|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 10, 2016 22:36:21 GMT
Even though the wait staff do get a basic wage here, We still tip if we get good service, not as much as an American consumer would but rounding a £45 bill to £50 is not a problem if the service is good if it's bad then it £45 straight. I understand your point about good service, a steady pay check at reasonable wages should mean you get that anyway, but iif I wish to,give it why not? I agree. I'll tip for exceptional service as well, but it's not compulsary over here. The wait staff can live off what they're paid. Tips aren't expected, but they are welcomed when someone feels like giving a little extra.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 11, 2016 2:28:38 GMT
the big issue with the increase in minimum wage is that there are those among us who believe they are entitled to be paid 300 times more than the "takers" who do all of the heavy lifting that gives them a cash flow to skim from. as long as the consumers continue enabling the "producers" who skim from that cash flow, the grift will continue.
the WalMart model: buy a truckload of things that are worth 25% less than the competitor's product for half the cost and then sell them for 15% less than the competitor.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Aug 11, 2016 2:51:19 GMT
the big issue with the increase in minimum wage is that there are those among us who believe they are entitled to be paid 300 times more than the "takers" who do all of the heavy lifting that gives them a cash flow to skim from. as long as the consumers continue enabling the "producers" who skim from that cash flow, the grift will continue. the WalMart model: buy a truckload of things that are worth 25% less than the competitor's product for half the cost and then sell them for 15% less than the competitor. Just out of curiosity, who do you consider Walmart's competition?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 11, 2016 4:08:27 GMT
the big issue with the increase in minimum wage is that there are those among us who believe they are entitled to be paid 300 times more than the "takers" who do all of the heavy lifting that gives them a cash flow to skim from. as long as the consumers continue enabling the "producers" who skim from that cash flow, the grift will continue. the WalMart model: buy a truckload of things that are worth 25% less than the competitor's product for half the cost and then sell them for 15% less than the competitor. Just out of curiosity, who do you consider Walmart's competition? they seem to have their sights set on pretty much everybody but costco.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 11, 2016 12:25:53 GMT
the big issue with the increase in minimum wage is that there are those among us who believe they are entitled to be paid 300 times more than the "takers" who do all of the heavy lifting that gives them a cash flow to skim from. as long as the consumers continue enabling the "producers" who skim from that cash flow, the grift will continue. the WalMart model: buy a truckload of things that are worth 25% less than the competitor's product for half the cost and then sell them for 15% less than the competitor. But if we're honest, is that really a problem created by WalMart, or a problem created by consumers who want more stuff for less money? Most people don't shop with their conscience. If no one wanted to buy what WalMart is selling, their business model would die.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 11, 2016 13:21:34 GMT
the big issue with the increase in minimum wage is that there are those among us who believe they are entitled to be paid 300 times more than the "takers" who do all of the heavy lifting that gives them a cash flow to skim from. as long as the consumers continue enabling the "producers" who skim from that cash flow, the grift will continue. the WalMart model: buy a truckload of things that are worth 25% less than the competitor's product for half the cost and then sell them for 15% less than the competitor. But if we're honest, is that really a problem created by WalMart, or a problem created by consumers who want more stuff for less money? Most people don't shop with their conscience. If no one wanted to buy what WalMart is selling, their business model would die. Most people would be in favor of better wages as long as they don't have to pay more for the stuff they buy. But, this creates a self-destructive business model. How does a company pay more without earning more? Then again, how do consumers pay more for goods unless they also make more? We can't get paid more without paying more, but we can't pay more without getting paid more, but we can't get paid more...
