Let's see...,

Make $20-$40 /hour and pay them $25 per month dues
Vs.
Make $8 /hour and pay nothing...

Hmmm, I'm sure glad they made this video, That's $25 a month more I'll have in my pocket!! Plus Wal-Mart can now generate a higher profit due to my hard work!!

I find it ironic that those actors are probably unionized workers.

but... I like Wal-Mart.

Yeah! I identify with the one of my ethnicity!

Yo, get back to work. Those shelves aren't going to stock themselves!

>> ^Sagemind:
Let's see...,
Make $20-$40 /hour and pay them $25 per month dues
Vs.
Make $8 /hour and pay nothing...
Hmmm, I'm sure glad they made this video, That's $25 a month more I'll have in my pocket!! Plus Wal-Mart can now generate a higher profit due to my hard work!!


Because a Wal Mart stocker really deserves $20/hr or more.

Everybody deserves $20/hr or more.

Anything less than that is simply subsistance.

Everyone deserves the basic privilege of supporting themselves.

In the Wal-Marts around here, Employees are guaranteed 12-15 hours per week and they must consider it their first job above all others. If another job interferes with your Wal-Mart schedule, then your hours are cut back to 4 hours a week until you either quit or quite the other job.

How’s that for keeping the employee down?

Kmart was going to make one of these videos, but they couldn't afford it.

As a former Wal-Mart employee (Oops, I meant to say "associate"), I can attest to the fact that no employee (Oops again) no associate is allowed to stand around without working for 2 minutes and 22 seconds. Even if they are trivializing the impact of unions.

Oh, and they look happy. This is not realistic at all.

The pay for a job follows simple supply and demand. If the job is a low skill job, then there is a very high supply, which drives the pay for the job down. The minimum wage laws causes economic inefficiencies because it sets an artificial floor on what an employer can pay for a job.

That said, I understand that everyone deserves to have enough money to live. My radical idea (in summary) is that we set welfare to be barely enough to get by, and then we give it to everyone, even the employed. Next, eliminate minimum wage. Finally, set a flat income tax. If you work out the math, the net result is effectively a progressive income tax. Everyone gets enough to live, and working becomes a means of improving your life style, status, and luxuries. I call it the "Welfare for Everyone Flat Tax Plan".

A good friend of mine worked at Wal-Mart. He didn't get paid much and he felt like he was treated unfairly much of the time. He wasn't happy with the job.

What did he do? He found a better job and quit.

Wal-Mart will start paying people more when they begin having trouble finding people willing to do the job for the wages they are offering. You can drop out of 3rd grade and still stock shelves effectively.

Other people call it Basic Income. It's a great idea that I deem could be viable in 10 to 15 years if we try to automate just about anything that can be automated. Only catch is, in our global economy, the entire world has to switch. Or at least all first world countries do.

>> ^rougy:
Everybody deserves $20/hr or more.
Anything less than that is simply subsistance.

You raise the pay, you raise the cost to do business and thus raise the cost of the products. The raising of minimum wage is just a ploy by the government to make more on taxes. Once you raise minimum wage, companies have grounds to raise the price of their product equally so it does nothing for you or I. A lot of people don't understand that places like Wal*mart and large grocery stores only make about a penny per dollar in profit so every little change in overhead will impact profit.

It isn't just the wage they receive, it's the amount of hours and benefits.
I agree it isn't a high intellect job, but have you ever worked retail?

Does Wal-mart even hire full time employees that arn't management. And, if you are management, you are working 50-70 huors per week, because a salaried job, even a low paying one, means they have the right to keep you there every minute of the day. Even if they legally can't. "Just quit if you don't like it," they'll tell you.

Putting up with the customers deserves some sort of damage pay though because customers are very cruel. If you haven't worked retail, then you have no right to comment. Sometimes I think everyone should be forced to work retail at least once in their life so they can see how it feels.

