New Zealand 2017 Election

[guacamole]

Again, FWIU, the full timers actually get more vacation time and some more benefits (since they usually make around the same pay as the PT workers).

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.

[Sparko]

Easy to say if you're not in the situation. My cousin lost his job and worked a year part time at Wally World before they gave him the chance to come on full time. They were hard years for him and their family. He had no benefits. No sick/vacation time. His hours could be reduced or changed at a moments notice. Despite his wife's job, they lost their house and had to move back in with his parents. He was dependent upon the good graces of management if he or one of his kids got sick. This was at the height of the recession. There were no other jobs to be had. Walmart had, and still has, low wage workers over a barrel--these are people with, for whatever reason, no other prospects (my cousin had a four year degree from a fundamentalist bible college, for whatever that's worth). These people still need paid time off. Because employers like Wally don't pay for their benefits (it's cheaper to have two or more part time people do one full time person's job), the rest of us pay for their food stamps and medicare. This is the plight of the "working poor"--people who work full time at multiple part time jobs because they have no other options.

fwiw,
guacamole

I am sorry for your cousin but why is it Walmart's fault? They actually gave him a job. People go through hardships. It is not every company's duty to rescue them. They have a business to run. They have certain types of jobs available. If you want them, fine, take them and be thankful. Don't take them then whine about how they are not paying an unskilled job the same as an engineer and giving them 3 months of vacation and benefits.

[One Bad Pig]

Most weren't 40 hours a week before Obamacare. People who make their living in service industry often have to work two or three part time jobs to make ends meet.

Part time jobs aren't meant to make ends meet. They're entry-level jobs with pretty much no qualifications required.

Under paid service workers cost taxpayers money in things like medicare and food stamps.

You're thinking Medicaid, not Medicare. Again, though, these aren't meant to be lifetime jobs. They provide a little income and work experience. If one wants a lifetime job, one needs to learn skills and get a better job.

Places like Walmart often refuse to give people full time hours because then they have to pay benefits.

Correct. Benefits are expensive.

We taxpayers subsidize the profits taken from such activities.

What does that even mean? The managers of service workers aren't evil people deliberately oppressing their workers to get filthy rich, they're people trying to make enough money to stay in business. Paying people a living wage to work service jobs makes the company's products too expensive to be competitive in the marketplace. You want to pay double the price for a Bic Mac? Fine. Most people will opt for something less expensive instead.

[guacamole]

I am sorry for your cousin but why is it Walmart's fault?

The story about my cousin illustrates the reality of the hardship imposed by unethical business practices. Aside from abusing the tax system, by which we subsidize their profits, it's a nasty way to behave.

They actually gave him a job. People go through hardships. It is not every company's duty to rescue them. They have a business to run. They have certain types of jobs available. If you want them, fine, take them and be thankful. Don't take them then whine about how they are not paying an unskilled job the same as an engineer and giving them 3 months of vacation and benefits.

No doubt people go through hardships. That's the point about noting that it's a nasty way to behave. They choose to run their business in unethical ways--again, cheaper to higher two or more part time, than one full time with benefits. That's profiteering off of human suffering. Everyone has a duty to oppose profiteering off of human suffering. Again, we subsidize this nasty behavior because when people have no prospects and have to go to the tax payers for food and medical care, we are in agreement that this is proper, and we are paying for it to happen.

fwiw,
guacamole

[guacamole]

Part time jobs aren't meant to make ends meet. They're entry-level jobs with pretty much no qualifications required.

Correct. And yet people end up there long term regardless.

You're thinking Medicaid, not Medicare.

Yes. Thank you.

Again, though, these aren't meant to be lifetime jobs. They provide a little income and work experience. If one wants a lifetime job, one needs to learn skills and get a better job.

Not if you have no means to do this. If there are few to no other jobs to get. If there are few to no job training opportunities. etc. Hard to do job training when you have to work two or more part time jobs.

Correct. Benefits are expensive.

What does that even mean? The managers of service workers aren't evil people deliberately oppressing their workers to get filthy rich, they're people trying to make enough money to stay in business.

It's probably not the managers at all--they enforce the policies set by senior management. Senior management creates policies that profit off of human suffering.

Paying people a living wage to work service jobs makes the company's products too expensive to be competitive in the marketplace. You want to pay double the price for a Bic Mac? Fine. Most people will opt for something less expensive instead.

I think your economics are slightly off there. A restaurant can make do with slightly fewer staff and take care of its people who still charging consumers the price the goods are actually worth. The problem is that corporations have decided that their chief moral responsibility is to share holders, and thus they'd have to make less profit. I get it: supposedly then there would be less investment in growing the business, but with more people making a reasonable wage, then more people are able to pay for goods and services. More jobs can be created by a population that is making more. Didn't we settle this with Ford and the model-T? If you pay your workers enough to afford finished goods, then they will help grow the economy. If we don't pay people well, the shareholders get profits while the rest of us subsidize the working poor.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Sparko]

The story about my cousin illustrates the reality of the hardship imposed by unethical business practices. Aside from abusing the tax system, by which we subsidize their profits, it's a nasty way to behave.



