24/7: Ten Companies Paying Americans the Least

[Corcaigh]

I'm not blaming specific corporations for exploiting workers, but growing inequality is a problem for everyone.

 

 

and ... maybe ...  

 

[chipwhich]

Name a CEO of a publicly traded company that would sacrifice profit and margins in exchange for a reduction in stock price.

 

It doesn't pay to be socially conscience.

[China]

What incentive does one of these low paying companies have for paying people more than what they are obviously willing to work for?

 

Well, from the article I posted in a couple of areas the workers are going to strike for higher wages, so clearly they aren't willing to work for the low wages they are receiving.  It remains to be seen how effective those strikes will be or whether those affected stores will be able to find replacement employees willing to take the lower wage.

[chipwhich]

Well, from the article I posted in a couple of areas the workers are going to strike for higher wages, so clearly they aren't willing to work for the low wages they are receiving.  It remains to be seen how effective those strikes will be or whether those affected stores will be able to find replacement employees willing to take the lower wage.

 

Other than Chic Fil A all of the fast food joints around me are hiring people who don't speak much english.

[elkabong82]

If Walmart pays more, they will charge more for products. Which will make them lose market share, which will then lead to less employment opportunities.

 

They'll try to pass the buck on to customers rather than simply cut into the tens of billions of profit they turn each year. What needs to happen is people need to boycott Wal-mart on the demand they increase worker pay and have their huge profit margin take the hit instead of passing the burden on to the customer. Unfortunately too many people just don't seem to give a crap and frequent these places anyway. Costco and other places have shown that great profits can be made while also paying employees liveable wages. I'm just one person, but I don't give Wal-mart and other such places my business. Eventually it will get so bad that a change happens. Wal-mart already has the notorious reputation for being so cheap to employees. 

 

But as far as raising prices, the market limits how much they can raise prices. Too much raise, and people won't pay. What Wal-mart will do instead is fire more and hire less. They'll take it out on the employees rather than their record profits. Another thing they'll do is invest more in computers and machines that can replace jobs since it will be more cost-effective at that point. You're already seeing it a bit, like with self-check out aisles. That is the other problem workers will face, is more and more jobs being phased out by technology. 

[elkabong82]

If no one was willing to work for minimum wage (or lower if allowed) then the companies would HAVE to pay more.

 

But as long as someone is willing to work for less, why should they pay more?

 

Ethics. Decency. Responsibility to the community instead of taking advantage of people and then causing a drain on the economy when your employees all go on government assistance, cough Wal-mart cough. But, as I said in the previous post, until people are willing to boycott such irresponsible companies instead of supporting them and leading them to billions in profits, they'll keep taking advantage of people.

[elkabong82]

Well, if someone is willing to work for 50 cents, that's on them.

 

I hope you're never in such a desperate situation where you would be willing to accept that level of pay. This might be one of the most callous posts I've seen on ES, and I remember when MSF was a regular poster here.

 

But hey, keep advocating what you are and ignoring how badly it takes advantage of people. Keep agreeing to the things causing greater disparity. When it leads to another Progressive Era to reign in rampant, uncontrolled greed I don't want to hear any complaining. You reap what you sow.

[skinsmarydu]

I've worked for 50 cents a hour..... our paying people not to work and making hiring unattractive combined with raising the costs of living is not better.

 

it does keep out the riff raff since we determine where they can live though 

I've worked for whichever cookies Mrs. G. had made that day...after we helped her kids bail straw.  On their farm. 

Is this a battle for who will work for the least amount? 

You win...50 cents wouldn't pay for half of a cookie-then or now.   

[Riggo-toni]

I believe this, to a point. The problem I have with our current haves/have nots situation is that in many ways we've cut off the bootstraps by which people used to be able to pull themselves up. One only need compare public education and access to a variety of other resources in poor areas vs. well off ones to see that the best way to get rich or well off in this country is to be born that way.