See more:
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/index.php?news_6_3304
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/walmartweek.html

>> ^srd:
Other people call it Basic Income. It's a great idea that I deem could be viable in 10 to 15 years if we try to automate just about anything that can be automated. Only catch is, in our global economy, the entire world has to switch. Or at least all first world countries do.


I feel I'm getting a little off topic with this, but the point you make about automation is very valid. Eventually there wont be anything we can't automate, and by "eventually" I'm talking 2050 or earlier.

We're currently debating how much to pay people for unskilled jobs, but soon enough there won't be any unskilled jobs. Our current economic models will not work there. I'm guessing that it will lead to a much more socialistic economic structure, because there will be way more people than available jobs.

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^rougy:
Everybody deserves $20/hr or more.
Anything less than that is simply subsistance.

You raise the pay, you raise the cost to do business and thus raise the cost of the products. The raising of minimum wage is just a ploy by the government to make more on taxes. Once you raise minimum wage, companies have grounds to raise the price of their product equally so it does nothing for you or I. A lot of people don't understand that places like Wal mart and large grocery stores only make about a penny per dollar in profit so every little change in overhead will impact profit.

I'm really beginning to wonder if that applies at all. The Waltons are among the richest people on Earth, yet for them to grow richer and richer is just fine while everybody else has to scrimp and scrape to get by.

It's always okay for rich people to grow richer, and they have grown much richer in the past eight years, but whenever that wealth is about to spread to the lower classes, suddenly it's doom and gloom on the horizon.

Working class people aren't greedy enough. There's no way in hell so many of us should be busting our asses for nothing while five members of the same family grow richer by hundreds of millions every year.

I think our entire business model (Capitalism) needs to be turned on its head.

We are on the brink of global economic disaster, again, and the working class people asking for better wages and benefits had nothing to do with creating it.

Wait wait wait... There are a number of things wrong with the video itself that I found annoying:

a) Julie's cheeks and chin are WAY too big for her face.
#2 Those Wal-Mart greeters are always in a bad mood (though I can't blame them)
and thirdly, "Ol' Mr. Walta says I gotsta come up wit some good idears befo' Donna goes an' charms Mr. Walta ageen. I ain'ts go to skool so I dunno how to come up wit good idears."

Racist!!

Oh and this video hints that you can be promoted from stocker to management in "not too long." Bah!

>> ^rougy:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^rougy:
Everybody deserves $20/hr or more.
Anything less than that is simply subsistance.

You raise the pay, you raise the cost to do business and thus raise the cost of the products. The raising of minimum wage is just a ploy by the government to make more on taxes. Once you raise minimum wage, companies have grounds to raise the price of their product equally so it does nothing for you or I. A lot of people don't understand that places like Wal mart and large grocery stores only make about a penny per dollar in profit so every little change in overhead will impact profit.
I'm really beginning to wonder if that applies at all. The Waltons are among the richest people on Earth, yet for them to grow richer and richer is just fine while everybody else has to scrimp and scrape to get by.
It's always okay for rich people to grow richer, and they have grown much richer in the past eight years, but whenever that wealth is about to spread to the lower classes, suddenly it's doom and gloom on the horizon.
Working class people aren't greedy enough. There's no way in hell so many of us should be busting our asses for nothing while five members of the same family grow richer by hundreds of millions every year.
I think our entire business model (Capitalism) needs to be turned on its head.
We are on the brink of global economic disaster, again, and the working class people asking for better wages and benefits had nothing to do with creating it.

Capitalism always has employees begging for the most pay for the least amount of labor and companies begging for the most amount of labor for the least amount of pay. At the way our economy is, people will be grabbing any job they can and the companies that have stuck around are in the driver's seat as far as hours/pay/benefits.

And yes, I have worked retail...it sucks. Long gone are the days where you can get by fairly comfortably on the wages of a retail employee. Especially when you're living in an area where I live. You can't get a place to live for under $800/mo. That doesn't leave much for food/gas/bills/entertainment. But if you were to raise the cost of running an operation like Wal*Mart, it'll naturally drive the price of the product up. Then why shop there? And if you don't shop there, then they have to "downsize". So now you have 5 people without jobs. So raising their wages would actually perpetuate the economy in its current direction.