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 11, 2016 13:29:04 GMT
But if we're honest, is that really a problem created by WalMart, or a problem created by consumers who want more stuff for less money? Most people don't shop with their conscience. If no one wanted to buy what WalMart is selling, their business model would die. Most people would be in favor of better wages as long as they don't have to pay more for the stuff they buy. But, this creates a self-destructive business model. How does a company pay more without earning more? Then again, how do consumers pay more for goods unless they also make more? We can't get paid more without paying more, but we can't pay more without getting paid more, but we can't get paid more... Which leaves the only real way to raise wages without also raising prices: Businesses cut their profits However, even if they wanted to, they have share holders who wouldn't allow it. Investors want returns and they want them now. They don't care what happens 5 or 10 years down the line, because hey... That's 5 or 10 years from now! That's for future me to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 11, 2016 13:40:06 GMT
Most people would be in favor of better wages as long as they don't have to pay more for the stuff they buy. But, this creates a self-destructive business model. How does a company pay more without earning more? Then again, how do consumers pay more for goods unless they also make more? We can't get paid more without paying more, but we can't pay more without getting paid more, but we can't get paid more... Which leaves the only real way to raise wages without also raising prices: Businesses cut their profits However, even if they wanted to, they have share holders who wouldn't allow it. Investors want returns and they want them now. They don't care what happens 5 or 10 years down the line, because hey... That's 5 or 10 years from now! That's for future me to worry about. Capitalist's view: Business cut profits? What do you think this is? Some kind of charity... Though, the more pragmatic view of business profits would be that profits allow companies to expand and create more jobs. More jobs create more consumers. More consumers create more profits. More profits create more expansion which creates more jobs which create more consumers which creates more profits which creates more expansion which... I know, there are probably more business owners who are capitalists than pragmatists...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 11, 2016 13:40:36 GMT
the big issue with the increase in minimum wage is that there are those among us who believe they are entitled to be paid 300 times more than the "takers" who do all of the heavy lifting that gives them a cash flow to skim from. as long as the consumers continue enabling the "producers" who skim from that cash flow, the grift will continue. the WalMart model: buy a truckload of things that are worth 25% less than the competitor's product for half the cost and then sell them for 15% less than the competitor. But if we're honest, is that really a problem created by WalMart, or a problem created by consumers who want more stuff for less money? Most people don't shop with their conscience. If no one wanted to buy what WalMart is selling, their business model would die. the consumers enable this. and I don't necessarily believe Sam Walton really had that model in mind when he founded WalMart. I think he had more of a one stop shopping model in mind, and it has evolved to leveraging vendors, selling cut rate merchandise, and shortchanging employees.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 11, 2016 13:46:32 GMT
Which leaves the only real way to raise wages without also raising prices: Businesses cut their profits However, even if they wanted to, they have share holders who wouldn't allow it. Investors want returns and they want them now. They don't care what happens 5 or 10 years down the line, because hey... That's 5 or 10 years from now! That's for future me to worry about. Capitalist's view: Business cut profits? What do you think this is? Some kind of charity... Though, the more pragmatic view of business profits would be that profits allow companies to expand and create more jobs. More jobs create more consumers. More consumers create more profits. More profits create more expansion which creates more jobs which create more consumers which creates more profits which creates more expansion which... I know, there are probably more business owners who are capitalists than pragmatists... reality: more employees allow you to serve more customers. capitalist expectation: more employees give management a higher profit margin. there are too many "businessmen" who believe that they should be pocketing as much money from their employee's work as they would be pocketing from their own work.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Aug 11, 2016 13:50:24 GMT
But if we're honest, is that really a problem created by WalMart, or a problem created by consumers who want more stuff for less money? Most people don't shop with their conscience. If no one wanted to buy what WalMart is selling, their business model would die. the consumers enable this. and I don't necessarily believe Sam Walton really had that model in mind when he founded WalMart. I think he had more of a one stop shopping model in mind, and it has evolved to leveraging vendors, selling cut rate merchandise, and shortchanging employees. Sam Walton's goal was to invest in rural America by bringing them a better choice of goods at lower prices. Walmart has morphed into something completely different now. And Walmart's biggest competitor? Amazon. It's a changing world.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 11, 2016 13:58:41 GMT