No doubt people go through hardships. That's the point about noting that it's a nasty way to behave. They choose to run their business in unethical ways--again, cheaper to higher two or more part time, than one full time with benefits. That's profiteering off of human suffering. Everyone has a duty to oppose profiteering off of human suffering. Again, we subsidize this nasty behavior because when people have no prospects and have to go to the tax payers for food and medical care, we are in agreement that this is proper, and we are paying for it to happen.

fwiw,
guacamole

So then don't work at companies like that. Don't shop at wal-mart. I don't.

But if I decided to start a small restaurant and needed some part-time help, I would put out the job requirements and hope someone would take the job. But you are saying that I have to pay them full time, give them benefits, vacation and treat them like a freaking degreed engineer just to fry up some eggs for me? I would never be able to afford that. But I wouldn't want some college degreed lawyer cooking eggs for me. I would want some young kid who needs some extra money and might want to learn a bit about cooking to apply for the job. I would want someone who apprecated the opportunity. I am not responsible to give jobs to people like your cousin who are trying to take care of a family and are too skilled to fry eggs. They can go somewhere else. But if he applied to my place and I did hire him, he would have no right to whine about no benefits or vacations or opportunity to advance. He knew the job when he took it. Be thankful or go somewhere else.

[guacamole]

So then don't work at companies like that. Don't shop at wal-mart. I don't.

Agreed.

But if I decided to start a small restaurant and needed some part-time help, I would put out the job requirements and hope someone would take the job. But you are saying that I have to pay them full time, give them benefits, vacation and treat them like a freaking degreed engineer just to fry up some eggs for me? I would never be able to afford that. But I wouldn't want some college degreed lawyer cooking eggs for me. I would want some young kid who needs some extra money and might want to learn a bit about cooking to apply for the job. I would want someone who apprecated the opportunity. I am not responsible to give jobs to people like your cousin who are trying to take care of a family and are too skilled to fry eggs. They can go somewhere else. But if he applied to my place and I did hire him, he would have no right to whine about no benefits or vacations or opportunity to advance. He knew the job when he took it. Be thankful or go somewhere else.

No one is arguing that you need to pay a fry cook like an engineer. Different jobs will have different responsibilities and different privileges.

The difference here one of economic scale. Your business is supporting you--not shareholders. At some point that is reasonable, when you're making enough money to turn a profit and grow your business, you'd naturally have people you trusted and would pay them more--including vacation and benefits. The difference between you and Wally World is that you're not paying dividends to shareholders off the backs of tax payers who have to subsidize Medicaid and food stamps.

Now suppose you start your restaurant and are trying to do your best to treat people correctly, and a fast food place opens up with a similar menu and they are able to undercut you because they treat their employees like crap and you don't. So now, the regulatory system has picked a winner--the fast food corp. Or you can treat people like crap and try to compete even though, because of the economy of scale, their costs will always be lower. And in the end you'll either still lose or occupy a niche that MegaCorp. doesn't find profitable to exploit.

This is the story of mom and pop shops across America in the past four decades.

fwiw,
guacamole

[rogue06]

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.

FWIU, the PT workers get the benefits that I mentioned and the FT workers get even more.

You said that "Walmart. A lot of other service McJobs" don't provide minimum benefits wrt vacations.

[Sparko]

Agreed.



No one is arguing that you need to pay a fry cook like an engineer. Different jobs will have different responsibilities and different privileges.

The difference here one of economic scale. Your business is supporting you--not shareholders. At some point that is reasonable, when you're making enough money to turn a profit and grow your business, you'd naturally have people you trusted and would pay them more--including vacation and benefits. The difference between you and Wally World is that you're not paying dividends to shareholders off the backs of tax payers who have to subsidize Medicaid and food stamps.

I agree. If that is what Wal-Mart is doing, gaming the system to improve profits by mistreating employees then the employees need to leave. As strange as it sounds, there or other jobs out there. Plus if the employees in mass decided to leave or strike, then wal-mart might wake up. That is why this is called a free market. Of course that means that consumers will probably have to pay more for goods at wal-mart and if that is the case then people might go elsewhere to buy and then wal-mart might go out of business and then nobody has a job. But that is the way the market works. Everything affects everything else.

Now suppose you start your restaurant and are trying to do your best to treat people correctly, and a fast food place opens up with a similar menu and they are able to undercut you because they treat their employees like crap and you don't. So now, the regulatory system has picked a winner--the fast food corp. Or you can treat people like crap and try to compete even though, because of the economy of scale, their costs will always be lower. And in the end you'll either still lose or occupy a niche that MegaCorp. doesn't find profitable to exploit.

pretty much what I said above. It's the market. But then if the other company is not paying their workers enough, then their workers will come work for me and the other company will go out of business.

[guacamole]

FWIU, the PT workers get the benefits that I mentioned and the FT workers get even more.

You said that "Walmart. A lot of other service McJobs" don't provide minimum benefits wrt vacations.