"Yeah! I identify with the one of my ethnicity!"

LOL

>> ^rougy:
>> Working class people aren't greedy enough.

They are actually, at least individually. It is perfectly fine to refuse to work as unskilled labor for less than $20/hour, but that only works if no one is willing to do the same job for less pay. Someone might accept $12/hour rather than being unemployed, in which case they will be chosen over the person demanding $20/hour (assuming similar qualifications).

On the other hand, lets say the government mandates (or the company decides) that $20/hour is the minimum wage allowable for stocking shelves. The store can't/won't look for people who will accept less pay so they look for people with the highest qualifications. Suddenly the uneducated people who were the main worker pool for those jobs can't get the job because there are more people with higher qualifications willing to work there for those wages.

The unskilled people who work these last-resort jobs will be on the losing end until there are more jobs than people to fill them (unlikely). I'd like the situation to be different, but I don't think requiring higher wages will fix that either, at least not for the people who work these jobs now.

Something closer to Socialism would possibly fix this issue, but people aren't going to accept that kind of system unless there is no other choice. The idea of being able to improve one's income through hard work and higher education is a very powerful one, especially in America.


It sucks, but expect it to get worse. Every year more and more jobs will go to machines or computer automation, yet the human population will continue to increase. Job supply will decrease and required qualifications will increase. Supply vs demand will push wages lower unless we do replace the system, and I'm not sure what we could replace it with that the majority of people would accept.

Walmart = National Republic of China Factory Outlet

>> ^srd:
Other people call it Basic Income. It's a great idea that I deem could be viable in 10 to 15 years if we try to automate just about anything that can be automated. Only catch is, in our global economy, the entire world has to switch. Or at least all first world countries do.


Much appreciated srd!

I don't think I follow why it would have to be implemented on a global scale though. The largest challange I see is striking the balance between starving people to death and removing all incentives to work. The amount of Basic Income given would need constant monitoring and adjustment.

Yes, those poor defenseless laborers need all the protection from Unions, because those who can't negotiate their own right-to-work contracts deserve forced wage protection, right?

Nevermind those who take the financial risk to make a business - sure if they fail and lose their savings no one will shed a tear, but let them succeed and everyone whines for the poor laborer who refuses to take a risk.

Nevermind the baseless logic that the world would be a perfect economic utopia if only those poor defenseless laborers were given a minimum of $20/hr as a human right.

^ So where would this magic money come from?

^Um... that's my point. I was being [cough, cough] sarcastic. Should I type it in crayon for you next time?

This video angers me even more than unions do.




>> ^Flood:
The pay for a job follows simple supply and demand. If the job is a low skill job, then there is a very high supply, which drives the pay for the job down. The minimum wage laws causes economic inefficiencies because it sets an artificial floor on what an employer can pay for a job.
That said, I understand that everyone deserves to have enough money to live. My radical idea (in summary) is that we set welfare to be barely enough to get by, and then we give it to everyone, even the employed. Next, eliminate minimum wage. Finally, set a flat income tax. If you work out the math, the net result is effectively a progressive income tax. Everyone gets enough to live, and working becomes a means of improving your life style, status, and luxuries. I call it the "Welfare for Everyone Flat Tax Plan".


Not that radical (except for existing in reality) - economics textbooks mention it as a very popular idea (among economists)... negative income tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Boom - good write-up on Wiki for once.

I can't believe how much anti-worker bias has slipped into the collective consciousness. Even here, of all places. I guess all those right wing think tanks paid off.

blankfist, don't confuse the plucky small business owner with oppressive bohemoths like Wal*Mart, who could easily afford to pay their workers a fair wage. Plenty of tears are shed for small businesses that go under, and it's often Wal*Mart who pulls the trigger.