Capitalist's view: Business cut profits? What do you think this is? Some kind of charity... Though, the more pragmatic view of business profits would be that profits allow companies to expand and create more jobs. More jobs create more consumers. More consumers create more profits. More profits create more expansion which creates more jobs which create more consumers which creates more profits which creates more expansion which... I know, there are probably more business owners who are capitalists than pragmatists... reality: more employees allow you to serve more customers. capitalist expectation: more employees give management a higher profit margin. there are too many "businessmen" who believe that they should be pocketing as much money from their employee's work as they would be pocketing from their own work. My first job (back in high school, many years ago) was probably the best job I'll ever have in terms of owners. It was a single store baby supply company that also had a mail-order catalog. My starting wage was above minimum wage. Raises came more often that once a year. Health benefits were paid 100% by the company. If we had a record-breaking sales day, we were paid time and an half for the day. If we had a record-breaking month, we were treated to dinner with cash prizes for answering product trivia questions. I could choose my job for the day. If I wanted to handle sales in the store, I did that. If I wanted to handle shipping, receiving, & customer pick ups in the warehouse, I did that. I loved that job. Unfortunately, I left there to help my father and brother with a transportation company (taxi/livery) that they were trying to jump start. Didn't get paid half as well as the previous job. Learned for myself why mixing family & business can be a bad idea (fights start over business, but tend to become personal). The first company that I worked for has since gone out of business since being surrounded by baby superstores (Babies R Us, Baby Depot, etc). The family company filed for bankruptcy after I came to my senses and left for other employment.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 11, 2016 14:00:46 GMT
the consumers enable this. and I don't necessarily believe Sam Walton really had that model in mind when he founded WalMart. I think he had more of a one stop shopping model in mind, and it has evolved to leveraging vendors, selling cut rate merchandise, and shortchanging employees. Sam Walton's goal was to invest in rural America by bringing them a better choice of goods at lower prices. Walmart has morphed into something completely different now. And Walmart's biggest competitor? Amazon. It's a changing world. Which prompted Walmart to purchase jet.com the other day, so it attempt to get a footing in the online retail market.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Aug 11, 2016 14:07:09 GMT
Sam Walton's goal was to invest in rural America by bringing them a better choice of goods at lower prices. Walmart has morphed into something completely different now. And Walmart's biggest competitor? Amazon. It's a changing world. Which prompted Walmart to purchase jet.com the other day, so it attempt to get a footing in the online retail market. Walmart already had a pretty good footing in online sales. I think the purchase of jet was to disassociate their name with it in order to get TLW's business.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 11, 2016 14:25:22 GMT
Which prompted Walmart to purchase jet.com the other day, so it attempt to get a footing in the online retail market. Walmart already had a pretty good footing in online sales. I think the purchase of jet was to disassociate their name with it in order to get TLW's business. they still won't get my business, but Mrs TLW buys quite a bit from WalMart online.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 11, 2016 20:42:02 GMT
Which leaves the only real way to raise wages without also raising prices: Businesses cut their profits However, even if they wanted to, they have share holders who wouldn't allow it. Investors want returns and they want them now. They don't care what happens 5 or 10 years down the line, because hey... That's 5 or 10 years from now! That's for future me to worry about. Capitalist's view: Business cut profits? What do you think this is? Some kind of charity... Though, the more pragmatic view of business profits would be that profits allow companies to expand and create more jobs. More jobs create more consumers. More consumers create more profits. More profits create more expansion which creates more jobs which create more consumers which creates more profits which creates more expansion which... I know, there are probably more business owners who are capitalists than pragmatists... Imagine the kind of store you could run if you had WalMart prices, took a little less profit and instead invested some of it in better wages for employees who provided better service. Not that I'm saying WalMart has bad service. I wouldn't know, as I've never been to one, but as many of us have often commented, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Maybe an even better scheme would be to pay what WalMart is paying now for uneducated "monkey" employees, take the same profit cut and instead of using it to raise the wages, investing it in educating those employees out of monkeydom. As we've often talked about before, WalMart, McNope's and places like that are supposed to be entry level jobs, so what if those companies took that role more seriously and started investing a little in making sure people don't get stuck in those entry level jobs? What if - as a person of modest means - you could get a minimum wage job at WalMart, McNope's or a similar company and they would invest a little in making sure you had a brighter future? What if your reward for working minimum wage for them was that they'd pay your way through a trade school, a business college or something like that? They could even set up apprenticeships within the companies for higher positions, so they could train someone from minimum wage to fill a position in middle management or higher, essentially creating and maintaining their own talent pool. If you could do that succesfully, you wouldn't just be lifting that one person out of poverty, but potentially taking the next generation of that family to a higher level as well. You could completely break the cycle of negative social enheritance that kids of poor people are often stuck in. You know how some families work on different levels of the same company? For instance, in a mining or shipping company, dad started at the bottom and now works in middle management, mom did the same and now works in the accounting department, the kids get a job at the company through their parents and start from the bottom right out of high school. I bet WalMart could be that kind of company if they wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 11, 2016 20:52:59 GMT