She was from a middle class family in Switzerland. She even turned down going an extra year of nursing school to earn the extra francs of a RN rather than an LPN. In her case, she made a decision based on her own wants vs needs; nobody was holding her back.

I have a Master's in International Business from what was at the time ranked as the best international grad program by US News. Although I can't now that I'm 50, when I was in my 20s I could speak 3 languages, and get by in a couple more. So what do I do? I'm a computer programmer in NJ. Finished grad school during Bush I's recession and couldn't land a decent job. After a year of temp work and such, I went for a 4 month intensive computer training program.

I agree that it's become damn near impossible for the poor to get access to the kind of education that will lift them up, but teacher's unions have a stranglehold against genuine improvements.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

 

Of course.   But millions of people are still going to be doing those jobs.  Heck, as a society we NEED millions of people to do those jobs.   We will always need them. 

 

We should all aspire for better, but we shouldn't make those who actually do those crappy jobs that we need done live in complete squalor either.

 

I actually think the problem is that we don't need millions of people to do so certain low-wage jobs any longer.

 

The fundamental problem we face as a country right now is that the 1950s vision of the American Dream with a robust middle class making good salaries may be impossible unless 2/3 of the world is living in ruins. I'm not sure the model of lower class/middle class/upper class actually works. I think that the European model of upper class/governmental class/lower class is probably a truer representation of how a society will fall in line.

[endzone_dave]

If you are the primary breadwinner of your family and you work at Taco Bell, you need to do better, plain and simple.  Learn some kind of skill at the community college or get a skill from somewhere.

 

Raising the minimum wage by $2 isn't going to help all that much, prices will go up and they are in the same place they were.

 

The US spends more money per student than any other country.  Too many kids just piss that away.  Fixing that will fix much of the problem.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

If no one was willing to work for minimum wage (or lower if allowed) then the companies would HAVE to pay more.

 

But as long as someone is willing to work for less, why should they pay more?

 

This is really not a good statement given our understanding of market forces and specifically market power anymore.  Companies will pay their work force as little as they can, but poor workers do not have the economic power to dictate what their payments will be.

 

Essentially, you are conflating supply-demand curves as it relates to consumer goods and services with employer-employee pay.  We know they are not the same.  We know companies will be able to drive down salaries without a minimum wage to negligible and people will still work.  That does not mean its good for the economy.

[twa]

I actually think the problem is that we don't need millions of people to do so certain low-wage jobs any longer.

 

The fundamental problem we face as a country right now is that the 1950s vision of the American Dream with a robust middle class making good salaries may be impossible unless 2/3 of the world is living in ruins. I'm not sure the model of lower class/middle class/upper class actually works. I think that the European model of upper class/governmental class/lower class is probably a truer representation of how a society will fall in line.

 

 

we have illegal immigrants for those low wage jobs right?

I do agree the 50's idea was based on distorted economies from the wars, but the European model is falling apart as we speak.

 

amazing how workers from Mexico can live here and send money home but people here can't survive w/o raising the wages....different expectations I guess

[Mocountyskins]

What if I said that this is why China is booming? They are a industrial country now that can pay almost nothing to its employees and get away with it. They take so many contracts to manufacture products and they make so many exports for such a low price that they are the number 1 industrial company. Yes the standard of life is below average for most of those workers in China but as time goes on the more money that the country gets the more that the standard of life will improve? I'm not an expert and this is just my opinion but back when the US was going through an industrial age and being able to pay people almost nothing our country had an economic boom and the standard of life was not great but as the country got more money the better the standard of life improved. Now another country is doing the same thing that we did. I am not justifying paying people nothing for hard labor this is more of a possible observation?

[Predicto]

 

 

Raising the minimum wage by $2 isn't going to help all that much, prices will go up and they are in the same place they were.

 

 

 

 

As Larry explained in detail, that is not accurate.

 

If minimum wage goes up by $2, prices for things will go up MAYBE a few cents on the dollar, if at all.  "They" will not be in the same place as they were before.  They will be much, much better off.  