Flood, 'Supply and demand' becomes date rape when you own the only store in town. Without a minimum wage, what's to stop them from paying workers with store credit? It beats starving, right? Viva supply and demand?!

If you can't afford to pay your workers minimum wage, then you shouldn't be in business. Period.

Rottenseed, When you don't pay your workers enough, they don't buy enough, and when people don't buy enough, we get recessions and depressions.

Exactly rougy, just because a job isn't highly skilled doesn't mean it's not necessary or difficult. It irritates me when people belittle the working poor. We're already collectively fucking them over enough, you don't have to add insult to injury.

But then again I suppose that's the point - to convince ourselves that we're not really fucking them over. And that somehow they're so beneath us that they deserve to have no health care, no retirement, and no chance of advancement.

There are less jobs than people wanting work, and there is a spectrum of education among those workers.

... so what do you do with the people at the bottom? Either they get the jobs that no one wants, or they compete for higher-paying jobs against more qualified people (and lose).

Paying higher wages does not fix this problem, it simply increases the number of people willing to take the job (there's still a job shortage). Those at the bottom still lose.

How do you propose to fix that problem?



>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I can't believe how much anti-worker bias has slipped into the collective consciousness. Even here, of all places. I guess all those right wing think tanks paid off.
blankfist, don't confuse the plucky small business owner with oppressive bohemoths like Wal Mart, who could easily afford to pay their workers a fair wage. Plenty of tears are shed for small businesses that go under, and it's often Wal Mart who pulls the trigger.
Flood, 'Supply and demand' becomes date rape when you own the only store in town. Without a minimum wage, what's to stop them from paying workers with store credit? It beats starving, right? Viva supply and demand?!
If you can't afford to pay your workers minimum wage, then you shouldn't be in business. Period.
Rottenseed, When you don't pay your workers enough, they don't buy enough, and when people don't buy enough, we get recessions and depressions.

Blankfist: You do know that In-&-Out pays their employees starting at $9.00/hr, with full-time and health insurance. Yet, their product is awesome, and super super cheap.

It's just that some companies reward their employees and don't feel the need to reward themselves lavishly. And other companies would rather pay their employees slave wages with no health insurance, while the CEO's/Owners become billionaires.


If your idea was reality, why has In-&-Out been in business for so long, with such a happy fanbase and work force?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

DFT, honestly, I don't even know where to begin with that comment. You obviously have a pro-labor, pro-Marxist, anti-Capitalist bone to pick with our society, which I simply do not understand, but your attacks are all over the board. First, my comment was focused at unions, because I disagree with organized labor usurping the efforts of individuals who take financial risk to create business. It's wrong no matter how uneven the pay scales are between the shelf stocker at Walmart and the CEO. There was something written into our Constitution called the Freedom of Contract which allows us a right to contract the wage we find suitable for our labor. It's fair. Union lockouts and their push for self-serving political legislation is not fair.

I have to admit, as I wrote that, I felt a little slimy defending Walmart. I will, nonetheless, continue...

You say if you can't afford to pay workers minimum wage, then you shouldn't be in business? Let's tally up all the hours Lucky has worked and see if his financial compensation can match that. I bet it cannot. Should VideoSift be put out of business? Why do you hate VideoSift so much, DFT?! The thing to consider is Lucky is here working for whatever unsaid amount (or negotiated profit sharing) because he finds the price to be fair. Oh no! Someone call the government! We have a free thinking laborer on our hands!

And this comment! "Rottenseed, When you don't pay your workers enough, they don't buy enough, and when people don't buy enough, we get recessions and depressions." DFT, we don't live in a monarchy where king Walmart has employed everyone and refuses to pay out more than a shilling wage per citizen. If that was the case, then, yeah, we'd be in trouble, but people have the ability and the right to make their own contracts and receive the pay they deserve. If you stock shelves at a Walmart, then, yes, you get much less. If you offer a more needed service, then, yes, you get more - and you also buy more from services from other people keeping the economy moving.