Capitalist's view: Business cut profits? What do you think this is? Some kind of charity... Though, the more pragmatic view of business profits would be that profits allow companies to expand and create more jobs. More jobs create more consumers. More consumers create more profits. More profits create more expansion which creates more jobs which create more consumers which creates more profits which creates more expansion which... I know, there are probably more business owners who are capitalists than pragmatists... Imagine the kind of store you could run if you had WalMart prices, took a little less profit and instead invested some of it in better wages for employees who provided better service. Not that I'm saying WalMart has bad service. I wouldn't know, as I've never been to one, but as many of us have often commented, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Maybe an even better scheme would be to pay what WalMart is paying now for uneducated "monkey" employees, take the same profit cut and instead of using it to raise the wages, investing it in educating those employees out of monkeydom. As we've often talked about before, WalMart, McNope's and places like that are supposed to be entry level jobs, so what if those companies took that role more seriously and started investing a little in making sure people don't get stuck in those entry level jobs? What if - as a person of modest means - you could get a minimum wage job at WalMart, McNope's or a similar company and they would invest a little in making sure you had a brighter future? What if your reward for working minimum wage for them was that they'd pay your way through a trade school, a business college or something like that? They could even set up apprenticeships within the companies for higher positions, so they could train someone from minimum wage to fill a position in middle management or higher, essentially creating and maintaining their own talent pool. If you could do that succesfully, you wouldn't just be lifting that one person out of poverty, but potentially taking the next generation of that family to a higher level as well. You could completely break the cycle of negative social enheritance that kids of poor people are often stuck in. You know how some families work on different levels of the same company? For instance, in a mining or shipping company, dad started at the bottom and now works in middle management, mom did the same and now works in the accounting department, the kids get a job at the company through their parents and start from the bottom right out of high school. I bet WalMart could be that kind of company if they wanted to. Surprisingly (or not), Walmart already has an Associate Scholarship Program and McNope's has their Archways to Opportunity program which was started about a year and an half ago. Then again, having the programs doesn't necessarily do enough to better the employees - the company has to actively educate employees about these programs and store-level management has to encourage employees who might benefit from these programs.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 11, 2016 20:59:20 GMT
Surprisingly (or not), Walmart already has an Associate Scholarship Program and McNope's has their Archways to Opportunity program which was started about a year and an half ago. Then again, having the programs doesn't necessarily do enough to better the employees - the company has to actively educate employees about these programs and store-level management has to encourage employees who might benefit from these programs. Yeah, the programs won't work if it's not a priority within the company to make them work.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Aug 11, 2016 21:09:11 GMT
Surprisingly (or not), Walmart already has an Associate Scholarship Program and McNope's has their Archways to Opportunity program which was started about a year and an half ago. Then again, having the programs doesn't necessarily do enough to better the employees - the company has to actively educate employees about these programs and store-level management has to encourage employees who might benefit from these programs. Yeah, the programs won't work if it's not a priority within the company to make them work. Also keep in mind that the opportunities for any advancement in some of these jobs is very limited just by the nature of the business. For example, at McNopes, the store manager is not much more than one step above burger flipper.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 11, 2016 22:02:44 GMT
Yeah, the programs won't work if it's not a priority within the company to make them work. Also keep in mind that the opportunities for any advancement in some of these jobs is very limited just by the nature of the business. For example, at McNopes, the store manager is not much more than one step above burger flipper. McNope's is much more than just the restaurants. They have meat processing and packaging plants, warehouses, regional offices with sales, marketing and even research departments and they probably have at least one large IT department in each country as well. If you're willing to move to get your education, just as most people will to go to college, there could be plenty of opportunities.
|
|