My cousin indicated the following:

He got the following "benefits" after a six-months "training program" at minimum wage:

An employee discount card good for 10% off some store merchandise.

After 1 year he had stock options to buy stock at a slight discount up to something like 2000 bucks a year, which he couldn't afford, and a 401k to which he couldn't contribute and hence couldn't receive matching funds.

I tried to verify his info on the internet and the information is wild and varying. Some sites indicated no sick or vacation time until after 6 months. Some after a year. Some full-time only.

Part of the confusion is that there are different benefit sets for corporate employees as opposed to store level employees.

So you are correct--after a training period at Walmart there are some--extremely limited-benefits. Not the sort that a person could reasonably expect to live off of and which causes the Walmart employees to cost the American tax payer something like 20 billion dollars a year.

fwiw,
guacamole

[guacamole]

I agree. If that is what Wal-Mart is doing, gaming the system to improve profits by mistreating employees then the employees need to leave. As strange as it sounds, there or other jobs out there.

Unless there aren't. Some people aren't mobile. Some people aren't capable. The reasons are many and varied.

Plus if the employees in mass decided to leave or strike, then wal-mart might wake up.

That hasn't worked well for Walmart employees. They have a tendency to get fired for disciplinary reasons if they strike.

That is why this is called a free market. Of course that means that consumers will probably have to pay more for goods at wal-mart and if that is the case then people might go elsewhere to buy and then wal-mart might go out of business and then nobody has a job. But that is the way the market works. Everything affects everything else.

If it were a free market, the regulatory system wouldn't be forcing you and I to subsidize their profits.

pretty much what I said above. It's the market. But then if the other company is not paying their workers enough, then their workers will come work for me and the other company will go out of business.

I don't think small shops can pick up that slack.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Sparko]

Unless there aren't. Some people aren't mobile. Some people aren't capable. The reasons are many and varied.

What would they do if there were no wal-marts? do that.

That hasn't worked well for Walmart employees. They have a tendency to get fired for disciplinary reasons if they strike.

great. then they can get a different job that doesn't suck.

If it were a free market, the regulatory system wouldn't be forcing you and I to subsidize their profits.

So it's walmart's fault that the people they hire don't have enough education to find good job with real benefits? Last time I checked, there were no guards at walmart keeping the employees there at gunpoint. None of the staff were wearing shackles either.

I don't think small shops can pick up that slack.

You are just mr. negativity aren't ya?

[Sparko]

Like I said, I used to work at KFC when I was in school. It sucked! really. I would never work there again. Not even if I were laid off. I would probably go work at a McDonald's first. Or Walmart!

But I can't blame them for it. They offered me a job when I needed it. I knew what I was getting into when I accepted it, and it served it's purpose. They are not there to hire laid off factory workers, or men trying to support a wife and kids, or anything like that. They are there to make cheap food and they do it by utilizing cheap labor by offering crappy jobs for crappy wages. Take it or leave it.

[Starlight]

The job really incentivized me to complete my training and get a skilled job. Thank you KFC.

Do you think if literally everyone was likewise incentivized and completed their training and looked for skilled jobs, that there would be enough skilled jobs to go around? Or do you think some people would still be unemployed and others having to work at low-skilled jobs despite their best efforts? Do you understand that our modern economies always have unemployment that rarely goes much lower than 4%, and thus there will always be people without jobs no matter how hard they are trying, and always people who have to take low-skilled jobs because there aren't high-skilled jobs available?

And your ongoing efforts to argue that people with low-skill jobs are lazy and bad and don't deserve the kinds of benefits that more skilled jobs have is sickening.

As demonstrated by the entire Western world, other than the US, it doesn't cripple your economy to mandate by law that low-skilled workers get the kinds of decent benefits that high-skilled workers get. Typical across the Western world seems to be a minimum of ~4 weeks paid annual leave, ~1 week of paid public holidays, ~1 week paid sick leave, ~26 weeks paid maternity leave, healthcare covered by the government, a minimum wage in the $8-14 USD range, and all employees are protected from being fired without good cause (i.e. a serious breach of professional conduct on the employee's part, ongoing failures to meet the requirements of the job despite the employer working with them closely over months to help them achieve adequacy, or the employer downsizing their business due to financial need). Plus, of course, generous social safety nets that provide for people who are unemployed (money, cheap rental accommodation, healthcare etc). It is not any kind of economic necessity to be nasty to the poor and unskilled like the US system is.

[Terraceth]

Now suppose you start your restaurant and are trying to do your best to treat people correctly, and a fast food place opens up with a similar menu and they are able to undercut you because they treat their employees like crap and you don't. So now, the regulatory system has picked a winner--the fast food corp. Or you can treat people like crap and try to compete even though, because of the economy of scale, their costs will always be lower. And in the end you'll either still lose or occupy a niche that MegaCorp. doesn't find profitable to exploit.

Or you can "do your best to treat people correctly" and therefore provide a superior service, even if your prices are higher. As it turns out, people actually often will pay more money for something if the product is better.