>> ^volumptuous:

I'm not sure I get why you brought up I&O. I like their business model. I think it's wonderful that they're willing and able to pay more to their employees. They are the exception, but I'd like to think if I was in their CEO's position, I'd do the same thing. But, if paying their workers $9/hr (by the way, a far cry from the $20/hr wage I mentioned above which I believe prompted your question to me, right?) became unprofitable, then they'd give their employees a huge pay cut. Luckily for them, their burgers are yum, and the added competition from higher wages means my food is fresh, hot and my order is never wrong. [/vagina monologue]

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Flood, 'Supply and demand' becomes date rape when you own the only store in town. Without a minimum wage, what's to stop them from paying workers with store credit? It beats starving, right? Viva supply and demand?!
If you can't afford to pay your workers minimum wage, then you shouldn't be in business. Period.
Rottenseed, When you don't pay your workers enough, they don't buy enough, and when people don't buy enough, we get recessions and depressions.


If there is only one store in town, then maybe someone should open a store and get some competition going? Besides, I would only want to get rid of minimum wage laws if a Negative Income Tax (thanks Krupo) system was put in place.

I do love the sift and how things like this turn into all out political debates.

I just find any company that comes up with their own language for completely unnecessary things... associate? Come the crap on. What other bull crap words have they come up with to rename everyday things? It's one of the tennant of creating a cult, create your own internal language (just witness scientology as a prime example).

And why is the middle aged guy happy to be still stocking shelves at his age? And why would anyone listen to a friggen word he had to say about anything getting done in a business environment? Shelf stacking is a job you do before you get a real job... the fact he is doing it at his age means his diatribes on most anything to do with how business should work should be utterly ignored.

I personally have worked at Wal-Mart, and I did indeed stock shelves...and jesus...I can't believe how much you people carry on about those poor people like myself. Stocking shelves in wal-mart is not a bad job, and Wal-Mart treats their employees just fine. In fact, they were incredibly fair about it; they train you that if you work, you WILL be paid for it, and that any work you do, you are required to report so that it will be tallied and included in your hours and be paid for it. Thus, if you happened to clock out, then realize that you forgot one last bit, they are actually rather anal about you reporting those last 2 minutes of work that you did. That much more fair than most other per-hour jobs, in my experience (and I've had quite a few).

Further, I have no idea what thinker247 is going on about. As you've figured out, Wal-Mart does indeed train their employees via a series of instructional videos with quizzes at the end. Included in the instructional videos is information about the employee break schedule; every employee is officially allowed 15 minutes of break every couple hours, where they can take off their jersey and do whatever they want. They can take their break at their convenience, choose not to take it, or whatever.

Finally, the intended purpose of the union is to negotiate fair terms between the employer and the employee. Whether the union holds up to that is a different story, but truth be told...as a part-time employee, I cannot possibly think of one upset that I could find with my job. I did my work at whatever pace I felt (so long as I got my work done)...took breaks to eat donuts and drink soda, read magazines, etc...it was totally fine.

For those of you going on about how horrible it is of wal-mart to keep their salaried staff working for more than 40 hours per week...welcome to the world. Ask any american engineer, programmer, or scientist how many hours per week that they work, and I guarantee that nearly all of them will tell you that 40 hours per week goes out the window first thing. It's more like 50 hours per week MINIMUM if you're working your job as a career.

If you find economics to be cruel (which it is...economics is a cold ice pop in your cornhole), then it is understandable that, despite its inevitability, you despise wal-mart for how it drives mom & pop shops out of business. But, if you're trying to disgrace wal-mart now for how it treats its employees, either you're scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find ways to pick at wal-mart, or you've been coddled by your mom for waaaay too long...

