeating what other people have said, then you aren't engaging in an argument. In real life, you'd just be pissing people off, whether or not they agree with you.

Finally, recognize your list falls far short of a lot of the likely changes that do come from the minimum wage that aren't so much harms but should cause concern. Recognize, for example, that a rise in minimum wage harms one set of companies most; those without a lot of capital, or who aren't very flexible. There is a very real concern that the more we expand minimum wage or even corporate tax, the more we will be beholden on the ones who can pay, or who are big enough to shove those problems elsewhere (wasn't it Starbucks who kept all their profit elsewhere?). I don't know about you, but I don't want the West to be dependent on megacorporations and multinationals to meet our needs. This was brought up the last time you and I were in a thread on minimum wage, and this is why I'm concerned. I want competition, and I don't want it to be between McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy's. This is but one example.

andyt andyt:
What a disaster, just as BC collapsed when it raised the min wage from $8 to $10.25.


I've also criticized you in the past about putting words in other people's mouths. No one views minimum wage as something which is going to kill Canada or America, nor has anyone ever made such an accusation. I maintain there are better ways, Boots points out it's lack of efficacy, and even Bart maintains the best that comes from it is status quo once you balance harms and benefits.

It's a lot easier to try and push us into some extreme gutter to make your arguments easier, but the reality is that the stance of those members who do engage you on this topic is surprisingly middle of the road.

Trust me, if it worked, I'd be behind it 100%. Hell, if it had the evidence (given the length of it's existence, there SHOULD be tons) to back it up, we'd never have a policy debate about this ever again; we'd double minimum wage and be done with it. The unfortunate thing is that there are harms, well established ones that you have never made an effort to reply to, debunk, or argue directly. As a result of what evidence does exist, economists and a lot of non-economists reject the minimum wage panacea as an adequate poverty reduction mechanism. It's not out of some hatred of anything that isn't capitalist (and I remind you here Lemmy, our one-time economist, even rejected capitalism directly a few times), it's out of a recognition of reality and a new to look at better solutions.

Right now, poverty-reduction activists sometimes look at minimum wage as a bridge across a chasm to their solution. If they can get it going, then it'll be a shortcut to fixing poverty. The unfortunate thing about poverty is that it is a social, cultural, economic and even psychological set of harms, a complex beast that requires a complex set of resolutions to work. Nations who have worked to end poverty have gone to great lengths to re-order a lot of the inner workings of their country to manage it. It's why I support programs that pay stay-at-home Moms, and others that provide re-location costs of people seeking work, like most economists aware of those paradigms. They have real, tangible results that can be tracked, but don't come with the costs that are caused by minimum wage.

It's a massively ballsy thing to assume that everyone who disagrees with minimum wage is somehow uberlibertarian, or a business crony, or just hates poor people. No one should the issues with poverty and so forth, and I shouldn't have to defend my own anti-poverty record on here. Boots, Lemmy and I, among others, have all bemoaned poverty. We would like it to end. We just want to actually end it. The aim is the same, but the mechanism is all wrong.

andyt andyt:
Inflation here is out of control, I tell you, and McDonald's et al all had to shut down because they couldn't afford to hire people at such a rich wage.


... or they just downsized the amount of hours they gave out. Companies think at the margin, man. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there was a spike in underemployment, if not straight out unemployment. Further, the inflation discussed tends to be long-end CPI inflation, or the "basic goods" basket. The kind of thing that keeps cars from being impacted by inflation pricing differences but makes juice more expensive.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:26 pm
 


Got any evidence for your contention? So far the new min wage has been in place for over a year, and not a peep about what a disaster it's been. As for inflation, it's very low, to the point the bank of Canada is worried about deflation and actually wants inflation to rise a bit - no worries about any inflation raising min wage. And what Iv'e never understood is why wage increases for others (ie the people arguing against min wage) are a good thing, and they persue them eagerly, only min wage increases cost inflation? Hell, Boots et all get all bent out of shape when some union busting firm lowers wages - surely you all should be cheering about the deflationary effect and the huge increase in jobs opened up by the lower wages.

I'll go with the Costco CEO, who manages to pay high wages voluntarily and still manages to turn a good profit. He's got real world experience in all this. If he can do it, so can others.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14139
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:45 pm
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Yeah, cuz COSTCO is so generous with what looks like an average hourly wage of around $12.00/hr.


Starting wages are relatively low (only a few bucks above minimum wage depending on location), but are higher than Wal-Mart's starting wages, which are AT minimum wage.

The difference is in the fact that after you've been at Costco for a year, your wage is substantially higher, while at Wal-Mart you're lucky to get a raise that matches inflation.

Tack on the raises Costco gave its employees during the recession, health care and other benefits and workers at Costco are vastly better off than those at any store owned by the Walton clan.

Fair enough. However the same can be said for many other companies that people love to shit on for the low wages they pay. Stick with 7-11 long enough and get your various certifications and you could be making upwards of $20+/hr as a clerk, plus benefits. In fact, many companies that are perceived as only minimum rage job providers offer similar opportunities to advance your pay, IF you're willing to put in the effort.

And that's part of the problem. There's a LOT of people out there that think they should be rewarded with raises and bonuses simply for doing the minimum work.
If you're not willing to put in more than a minimum wage effort, don't expect to ever get paid more than minimum wage.

Then there's turnover. Few people want to make a career out of being a fry cook or shelf stocker. It costs money to hire and train people every time someone quits (or advances up the ladder). Those types of jobs are traditionally low paying because of the expense of them being high turnover jobs.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:52 pm
 


PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:


Then there's turnover. Few people want to make a career out of being a fry cook or shelf stocker. It costs money to hire and train people every time someone quits (or advances up the ladder). Those types of jobs are traditionally low paying because of the expense of them being high turnover jobs.


Which is exactly the point the pro minimum wage people make and what this Costco guy has found too - pay a good wage and you can hire good people who stick around and are more productive, lowering costs to the employer. The reason those jobs have high turnover is because the wage is so poor, the employee has no investment in the job. But the mostly don't move up and out to better jobs, just down the road to another job the same. There's only so many good jobs out there, and as we read every day, many are disappearing rapidly.

Looks like it's coming where this will get addressed (income inequality) to some degree. Obama will make it the centerpiece of his state of the union address, more and more people are speaking out about it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14139
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:29 pm
 


andyt andyt:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:


Then there's turnover. Few people want to make a career out of being a fry cook or shelf stocker. It costs money to hire and train people every time someone quits (or advances up the ladder). Those types of jobs are traditionally low paying because of the expense of them being high turnover jobs.


Which is exactly the point the pro minimum wage people make and what this Costco guy has found too - pay a good wage and you can hire good people who stick around and are more productive, lowering costs to the employer.

It sounds good, on paper. In practice, it's rare when it works. Then again, the job market is much different than 20+ years ago too and people are willing to sell their time and skills for less.

Back when I still had my company, I had a hell of a time filling a pair of positions because the job, well it kind'a sucked. However the starting wage was $20/hr + benefits and it paid a full 8 hours even though they only worked 6 hours - 45mins on, 15mins off each hour.

It was about 4 years in when I FINALLY found two guys who didn't quit in less than 6 months AND showed up for work EVERY day! They stayed with me right up until the company was sold. Of course they were making more than $20/hr by that time.
So decent pay to do a job that kind'a sucks isn't a guarantee of employee loyalty. It may increase the chances but it won't guarantee it.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.