 

The corporations who pay them will be less well off (lower profit margin), and consumers in general may be ever so slightly worse off, and it is also possible that companies may hire a few less minimum wage workers, but overall, the people actually trying to support themselves working in minimum wage jobs will be much better off.

 

(and less likely to need your welfare dollars    )

[twa]

has raising the minimum wage ever reduced our welfare rolls in recent decades?

 

they seem to have expanded both in size and access(raised poverty level)

[Predicto]

has raising the minimum wage ever reduced our welfare rolls in recent decades?

 

they seem to have expanded both in size and access(raised poverty level)

 

Don't let your mythology interfere with your cognitive processes any more than it has to.  

 

Access to welfare and generosity of welfare benefits has gone way down over the past few decades in real dollar terms.  

[dfitzo53]

There was a piece on NPR about this around the time that the whole minimum wage discussion began to be brought up again.

 

The main thrust of it was that the two major economic objections to a minimum wage raise - the loss of jobs and the loss of buying power due to inflation - are both false.

 

As sad and unhelpful as it is, I can't remember the study, or the show where I heard about it.

[MintHillSkinsFan]

I'm surprised to see Starbucks on this list.  The main reason is that I always feel like the baristas and cashiers at starbucks are so much happier than any other fast food place.  

 

What's not to be happy about?  They have a fancy title for making a cup of friggin coffee!  They don't even have to know how to flip a burger or drop a basket of fries.  Barista my ass.........

[Larry]

Well, I think that there is a lot of political pressure, actively trying to force American wages downward. Not just unskilled wages, but everybody.

You're seeing it in this thread.

I will observe that, while it's certainly possible to demonize this position, I'm not 100% certain that many of them aren't legitimately motivated by a belief that it would make things better. (Although, I think that decades of real world observation makes it pretty clear that it would, in fact, make things vastly worse, for society as a whole.)

[Predicto]

There was a piece on NPR about this around the time that the whole minimum wage discussion began to be brought up again.

 

The main thrust of it was that the two major economic objections to a minimum wage raise - the loss of jobs and the loss of buying power due to inflation - are both false.

 

As sad and unhelpful as it is, I can't remember the study, or the show where I heard about it.

 

 

I'm not sure they are completly 100% false.  They are just grossly, shamelessly overstated.

[twa]

Don't let your mythology interfere with your cognitive processes any more than it has to.  

 

Access to welfare and generosity of welfare benefits has gone way down over the past few decades in real dollar terms.  

 

Ditto 

 

has raising the minimum wage ever reduced our welfare rolls in recent decades?

 

Has it increased hiring?

 

but then ya'll like welfare in Cali,here we prefer to work.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/

[dfitzo53]

I'm not sure they are completly 100% false.  They are just grossly, shamelessly overstated.

 

Yeah, false was not the most accurate choice of words.

 

The point was that neither of them makes a compelling argument against a minimum wage raise if you actually break down the numbers.  Like the percentage of jobs lost is small enough that no reasonable person could complain that it outweighs the benefit.

[twa]

I wonder how much decoupling other wage/compensation increases from the minimum wage would change support?

 

not to question motives :evil grin:

[JMS]

If no one was willing to work for minimum wage (or lower if allowed) then the companies would HAVE to pay more.

 

But as long as someone is willing to work for less, why should they pay more?

 

So as a US taxpayer you have no objection to subsidising the healthcare for one of the most profitable company's in the country?

 

It's not a question of whether there are desparate people willing to work for a potato and thus a potato is far wages.   The question is whether it's reasonable for Walmart to skirt regulations by keeping their employee's part time so they can get around the law which requires them to pay for things like leave, healthcare, workman's comp.. etc....

 

Walmart keeps their employee's hours at 25-30 hours a week and gives folks medicare/medicaid forms too fill out when they fill out their job aplications.   Is it leagal,  probable not.    Should they be forced to step up to the plate and due their duty.    Hell yes.    They should pay taxes and pay a living wage.   Period.    The US taxpayer doesn't have the funds to subsidize Walmart.