>> ^Flood:
The pay for a job follows simple supply and demand. If the job is a low skill job, then there is a very high supply, which drives the pay for the job down. The minimum wage laws causes economic inefficiencies because it sets an artificial floor on what an employer can pay for a job.
That said, I understand that everyone deserves to have enough money to live. My radical idea (in summary) is that we set welfare to be barely enough to get by, and then we give it to everyone, even the employed. Next, eliminate minimum wage. Finally, set a flat income tax. If you work out the math, the net result is effectively a progressive income tax. Everyone gets enough to live, and working becomes a means of improving your life style, status, and luxuries. I call it the "Welfare for Everyone Flat Tax Plan".


Let me guess - you've never had to work to survive before? Mom and dad pay the way?

I also have to admit, it is not all Wal-Mart any more. Most retail outlets are starting to think the same way. The real problem is that Wal-Mart is ‘Blazing the way’.

If you want to compete in today's retail market, you need to study and follow Wal-Marts business plan. Now all the employers are sucking the employee dry.

Next, The manufacturers are battling to get the next Wal-mart contract, and this is already happening, yes, enter the sweat shops. The clothing stores who manufacture for Wal-Mart are now gouging the employees as well. There are clothing outlets that house the employees in a compound so they never leave.

I don’t want to go into all the sweat shop stuff but It's an endless cut throat business that cares nothing for the employee and the basic rights of other human beans...

Despite a well-publicized "Made in the U.S.A." campaign, 85 percent of the stores' items are made overseas, often in Third World sweatshops. Read more about sweatshops, Wal-Mart and other U.S. retailers.

Here is a report from November 28, 2003 issue:
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/3046wal-mart_pricing.html

Open your eyes people:
Go to: http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html
And: http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/sweatshops.html

>> ^skhisma:
>> Let me guess - you've never had to work to survive before? Mom and dad pay the way?


After high school, I got grants and lots of loans and went to college. Worked my butt off and got a job I am passionate about after graduation. I'm one of those salaried people that draak13 mentioned.

And why would you think that about me when I explicitly said in the text that you quoted that I think everyone deserves enough money to survive without even having to work?

People who aren't motivated to do more than dig ditches for a living (I have done this) are doing a disservice to society by not living up to their potential.

If each person had a skill level that generated $100k per year for the GDP, society would simply automate ditch digging because the people who used to work so cheaply now have more valuable things they can do for the economy.

People just need better resumes and they're set
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/chi/942873935.html

Good discussion of *worldaffairs and *politics here (I'm going to nochannel and wipe out those two tags as soon as our cry for an *Economics or *Business channel is heeded).

Adding video to channels (Eco, Worldaffairs) - requested by Krupo.

raise minimum wage to $20 and bread will be $11 a loaf soon

Very funny siftbot. *nochannel

Note to ourselves: No Economics channel. Business it is.

*worldaffairs, *politics, *terrible, *lies, *commercial, *fear... and *cult

This video has been removed from all channels (Terrible, Worldaffairs, Commercial, Lies, Politics, Fear, Eco) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by Krupo. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Commercial, Cult, Fear, Lies, Politics, Terrible, Worldaffairs) - requested by Krupo.

Wal-Mart has done more for poor people than any 10 liberals, at least nine of whom are almost guaranteed to hate Wal-Mart.


Let's hope a Wal-Mart union is as good as the ones in Detroit, so taxpayers can subsidize a failed business model as well as Democrat elections.

I really think those who have never done without or who have never worked a hard blue collar job really side with pro-labor, pro-union movements while those of us who have suffered through difficult jobs and learned to exceed in spite of adversity tend to side on the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" free market mentality.

"Depressing paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle," huh? Hundreds of thousands of people live like that. What depressing lives they must lead! You just displayed the classic attitude of a upper-class snob. It's degrading to tell people that their lives are depressing because they don't make as much as you do. IMO that attitude perpetuates poverty.

It's extremely depressing to live paycheck to paycheck. And I'm always hungry!

