Don't some people do that forever? When are you supposed to be happy and stop? Do you just keep going until you own the planet? What about starving kids? Would you spit in someone's banana shake if you hated your job?
Eating lunch at Hardee's, business as usual. They're even training a new person.
Smart people know a job is really a job, and waking out is probably the single most stupidest thing any adult can do.
Many are going to college and such while being temporarily employed at these places. I applaud the mature adults who are working there and realize that they're working to leave.
If you multiply Costco's membership fee (basic fee of $55) by the number of members (36.5 million) and then divide by the number of employees it comes to $12,500 per employee. These fees would represent $6/hr for the average employee and makes it where they can afford to pay their employees a much higher wage.
If you multiply Costco's membership fee (basic fee of $55) by the number of members (36.5 million) and then divide by the number of employees it comes to $12,500 per employee. These fees would represent $6/hr for the average employee and makes it where they can afford to pay their employees a much higher wage.
Why the hell should they pay them more? Just because they can? LOL! Who is this stupid?
I got more...this principle of "pay employees more because you can" garbage also applies to the common man, such as myself. I can afford to give homeless people free money. Know why I don't? Because FUCK them, that's why! I worked for my shit and they can't have it. Rich people worked for their shit also, so why should idiot aisle robots be entitled to their wealth?
I don't like people being mistreated, but this entitlement stuff is really mind blowing.
Actually the more important part from the chart is
Annual Profit: 1.7B
Annual Member Reveship Revenue: 2.0B
Without memberships not only would costco be unable to pay its employees more, its what makes it so they aren't out of business.
Obviously it means so much to the crowd that thinks Walmart should pay their cashiers/employees the same wages as Costco pays their cashiers/employees ($9/hr vs $18/hr).
OK. Time for an honest question. What is the correct solution to this unfairness?
Wrong, most are. 80% of Walmart employees are, for example.
That just explains the "WHY". I don't care what the "WHY" is, the fact is most min wage workers are indeed being government subsidized.
It is true, you are just trying to argue that the REASON it is true is somehow significant. It's not. It doesn't matter WHY 80% of Walmart's workforce is on government assistance. I didn't claim anything about the WHY, I just said that they were on government assistance. And they are.
Actually the more important part from the chart is
Annual Profit: 1.7B
Annual Member Reveship Revenue: 2.0B
Without memberships not only would costco be unable to pay its employees more, its what makes it so they aren't out of business.
A wonderful well-researched post.
Too bad I never once suggested raising the minimum wage. Why did you even quote me?
In your fantasy-land example where you work and shop at the same place, it's 4 miles. In the real world where a person might need to buy groceries at a separate location, it's 4 miles to work and 4 miles for groceries for a total of 8 miles.
You think walking 4 or 8 miles to go to the store and back
World 3, government assistance is cut tomorrow and Walmart employees decide something is better than nothing and keep working at Walmart. In fact they are highly motivated to work as many hours as they can now that uncle Sam isn't giving them goodies.I didn't realize it was so hard to understand.
Here are two possible worlds:
World 1, Walmart has and endless pool of potential employees. These people have government assisted housing, food (stamps), medicare, and other benefits. They can be paid minimum wage and will be overjoyed to get a little extra money on top of all the government assistance they receive.
World 2, there is no government assistance. A person needs to earn a living wage to actually survive. Being offered $7.25/hr or whatever is a joke and a spit in the face, why work for money that won't even be enough to live on? As many have argued previously, employment costs are largely based on supply and demand. If the wages are not enough to live on for the majority of people, the majority will not work, and demand for Walmart jobs plummets. Walmart either wises up and raises their starting wages, or they lose employees and close stores.
What amazing is that 3.5% profit margin. People demonize "evil companies" for their "record profits" (that's a popular phrase these days) but margins are as slim as ever. Some industries have high margins, but record profits are due to record revenues, not massive profit margins.
Of course, trying to get jealous poor people to understand the concept of percentages and profit margins is a futile effort.
World 3, government assistance is cut tomorrow and Walmart employees decide something is better than nothing and keep working at Walmart. In fact they are highly motivated to work as many hours as they can now that uncle Sam isn't giving them goodies.
World 4, governmental assistance is gradually reduced. Walmart employees, over time, realize that having 4 kids is less desirable since the government doesn't reward them for having more kids. Eventually more walmart workers are able to live within their means.
But I have to wonder why a Walmart worker would throw all of their income away because they aren't getting food stamps any longer. Why would that be more likely than them keeping their job?
OK. Time for an honest question. What is the correct solution to this unfairness?
What unfairness?
Can you show me any correlation whatsoever between fertility rates and the level of governmental assistance available? I bet you if anything I can show you an inverse correlation.
So your choices are between one world where children go hungry and another world where correlations that have not existed before suddenly pop into being.
Needless to say, these are extraordinarily poor choices.
It seems like what you are really arguing is that poor women are incapable of making good choices even when given proper incentives. Why do you have such a low opinion of women?
Hey guys, you'll never guess who decided to yet again showcase his pathological hatred of women. No really.
Hey guys, you'll never guess who decided to yet again showcase his pathological hatred of women. No really.
Hey guys, you'll never guess who has yet again shoved words in someone's mouth to try and prove their point and showcase that they cannot have an open an honest debate. No really.