Most of the time we don't make it to the next paycheck before we run out of money. Food is so expensive. [Fuck Walmart, though. That place is so dirty and their concept of a sale, one or two cents cheaper, baffles me. Yeah, baby, you can find me at Aldi's!]

>> ^blankfist:
I really think those who have never done without or who have never worked a hard blue collar job really side with pro-labor, pro-union movements while those of us who have suffered through difficult jobs and learned to exceed in spite of adversity tend to side on the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" free market mentality.


You are quite simply, nuts.

I come from the rust belt, and most of my family works in auto assembly plants. My dad was a schlep for residential gas services for over 55 years. I worked in fast food, in hospitals, and on assembly lines. One brother is a cop, two others work for Ford. One sister for GM. One sister has five kids, her husband lays drywall.

My entire family are pro-labor, pro-union. So is everyone that I know from back home.

Your theory is total fail.

^I have another theory that involves you and NetRunner swooping in behind each other and upvoting each other's comments in between reach arounds. How's that for ad hominem?!

Now put the internets down and get back to raising your sister's five kids!

I'm sorry your life is depressing. I'm getting myself through college paycheck to paycheck and I'm not depressed at all. I don't have a loan, I'm not receiving financial help from the government, I work hard, and I have $14 in my bank account. Sure, I can't afford grapes, but I'm perfectly happy. Low income, paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyles can be tough, but it is delusional and condescending to think that we're all depressed. This is how people live.

I would be grateful for a job at Wal-Mart right about now, actually. There are no jobs left in this town.

>> ^UsesProzac:
It's extremely depressing to live paycheck to paycheck. And I'm always hungry!
Most of the time we don't make it to the next paycheck before we run out of money. Food is so expensive. [Fuck Walmart, though. That place is so dirty and their concept of a sale, one or two cents cheaper, baffles me. Yeah, baby, you can find me at Aldi's!]

You should totally work at Walmart! You'd make a great greeter, thepinky, as you are obviously special.

I agree that living on low pay is not, in itself, depressing. Depression is a biological issue. It can be triggered by environmental issues (like stress form having no savings), but it is not caused directly by those environmental issues.

I've lived on "barely enough" money and been perfectly happy, and I have also been clinically depressed during times of plentiful income. It is a very personal experience, so while one person may be depressed by low income, that situation does not necessarily hold true for others.

>> ^blankfist:
Now put the internets down and get back to raising your sister's five kids!


Raising?

She just tosses em in the ball-pen at the WalMart playground before work, and picks em up on the way home. They're bein raised the Amurikan way!

There's a lot I could say, but I think Blankfist already has it covered.

Regarding unions: If it were simply a more effective way to bargain for salaries, that wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately, it's not just a bargaining tool when management can't and/or won't give what the union wants, so the union has the employees strike.

It seems to me that unions will use every means at their disposal to hurt the company in order to "help" the workers. Unfortunately when they do their part to put the company out of business via artificially high wage/benefit costs and preventing management from cutting back where necessary under threat of a strike, everyone gets to lose their jobs.

Here's a funny story: A local McDonalds was having a labor dispute. The employees erected a giant inflatable rat on the property adjacent to the McDonalds so as to drive away business and stick it to the man. They never followed that logic though to its conclusion: less business = less need for labor. Out of business = no labor.

Organized labor had its place before there were a dizzying array of labor protection laws. From what I can see now, it does more harm than good - especially for jobs that can be shipped to China.

When in doubt, always remember: some pay > no pay. That, and life's not fair. It never will be, even if we were to completely socialize everything, because humans are corrupt creatures and there is no perfect system.

*shrug* At least I would be a happy WalMart greeter.

Yeah, Walmart doesn't sanction porn. You'd fit right in. And that blue apron would really bring out your bulbous nose.

You crack me up, Prozac.

Unions are not bad, as long as they are not corrupt.
Companies are not bad, as long as they are not corrupt.

*reclaimvote and *restockthemshelvesguddammit

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by campionidelmondo.